It doesn’t surprise me that we’re so close on the issue, Enderw24. My personal ideal is a pretty short copyright, but I’m sympathetic to the arguments of people who want their copyrights to last for the length of their lives.
The life plus 20 would be a great system, but the life plus 50 years (which some others have advocated) is simply too long. The early works of an artist who had a very long creative period would be copyrighted for nearly a century under that rule, and I’m opposed to any system that would allow copyrights to last more than the average lifetime. Which I guess everybody knows by now…
I think you just made my argument. If copyright were 14 years, the field would be wide open for movies of books that are recent enough to be relevant. Can you explain how this would be anything other than “Insuring progress” as required by the Constitution?
Damn. Following the express language of the Consitution would upset people! You slay me with your powerful argument! :rolleyes:
For the record, however. The original term of copyright was 14 years, with an option of renewal for an additional 14 years if the author was 1) alive and 2) bothered to do so.
So you can pretty much count on 14 years for useless works, and 28 years for valuable ones, such as the Back to the Future trilogy.
Yes, because it is his. If you write a book, and someone in Hollywood made a movie of it, don’t you think they should get your permission?
Of course the dialog of a movie is copyrightable (and copyrighted!) in general. This was a special case, since the moviemakers were using the exact dialog from Shakespeare. What they added - the pictures, is coprightable though.
Question for lawyers - if they cut sections of the dialog, would the revised version be copyrightable? I don’t think so, but some decisions are odd.
As far as borrowing from modern classics - I don’t think West Side Story would be considered in violation even if Romeo and Juliet was still in copyright. After all, half of all the fantasy novels published are blatant ripoffs of Lord of the Rings, and there is no issue!
As for building on works - that is what fair use is for. I believe that if one line of the poem were used in the production, that would count as fair use, and no permissions would have to be obtained. Using the entire poem is another matter.
Any other self-employed person with such a desire satisfies it (if they are wise) by saving and investing their present income. Authors have the option of doing the same (and really ought to do the same rather than depending on the vagaries of future public demand for their works).
There are sound arguments for not ending copyrights at the creator’s death (for instance, there is the obvious moral hazard of making someone’s death potentially profitable to publishers). This ain’t one of them.
Under present copyright law - yes. Otherwise I’d sue the pants off of them: as Jay said, “Where’s my motherf***in’ movie check?”
In the absence of laws - no. I don’t believe that anyone has moral ownership over ideas or expressions. I support copyright for pragmatic reasons, but only as far as it’s necessary to fuel the creation of new works for use by the public, and always keeping in mind the balance between profit and the public domain.
That’s the problem with fair use… there are no real definitions, only vague guidelines. The court, not the law, decides whether a use is “fair”. You have to weigh your desire to create art against your ability to defend yourself from a lawsuit.
We’ve already discussed this. Doctors and lawyers get paid up front. They don’t have to wait months or years to finally get paid, in drips and drabs. But many artists and authors do.
A film can be in the can, and they could kick the bucket. A painting could be drying on the easel, and they kick the bucket. A novel could be at the printers, ink drying on the paper…and you get my point. So, should these works automatically go into the public domain, because the artist or author just died?
If a doctor or lawyer performed a task or duty and then died right afterwards, wouldn’t their client/patient still be expected to pay for what the doctor or lawyer did? And who’d get this money? The public domain? Or the surviving heirs?
Profits from art and writing often take years to come in. Not so with the work doctors and lawyers produce.
Please explain to me why the widow of a recently deceased lawyer should expect that her dead husband’s clients pay up for the work he did before he died. After all, he’s dead. The fact that he did some work and someone is benefitting from that work should make no difference. He’s dead. So I guess the client is off the hook, right? Why should they pay anything now? The hell with the widow. She didn’t do the work. She gets nothing. Does that sound right to you?
And while we’re at it, why should the widow get anything of his? She wasn’t a lawyer. She didn’t go to law school. Let her go out and get a job of her own. Why should she get his pension, the house, or anything of his? Why should her kids get anything? Let them work for a living. They didn’t go to law school.
Well, I believe that the author’s outstanding contracts should be honored as well. I don’t see how this relates to intellectual property however. However, I am not sure we are arguing from the same point of view. I do support copyright, however I support limited copyright, therefore if he dies within the copyright I think the copyright should continue until it’s completion at the end of the 14 years, so if he dies a year after the world was written the widow should get another 13 years. If he dies at 13 years and 11 months well then I guess the widow is screwed. The publisher however should have to honor any outstanding contracts.
As for the rest of your post I started another thread about why they should get things, and I think it’s better discussed there.
Because other assets owned by a decedent are able to pass on to his/her heirs when they die. One of the reasons people work, save, and accumulate assets is to be able to provide for their offspring.
As noted above, other professionals get paid up front and are able to use those earnings to invest and provide for their descendants while they are alive. Authors and artists may not. Indeed, the old saw about death increasing the value of an artists work is an old saw because there is some truth to it.
Consider the composer of the musical “Rent”, who died shortly before the musical was first performed (see here for substantiation). His work only generated value (income) after he died. He probably invested a lot of time and effort in creating the work. But he died before it ever generated one cent of income, and certainly before it became the runaway hit. He worked as hard or harder than other professionals, but his work didn’t start creating value until after he died. Unlike the doctor or the lawyer, therefore, he couldn’t invest the earnings from the work he did in creating “Rent” in stocks, bonds, real estate, money markets, or any of the other things that people traditionally pass on to their heirs. He couldn’t translate the value of the work he did into assets that he could pass on to his heirs.
Now, a debate on whether the whole idea of passing property (real or intangible) to descendants and heirs is fair or right is well beyond the scope of copyright law. But it has been a historical practice. And there is a strong argument to be made that the ability to do so is a motivating factor in our society.
But a character is a form of expression. If the character is sufficiently well-realized, it can and should be protected against exact appropriation because it is often the characters that distinguish one story in a genre from another.
As an example, story set in outer space - not entitled to copyright protection. Story where characters in outer space explore the universe and interact with alien cultures - not entitled to copyright protection. Story where one or more of the explorers is a non-human alien - not entitled to copyright protection. Story where one of the central characters comes from an alien race that has supressed emotions and operates entirely on logic. Starting to shade into protected expression. Add a plain-talking, highly emotional character as a foil to the logical character. Even more shading into protected expression. At this point, you may be starting to cross the line into copyright infringement. Story is about the five year mission of the U.S.S. Enterprise and Spock, Bones and Kirk- now you’re in infringing territory. Part of the creative expression that distinguishes “Star Trek” stories from other space adventures are its characters, who are distinctive and fleshed out personalities. But there is a LOT of room for creative expression along the continuum that does not require shading into the “Star Trek” characters.
