Suggestions for new copyright paradigm

You might want to reconsider killing off corporate copyrights. Primarily because it is corporations that typically commercialize copyrighted work. Many authors simply don’t have the ability to get their works out there. Restricting the enforcement of copyrights to “authors” only would result in some rather unusual and complicated results I think. I could imagine all sorts of things happening that would make even h.p. lovecraft shudder.

Regarding the inability to find the authors of copyrighted works, I feel that the only solution might be to go to a required registration system that would automatically place anything not registered with the copyright office into the public domain immediately upon publication. This system would hurt a lot of unwitting authors however as even simple mistakes in such a system would result in loss of rights. However, it would ensure that for any given work, literary or whatever, it would be either registered with the copyright office or in the public domain. Since it would be registered, there would be at least some reasonable expectation that the works could be found and licensed.

The crazy patents you refer to are not the second coming of the dot com era, they are the dot com era. Ecommerce patents are being examined extremely slowly. I recently had a clients patent issued over three and a half years after it was filed.

Software is patentable. You can patent a new language and you can patent new programming techniques. However, IP extends only to the expression of ideas and not to the underlying ideas themselves. Therefore, if you can express the idea in a manner that is sufficiently different from the patented invention, then you can use the idea too. In software, you might want to use the idea of setting up a series of 3D arrays for a particular data storage application, but you’d have to do it using arrays having more or fewer dimensions. Same idea/result, different expression.

Methods and the mechanisms that carry them out are also distinguishable in that the mechanism might be put to different uses than the method in question, and its often the case that the method could be implemented using different mechanisms or no mechanisms at all. Take the example of cutting up a steak. You could use a knife or a sharp rock (mechanisms) to implement the method of reducing a steak to bite size pieces that involves the step of severing the steak a given number of times. You could also use the method without using a sharp implement. You could beat the steak with a bowling ball until it came apart.

cj

And this is something I don’t understand—why is it a problem to restrict access to something that is essentially of little worth, other than to the poor deluded person who created it? I mean, no one else is surely going to want it. It’s bad. It sucks. It’s no good.

True enough, a lot of creative works are crap. And copyright won’t help that. But it will help those folks (like Primaflora) who are making some sort of living off of their work (so, the assumption would be that her work is not crap). So while copyright won’t affect the crappy artists (they’ll be ignored anyway—who cares if their work is in public domain or not?) it will affect people who have a chance of making money off of their work. And shortening or limiting copyright will affect these people.

While 50 years is certainly better than 20, I still think that jeevmon has a good point. Why deny these creative folks the fruits of their labor during their lifetime?

While some of my earlier works aren’t all that great, they aren’t “crap” (I don’t think). If your policy were to become law, I’d be 65-70 and some of these early works would not be able to bear my © anymore. I don’t think I’d like that. And I don’t see why my © has to be taken away from me, frankly. Just like someone who has a modest business (that doesn’t make any money) wouldn’t like their business taken away from them after 50 years.

And so it’s better to screw the artist?

See, no one has ever really answered this, or even addressed this point: So many of you repeatedly point out how “sucky” so many of these copyrighted works are. And how that’s the reason they’ll never make any money, because they suck.

So why the big rush to put them into the public domain? They suck. No one wants them. No money is being generated from them. They are nothin’.

The big rush to put all creative works into the public domain isn’t to remove copyright from sucky works (at least the way I see it), it’s to put the good works (the works that may still be making money for the creator) into the public domain. So that the creator isn’t making any more money from the work—instead, others are able to use it, profit from it, exploit it, while the artist stands by and watches. Right?

Yosemitebabe:
Good points all. But there is a flip side to your arguments that is just as reasonable.

You are correct in stating that its no big deal to apply copyrights to crap. Who cares right? The flip side is that we shouldn’t apply copyrights to crap. No one would care in that instance either. But if a piece of crap comes into the public domain and can be used by someone else to create something desireable, then there is a net gain. Do you realize that every scribbling that my kids (don’t know if you have any) have ever made is copyrighted for the duration of their life plus 70 years? Try finding a 90 year old artist that made the scribbles when he was 4. Its impossible. You can’t even perform handwriting analysis!

I’m glad Primaflora is making it as an artist. Not many can. However, I’m guessing that she is not going to stop producing art/literature any time soon and live off of her copyright royalties. She, like most artists, makes a living by selling the actual work itself. The likelihood that any one piece of work will create a significant income stream for even 50 years is highly unlikely. Again, the lapse of copyright does not automatically remove one’s ability to make money on the work.

