Should copyright extend past the life of the creator?

Great Debates
21

I believe that ideally there should be NO COPYRIGHTS whatsoever. My response to someone complaining about another person taking their artwork and reworking it is “Get over it you egomaniac, your idea isn’t so divine that it shouldn’t be altered, be happy that someone feels it’s worth altering.”

However, I do realize that there are valid reasons for a copyright, and I support the 14+14 rule.

I never understood the idea of a “meal-ticket”, we have become so obsessed with celebrity worship and leaving a “Legacy” that we think that people should be able to leave some lasting legacy to their children. Well, first of all, this is one of the worst things you can do in a capitalist system, because then it leaves NO room for a redistribution of wealth. The whole entire reason copyrights were limited in the beginning of this country was to keep the aristocracy from having a stranglehold over copyrightable ideas.

Ideas inevitably overlap, the longer the timeline you put on a copyright, and the more people creating copyrights, the probability that every idea under the sun can be owned approaches 1 very rapidly. Copyrights are held to benefit society, in that they encourage the creator to spend work on an idea knowing that it will feed them, rather than having to spend half of their time working and the other half making the copyright. As I said, it is NOT intended to be a meal ticket for the holder’s family. If the author didn’t squirrel something away, then I’m sorry, their kids don’t get anything. It’s just not to the benefit of society.

I’d go a step further and say that ideally I am against ANY form of property ownership, however, I do realize that it’s more practical to leave certain types of property in the hands of heirs than it would be to split it up between the rest of society after the death of the author. Farmland is more productive if it’s intact. A corporation runs more smoothly if the power of the purse is in only a few people’s hands. It somewhat follows the “Too many cooks will spoil the broth.” saying. Therefore I don’t believe that ANY children deserve a meal ticket, however, I do submit to the fact that it’s ‘practical’ that they get this meal ticket in many cases. In the case of copyright it is ‘impractical’ and therefore they should not get it.

I am an electronic musician, sampling other people’s works is a MAJOR part of our culture, in fact people like DJ Shadow are celebrated for their use of sampling. In fact some of DJ Shadow’s main inspirations, people that he sampled heavily, have appeared on stage with him. Apparently they don’t feel so threatened by hteir ideas being reworked. I think that artists who feel threatened by that idea are egomaniacs that need to work on their self-esteem. If your idea wasn’t strong enough to stand the test of time, and the reworking was, well then, I suppose you just didn’t do it as well as you could have, or society didn’t feel it was as vital to them, or whatever reason. However in the end, the process of art is sacred, the result of it is just a consumable.

Erek

22

Argh. We’ve covered this before. While in some cases I might agree with you, I see many instances where it wouldn’t be right to take copyright away right after the death of the author. (And this was brought up in a previous thread.)

One example might be with an elderly author who is writing one last novel before they die. Their publisher wants rights to this novel for a certain amount of time, in order to make a profit (or maybe just to break even) on it. If the author is finishing up this novel on their death bed, what incentive is there for them to finish it if it goes to public domain after they die? No publisher will give them an advance—they wouldn’t be able to make any money from it before the author dies.

Another example might be with a young artist or author who is put through art school or college by loving relatives. They are being propped up and supported by their family with the understanding that later on, the family will be paid pack. But just as this young artist starts to get some attention, they die unexpectedly. The “investment” the relatives put in this artist has not been paid back yet. The work was created by the effort of the artist and in no small part by the sacrifice of the relatives. But if copyright were lost at the death of the artist, the relatives have to sit by and get watch others profit from it while they got nothing.

23

Well, I see what distinguishes one of them… the other is still hazy to me. If the play “Romeo and Juliet” is no longer able to be copyrighted, then what does it take to skirt the “pixel for pixel” issue and tackle the “nebulous idea” one? What would violate the copyright other than a dubbed tape (etc)? This is what I’m trying to understand your perspective on… sorry if I’m not clear.

24

yosemitebabe: In the first case, the old author’s work can be put into the public domain after he dies, and society thus benefits. If having copyrights terminate upon death causes a few really old people (who are probably creating works this late in their life solely for the pleasure of doing so) to not write a few books, then so be it.

In the second case, the parents would have gone unpaid if the child had picked any other job (doctor, lawyer, police officer, accountant, etc.). Why should copyright holder be any different?

25

Tackling the “nebulous idea” thing can be complex. Identifying a copied novel because every word is exactly the same as the original is not difficult. Identifying a “stolen” photograph because it is automatically recognizable to 99% of non-visually-impaired people is not difficult.

