Should copyright extend past the life of the creator?

Great Debates
41

Actually, web content is not just copyrightable, it’s copyrighted. Once you publish something on the web, it’s copyrighted. When I press “submit,” my words are copyrighted.
Technically, I suppose, I could sue anyone other than a representative of the Chicago Reader who tried to quote me. Since I haven’t actually filed anything with the Copyright Office, however, I’d only be able to sue for actual damages and lost profits. I’m not writing for profit though, and your quoting me wouldn’t be costing me anything, so there’s nothing to sue over.

All that’s just an interesting aside to the main point of the debate between **yosemitebabe ** and nogginhead. nogginhead says that people create all the time without a goal of monetary gain. That’s not the question we should ask.
The real question is whether someone would create something for free but with the knowlege that someone else could take that creation and use it for their own gain.
Would I be writing this post, for free, if I knew that Newsweek would put it in their My Turn column, use it to sell their magazines, and give me nothing in return? Would I write this post if I knew there was no legal recourse if something like that happened?
The answer to both these questions is no. I suspect a lot of people feel the same.

Yes, people create for the shear joy of creating. Yes, they create to share with the world. But if there’s a profit to be made, where does the money go? Given a choice between money in the artist’s pocket or money in someone else’s pocket, what do you think the artist is going to choose? Not too hard of a choice, is it? That’s why we have copyright laws. It protects even the most altruistic of society from getting screwed out of what is still rightly theirs if they so choose to collect.

42

Yes, copyrights are very much different.

To quote from artemis, who stated the situation so well in the last thread:

That’s taken out of context, but it’s still valid.

Works should enter the public domain as quickly as possible to give people like Stoppard the opportunity to work with them. This is not some “romantic” fantasy. It happens often enough (not all the time, but often enough), and would happen more if the current law weren’t so restrictive.

Quit being so damned selfish about it all. Your copyrights should benefit you for a time, yes, but don’t try to tell us that that time should last so long that children are born, grow old, and die before your copyrights run out. That’s just plain wrong.

43

Stricker van Gogh, should I be allowed to open up a McDonalds without first seeking the permission of the corporate office and without paying any sort of franchise fee? Should I be allowed to profit from the name of McDonalds and not give any compensation to the people who made that name so popular, it accounts for so much of my business?
What if I’m a terrible businessman and will give salmonella to customers through uncooked burgers? Should McDonalds refuse to allow me to run a business because doing so would destroy their good name?

44

33.33 years sounds about right to me. YMMV.

45

Neat.

Absolutely, I think all reasonable individuals would agree that the artist should get some share of the profit, if there’s any to be had. And AOL-Time Warner deserves some too, if they provide the means for the artist to make any.

But I think the interest in the topic is less about this question than about whether it’s reasonable for Disney to own Mickey Mouse (plus Pooh and any other copyrights they buy) until the end of time.

Maybe we’d all be happy if we allowed the artist and their individual heirs to maintain copyright forever but outlawed publicly held corporations from owning copyright to art. Then we’d feel that if profit was to be had, the right people would be getting it. And that it wouldn’t pass into the hands of exploiters…

Oh, but wait. If the copyright is property then limiting what the heir can do with it would be reducing its potential value. Heck.

46

Not to me. I didn’t participate in any way to the creation of Lilo and Stitch. To me, they created it, it’s their baby, let them have it as long as they want.

While the instance mentioned in the OP, is a good example of how the laws may hinder creativity, they really didn’t do that at all. The composer took a piece of existing poetry, and created music to go with it. Creativity is not hindered here. The ability of the composer to make money off of what someone else’s poem inspired is. The solution would be to take creativity further and create his own lyrics. One could argue that the composer using Frost’s words hinders his own creativity.

The copyright laws are there to protect creatives from those that would just copy and paste and sell for their own profit. Coming at the laws from this angle (hampering creativity) will not solve the problem that even right now people infringe on copyrights all the time, intentionally, blatantly, and for profit. (ever bought a bootleg CD or movie? download music?)

From an artists perspective, could I call myself a stock image business, and transfer all rights of my artwork to my stock business, which is really still just myself? How much longer would that protect my works from people who would want to profit from my hard work without lifting a finger?

47

I’m somewhere on the same page as PrimaFlora. This is what I do. What I make is mine. And whether or not I choose to profit from what I make by offering it for publication is just that: a choice. My choice.