Another thing to take into consideration is that copyrights don’t actually stop copyring. Lawsuits based on one’s copyrights do. There are no copyright police, unless you consider IP attorneys to be such. Most artists aren’t going to sue anybody anyway as it is a royal pain in the arse, is expensive, and there is no guarantee one will win and even if you do win, it’s likely to be a token win, i.e. not worth the effort. Copyrights may seem like the holy grail, but they have a few drawbacks.

As a practical recommendation, make sure you register everyone of your new works before its publication or within a few weeks of its publication. Then, if you find someone copying your works, you can take advantage of statutory damages rather than trying to prove what you’ve lost as a result of the copying. Proving you’ve been damaged in some way by the illegal use of your artwork on a non-commerical website that no one visits anyway is horrifically difficult and expensive.

I’m not sure how anyone could consider waiting 50 years for a work to fall into the public domain as a “rush”. Patents lapse all the time and we consider this a good thing. While most patents are so much junk, just as most copyrighted works are so much crap, its likely that someone can make a silk purse out of the sows ear. Thats the benefit of earlier public domain status. Not only would someone be able to use your works earlier, but you would also be free to use someone else’s work earlier too.

I just feel that at this point, copyright holders get entirely too much in exchange for entirely too little.

cj

cj finn: I appreciate you explaining it all to me, but it … still fails to convince me.

I can’t think of too many brilliant artists who were severely hampered because they couldn’t “adapt” some piece of crap (probably unknown) work that no one else wanted or liked. Oh, I’m sure it’s happened from time-to-time, but I doubt it’s a common phenomenon. At all.

I do agree that it’s probably rare for an artist to make a large income from older works, but it does happen. (I keep thinking of the freelance photographers who continue to take new photos, and sell rights to “vintage” photos.) And, in my case, even though it’s unlikely that my earliest works will be that valuable, it means something to me to keep the © throughout my lifetime, on all my work. Is it likely that I’d have to defend my copyright on some of these earliest works? Probably not. But I see no reason to have them taken away, either.

Oh, but if it were a popular and money-making item, you can damned betcha that there would be a rush and a countdown clock for when it went into the public domain!

How often does that happen, really? How often does someone make a “silk purse” out of some utter piece of crap that no one wanted? And if they can make a “silk purse” out of an utter piece of crap, can’t they make a “silk purse” out of something else? Like something of their own?

I can see making “silk purses” out of other silk purses, but that’s a different issue, isn’t it?

Anyway, I still have not been convinced that it’s acceptable to take away someone’s property (whether it be intellectual, or real) within their lifetime. I am compelled by jeevmon’s contention that leaving something to your heirs is also an incentive. (The example jeevmon gave was a widow or widower who supported an artist or author through the lean times, and now the book or art makes it big after the artists’ death. Why shouldn’t the person who helped make the work possible in the first place get some income from it? In every other business, they would.)

I know in my own life, I sure would want my family to benefit from any profits my work made after my death. They helped prop me up and support me while I went to school and while I struggled.

Society giveth, society taketh away.

Oh, But I’m sure it’d be a different story if it was your property. I’m sure you’d mind if “society” took it away.

And what is this about “society” giving? True, they “give” individuals rights to their own property, whether it be physical property, or (in this case) intellectual property. But “society” did not give the artist their art supplies. “Society” did not pay for their education, or support them while they spent their time working on their creative projects.

“Society” (as jeevmon points out) also “gives” people (or allows people) the “rights” to profits from businesses and property. But somehow “intellectual” property is supposedly different?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many (I won’t say all) people who are so gung-ho to limit copyright are people who do not themselves create copyrighted work. It’s just a hunch, and of course there are exceptions, since some people object to copyright for different reasons.

But what I said before does stand—many people have a subtle (or not-so-subtle) contempt towards creative folk, and think that what they do is “easy” and all based on a God-given “talent” that they did nothing to cultivate. They believe that we just sit back and create, have a ball, and watch the bucks roll in. Of course it’s all a myth and a delusion, but some people who do not have creative tendencies tend to believe this. It’s irritating.

I can guard my own actual property with a shotgun or a pit bull. Actual property, by virtue of the fact that it can only be in one place at a time, doesn’t need laws to protect it.

But the only way to guard “intellectual” property is to grant a monopoly to the creator. That monopoly can be just as easily taken away.

And a monopoly on real property can be taken away as well. Your shotgun or pit bull notwithstanding. Just ask anyone who’s had had their car repossessed, or been turned out of their house.