I’m really not sure what you are asking, honestly.

26

This is called “Investment risk.” If the kid dies, oh well, sucks to be you.

The elderly author is covered by the 14 years +14 for the life of the author. Obviously if someone is about to die and hte publisher still wants their work, they aree fairly confident they can sell it right away because this author already has a following.

Erek

27

I agree. But let’s tackle it. What is copyrightable in the remake of Romeo and Juliet in question? They hold a copyright… does this only forbid dubbing tapes? Or is there something more covered here? What?

28

Oh, I see. “Well, he enjoyed doing it anyway, so he shouldn’t make any money from it.” Nice to see that (veiled) sentiment trotted out so early in the thread.

I am sure there are many examples of excellent works done by artists or authors right before their death that would be a loss to society. And yes, I have no doubt that some these people have pushed themselves to do this work late in their life because they wanted to leave a little to their relatives. And if no money would be coming, they wouldn’t do it. But hey, who cares? “So be it” right? But why can’t we say “So be it” when heirs are able to retain copyright after the death of the author?

And you haven’t addressed the issue of the publisher not wanting to give an advance to an author who is about to kick the bucket. This would cause a definite squelching of creativity in many cases, I should think. “I’m sorry, you’re too old to be published. You might kick off at any minute and we just can’t take that risk.”

Had an artist died before they did any work then of course, the investment would go unpaid. But in the case of any other profession (doctor, lawyer) the person gets paid right away for the work they actually were able to do. With an artist or author, this is often not the case. The paint on the canvas or the ink on the paper may have just dried and the author dies. Not enough time for profits yet. And, unlike other jobs, published works sometimes (oftentimes) take years to earn what they are worth. That is why publishers give an “advance”. They give an advance to the author, but must wait (sometimes for quite a spell) to actually make that “advance” money back in book sales.

29

I have no idea. I’ve never seen that movie.

Since most of my own personal work is more of “original pixel-for-pixel” work (I don’t write novels and don’t create “high concept” works), I don’t think I am best qualified to argue this, to be honest. I merely wanted to point out the distinction between these two areas. Most people want to focus on the “nebulous idea” area and pick that to pieces, without addressing the other side of the coin—the exact replication of a work in order to profit from it.

30

As I pointed out before, if a kid dies after doing a lot of work, in most professions, they’ll have made money from the work they actually did. In art or writing, often not, since the profits from these works may take time to roll in. But oh well. Sucks to be an artist or author, I guess. But I guess they “enjoyed” doing the work, so why should they (or their heirs) expect any money from it? Eh?

How does this work if the copyright is lost at the author’s death? Because that’s what we’re talking about, aren’t we? (Or are we?) How can a publisher retain exclusive rights to something that has become part of public domain? How much of a profit can they make (to make back the advance money they gave the elderly author) when every other publisher could publish the same book at the same time?

And don’t assume that an elderly author has a big following. We all know that there are more than a few authors or artists who started writing or creating late in life. For some reason the author Novalyne Price Ellis comes to mind. I believe she wrote her first (and only?) book while in her '70s. What kind of “following” did she have at that age, anyway? How financially adventuresome do you think publishers are? Will they take a risk on an unknown, elderly author if they could lose rights at any time?

31

yosemitebabe that’s not my argument, just a side note.

32

Well, as I said, I don’t think the copyright should be lost at their death, I just don’t think it should be renewable. Like I said, I don’t believe in “meal-tickets” the author’s family can get a job just like I have to because I have no wealthy people, or authors in my family to leave me anything.

Erek

33

In what way does depriving a person of the right to leave a legacy to his or her children NOT disincent lifetime creativity? I notice that those who are most vehemently opposed to copyrights are also the most–dare I say this? communist? socialist? anarchist? of the responders. Well. at least there’s some consistency in the idea that you shouldn’t be able to leave ANYTHING, not your tangible goods, not your stocks’n’bonds, not your property interest in your creations, to your inheritors. But in the context of tangible property, the compromise we have arrived at is that we don’t confiscate it; we just tax it. So what would be wrong with applying the same scheme to copyrighted work? The artist leaves his or her rights over the work to his posterity; they pay a hefty tax when the rights pass due to the artist’s death. Then whatever they can make of that property is up to them–forever (or until they pass it to the next generation).