What (little!) profit I make from writing is also mine to do with as I choose. The money arrives in dribs and drabs. Copyright ensures that I get full payment, full value for what I have chosen to publish.

And since the exact thing I have made is mine, no one other than me or my designated heirs should ever be able to materially profit from exact or even thinly veiled reproductions of it without paying for doing so. Just as a family may not themselves want to work the north forty of the farm that was left to them but instead choose to rent out the land to other persons to farm. They get paid for its use.

Derivation is another thing. Art is derivative. It is not duplication. It is cross-pollination. Or a conversation in a sense. Something someone wrote or painted or sculpted or played resonates and becomes the germ of something else, something other than the original piece. There will be echos. But an echo is not the voice, it is just a kind of cool thing that happens when the surroundings allow it.

48

Any artist who so chooses can put their work in the public domain. Anyone who wishes to make a work derivative of a work which is still copyrighted can ask for permission. Publishing houses have people who do that for a job. Getting permissions is a part of publishing.

And I’m still waiting to hear why it is so damned important that people be able to exercise their ‘creativity’ by lifting work holus bolus from other writers. Stoppard used Shakespeare – if Shakespeare were copyrighted work, he could have asked permission. Not all Stoppard’s work is derivative of Shakespeare.

It’s not selfish to want my family business to go to our heirs. Unless of course everyone here wishes their family businesses/assets/whatever to move into the public domain as quickly as possible on their demise? If publishing moved to being a business where the author got a lump sum on publication and basically worked for hire, things would be different but books earn spasmodically, it’s not like you can say OK I’ll collect my money like a regular wage earning person.

49

That is not true. The purpose of copyright, according to the constitution, is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

That is a very very different thing than protecting a “right” to “property”.

50

It means we should be able to make references to it and the Star Wars “universe” without fear of litigation. We should be able to remake Star Wars in a new setting, just like the DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet (which used the original dialogue, but took place on the streets of a modern city with guns instead of swords). We should be able to use characters like Luke Skywalker and Mickey Mouse, with whom we are all familiar.

Whether we should be able to profit from that use is another question, but I absolutely believe we should be able to do it for non-commercial purposes.

Many people would. You may have heard of the BSD license, an Open Source software license which allows the software to be redistributed by anyone and incorporated into other works, as long as it includes the original copyright notice. The entire FreeBSD operating system is available under these terms, as well as the Enlightenment window manager, the popular Tcl scripting toolkit, and over 2400 other projects on SourceForge, among others.

51

Why “should” we? I mean, we “could”, if Lucasfilm consents and is paid.

I don’t know how protective Lucas is about references to his “universe”. I suppose that perhaps he is too protective—I just don’t know. As I said in the previous thread, I don’t have a huge problem with fan fiction, because by their very nature they’re smallfry and not out to make a profit. And as far as I’ve seen, Star Wars fanfiction flourishes. With restrictions (I believe) but it is allowed to be.

52

Why, because I said so! :slight_smile:

I think that assertion is at least as relevant as the others I’ve seen in this and previous threads, such as “I deserve to make money because I put hard work into this”, or “I deserve to have something to pass on to my children”, or “I deserve to have control over this idea because I came up with it first”.

In many cases, references to copyrighted works are what make stories realistic. For example, if your protagonist lives in present-day America, and it’s his birthday, his friends and family are going to sing “Happy Birthday”. We all do it in real life. But even though it’s been part of our culture for decades, you have to ask permission to use it, and just hope you get it with no strings attached. Or you could come up with a contrived alternative, sticking out like a bright red can of “Diet Soda” in a movie.

Star Wars fan fiction is allowed to flourish… for now. But fans of Futurama, Anne McCaffrey, Survivor, and Star Trek have not been so lucky.

53

I agree with your friend. This is simply obscene, and totally counter to the purpose of the Copyright.

Actually, slight correction. Copyleft is properly known as the Gnu General License, or GPL. It does not prohibit selling for profit, by any means. What it means is this:

Anything released under the terms of the GPL is Free. Their preferred idiom is “Free as in speech, not free as in beer.” Meaning that, while it can and usually can be had free of charge, the larger and more important issue is that it is free for use by anyone. GPL software can be used, given away, copied, shared, modified, and even repackaged and sold for profit.

BUT…

Any derivative work of a GPLed work MUST ITSELF be released under the GPL or compatible terms. The way it works is this: You’re free to use my code for whatever reason you want. But if you dip into the pool, you need to put something back. You are not allowed to use and benefit from the work of other programmers without allowing others to use and benefit from your work.