Seems to me that’s the way it works with, say, farmland; or plain old cash; or the family business. Nobody’s claiming that the right of the farmer, the investor, or the businessman to pass on at least some of the net worth accumulated during a lifetime of work somehow stifles the urges of THOSE people to work productively.

As to authors “squirreling it away” or else being able to pass nothing to their heirs: why are authors/creators the only ones who MUST realize the value of their work in cash in order to be able to pass it on? Does the farmer have to sell off the north forty acres to leave something? Is the businessman forced to merge or liquidate to leave something? I don’t think so.

34

Sign me in with those who would go for life-plus-20 as something reasonable (BTW how does it work for copyrights held by corporations, such as those of films?). Intellectual property rights should inheritable, but not infinitely so. The immediate heirs should be able to have a margin of time to benefit from the creator’s legacy but eventually they must go on and get a life of their own (most people who inherit a farm can’t just sit there and wait for checks, they must start working it). Perpetual copyrights would benefit mostly the copyright-lawyer trade and could stifle creative interpretations – but even more perniciously, could be used to hinder legitimate access to a work once the creator himself is gone, for the sake of building up commercial value (or just the estate deciding “this book by Aunt Aggie makes us look bad, let’s pull it”).

BTW, what’s copyrighted in the case of the DeCaprio version of R&J is the product, in the form of a feature motion picture, of the combination of the public-domain play PLUS the staging, costuming, direction, setting, cinematography, casting, acting and editing. The play itself stays public domain as it is ONE part of the new construct.

35

And I just had a thought: add extra copyright time for posthumously published work, starting at publication, so that in case the author did not live to see the payoff the heirs can enjoy it fully.

36

Writer married to a writer. Copyrights are our family business which will be willed to our children. We don’t do it for the love of creativity or so that other people can profit from our work, we do it to make money. Why, once my partner is dead, should anyone other than my family benefit from our property?

And not being able to lift work holus bolus does not stifle creativity. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. There’s nothing to stop a writer writing a book about a boy wizard, Rowling’s not being sued because she has built substantially on other people’s work yada yada yada.

So far nobody has been able to present in this thread or the other recent threads any convincing argument that writing is not a business and that writers should cease to be able to will their interest in their works. Quit being so damned romantic about it all – we’re not sitting here thinking oh how lovely to create, we’re putting food on the table and paying bills. If I had a shop, I could will that to my children – copyrights are no different.

37

The durations of copyright terms are all codified at 17 USC §302.

If someone working independently created something, then sold his rights in the work to a company, the term is still measured by that person’s life.

If a bunch of people working for a company make a movie or a magazine or what have you, the finished work is a “work for hire”. The term for a work for hire is either 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.

So, barring any further extensions, Lilo and Stitch will be entering the public domain in 2098. Seems a little long, don’t it?

38

I don’t know about this extended copyright thing being anyway effective. I mean, the Bible survived 3100 years without copyright laws.

And these media outlets are getting more abusive with the laws. Isn’t there a provision that states that an abused copyright can be a lost copyright?

39

I’m gonna say one thing and one thing only about this, unless someone comes up with a completely origional point that has not been brought up in previous copyright threads.

Artistic work is very different than other kinds of property, because artistic works become a part of our culture. They become a part of who we are. We cannot seperate things like “Happy Birthday” (which is still copyrighted- you cannot publically perform it without paying royalties) from our collective culture. It cannot be said to belong to anyone because it is part of all of us, and it belongs to all of us.

The public domain serves a useful purpose. No work is created in a vacuum. An artistic work springs forth from the culture and artistic hertiage of the world around it, and ultimately it belongs back in that world for others to build on.

The public domain is what is natural. Copyright is an unnatural monololy- one that is considered a neccesary evil because it can encourage new works- but one that is to be limited to serve that purpose only. You have no natural right to copyright. It is only a means to an end. It has nothing to do with “rights”, because nobody has any right to prevent anyone from singing a song.

40

No one is preventing someone from singing a song. Only profitting from it. “Happy Birthday” maybe “belongs” to us on one level since we all know it and hum it; “Star Wars” or “The Wizard of Oz” is in all of us too—we watch it together and cite lines from it and admire it. But does that mean that we should be able to sell copies of it and make a profit from it?

Like Primaflora pointed out, her writing is a livelihood. It is no less of a job than being a doctor or a lawyer. Doctors and lawyers expect to be paid for their hard work. So why shouldn’t an author or artist make a living as well? Removing copyright will severely hamper the artists’ (or authors’) ability to make a living.