If you’re concerned about that, and don’t want other people and companies to use and benefit from your code without paying you royalties, then you had better write your own code instead of using mine.

Many companies (like Red Hat) make their livings selling GPL software (Linux) and associated support.

Anyway, I agree that the Copyright system is badly flawed and desperately in need of reform.

And Yosemitebabe, the answer to your question is this:

The way you keep from giving away your work is not to publish it. Once it’s out there, no amount of copyright law will prevent it from being copied, given away, shared, etc if people want it. If you’re a purist, then create your works for your own enjoyment. Because once it’s out there, it’s out there.

54

Prima, I used derivative in a very loose sense. I was trying to avoid “inspired by”. Alluding to other works is what I meant.

55

The Legal system has degenerated to a matter of money. If you have the money to enforce copyright chances are you are so well off it’s not even funny.

It’s just the rich protecting their money pipeline.

Pantents and copyrights appear to work almost solely to make the already rich even more rich.

Creativity please.

56

That’s a different discussion Enderw24. It doesn’t affect the issue I’m talking about.

I’m not very interested in elaborating on the differences between trademarks and copyrights, but I guess I would if you really want to hear it.

57

oh my.

pugsville, it’s refreshing to see someone so in touch with the literary scene in Australia. It goes without saying that in a literary climate where $2000 is a good advance, that we are all totally rolling in it and in no need of an income. I’ve got an idea – let’s not worry about copyright after the death of the author – let’s make all writers put all their work in the public domain! No copyright, no royalties, no nothing!

If you check this site
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/scis/links/wilson.htm
Barbara Ker Wilson is saying that the average income for an author in Australia is $11 000 per annum. I’ll concede it’s difficult for an author to save and make provision for his/her family on an income like that but I guess I’ll have to stop being selfish and get a Real Job. The $11 000 translates to $5000 USD BTW

58

Yeah! A lot of nerve we all have, in expecting to (gasp! shudder!) make money off of our work! :rolleyes:

Same goes for anything. Anything. None of us are entitled to make money off of what we do. None of us can really “own” anything. Because once it’s out there, other people can swipe it. Your car, for instance. It’s there, someone can hotwire it (they have the knowledge and ability) so what the hell are you bitching about when someone swipes your car? If you didn’t want someone to take your car, leave it in the garage. I mean, really.

I know there are differences in that analogy, but I want to ask you?how do you propose artists and writers make money? You do realize that if there no copyright, that most “full-time” artists and authors would no longer afford to work full time? They’d never be able to hold on long enough to anything they do to make any profit off of it.

But, hey–who cares? Let us do “real” work like everyone else. We “enjoy” doing the work so much, that should be enough reward in itself. Right?

59

Some original thoughts please.

60

I’m not sure how well you paid attention to the previous thread, but this was answered before. Many times, in fact. You say you haven’t heard a convincing argument, but then you bring up points that have already been responded to. Maybe you don’t find those points convincing, but if that’s true, I think you should at least explain why (unless, of course, you missed them entirely). So let’s try again…

It’s really damned important for people to be able to borrow extensively from previous works for many reasons, one of the most important reasons being that many previous works (not the majority of previous works, but many) have themselves become a part of our culture.

Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is an excellent play - and no less excellent because it borrows extensively from a previous work.

You say, “Well, if the copyright were still in effect, he could go to the copyright holder!” Have you not been paying attention? The very OP of this thread mentions a copyright holder denying permission.

If our present-day Shakespeare copyright holder had done the same thing, a brilliant play would be taken from the world.

This wouldn’t be some “romantic” loss. It would be a very real, very tragic loss. It would be the stifling of artistic expression.

I say “would be” like it’s a hypothetical situation, but this does happen, as we’ve already seen. Not often, to be sure, but often enough.

And even if a work hasn’t made its way into our culture, the situation it brings up can, from time to time, be handled better by someone else who comes down the line. Have you read the Urhamlet? I did, a long time ago, and I don’t remember it being all that great. The story of Hamlet had a lot of potential, though, didn’t it?

If you were passing on a retail store, your heirs would have to continue to produce. They couldn’t just close the store, sit back, and make money.

Now, if you write a work and die five years later, I would not suggest that it be sent immediately into the public domain at the expense of your heirs.

But any more than 70 years is just too damn long. A flat 70 year copyright on all works would please me. If your creative period is longer than 70 years, then you’ve been blessed. Let the copyright go!