Ah, so just because it’s easier to take away, that means it’s OK to take it away?

Would you like society to decide that your property should be “respossessed”, even though you didn’t owe any money on it? Just because a lot of other people decided that they’d like a crack at it, and they’ve decided that you’ve had it “long enough”? If the laws were changed, it certainly could be done. So why don’t we apply the same standards to real property as well as intellectual property?

Intellectual property is inherently different than physical property. If I make a copy of one of your pictures, you can still enjoy your picture, if I steal your picture from your wall, you cannot.

Again, laws are here to promote the public good, not the individual good. When it is in the public interest to give individuals rights, we should. When it is in the public interest to take away individual rights, we should do that as well.

It is never in the public good to make physical property ‘public domain’. A single physical item cannot be made public and shared, therefore we don’t. An idea can be shared, art can be shared, knowledge can be shared, all promoting the public good. This is why Copyright and Patents have always been based on term and are not perpetual.

The labors and efforts of the individual artist are only part of the equation, the other side is the benefit to society. When you balance it out, the majority of artists will feel they have the chance to profit from their work, and society will benefit from works going public, the ideas free for distribution to anyone. Make copyright too short and artists will create fewer works, being unable to make ends meet. Make copyright too long, and works will be stale and completely valueless when they go public.

Understand, we WANT artists to make ends meet and make more art, that’s the point of copyright. There is a point, however, at which zero additional art will be produced when you lengthen copyright, does any artist care if it’s Life+70 or Life+10, or Life+150? Will artists stop creating if we limit it to 50 years? I hardly think so.

But you initially wanted it to be 20 years, Cheesesteak. You thought that was “long enough”. Now you think 50 years is long enough? Why? There’s another thread going right now on GD where the OP says that he wants it to be 10 years. How low can we go?

I still stand by jeevmon’s (and my) original preference: Life plus. “Plus”, because the heirs should benefit, just like any other person wants their heirs to benefit from their work. And yes, the artist does care if their heirs benefit, so they do care if the copyright is extended past their lifetime. I sure do. As I have explained before: my family helped support me during my “lean” years, and if I were to kick off tomorrow, I’d hope that they could benefit for a while from the profits of my work. And ask Primaflora if she wants her kids to benefit for a while from her work. She and her husband built up their work, and they want to pass it along to their kids. Just like most parents do.

I think 70 years is probably too long (so does jeevmon, if memory serves). Maybe 30 years? 40 - 50? Certainly to have it extended again and again (like Disney wants to do) is unreasonable.

There’s also another thing so many of you repeatedly avoid to address: Why do you assume that 100% of the time, a person who wants to make a “silk purse” out of a copyright holder’s “sow’s ear”, or, they just want to utilize some portion of another’s work won’t be able to do so? Ever hear of picking up the phone and asking? Ever hear of offering the original copyright holder a small percentage of the profits? Sure, some copyright holders (or their heirs) won’t be found (in which case I seriously think that there should be some mechanism which will put the work into public domain–if it’s basically abandoned, then no harm done). And sure, some copyright holders will expect too high of a price, or will flat-out refuse. But many will be pleased or flattered that their work is getting some attention (as long as their part of it gets proper credit, and they get some sort of money).

So please don’t pretend that the “sky is falling” because someone else owns a copyright to something. Chances are, a deal can be made, a compromise reached. Unless, of course, there was no intention of giving the original artist credit, or no desire to give them even a small percentage of the profits. In which case, that’s a different problem–wanting something for nothing, and not wanting to give credit where credit is due. Which certainly is where some people are coming from when they so bitterly complain about copyright.

Yeah, real property can be taken away by force. But until someone physically removes that car from the driveway, it remains mine.

Not so with copyright. If I write a poem on the side of my house, anyone can walk by and memorize it, and now they have the same poem.

Not quite.

Because the only “ownership” over intellectual property that an author has is a monopoly granted by society, society can set the terms and duration of that monopoly.

If society gave me that property in the understanding that everyone would have a chance to use it, then sure, that’s their decision. Just like they set the terms of copyright.

I didn’t say artists didn’t CARE, I said that they wouldn’t stop creating over the issue. Honestly now, if the US Gov’t never changed copyright from the original 14yr+14yr terms would you have never taken up your art? Would you have said “28 years? Pfft, I’ll go do something else instead!” How about at the 1909 terms of 28 + 28?

Can you say that you would never publish your work if you didn’t have copyright of Life+?

The fact that you and other artists would feel cheated if your work ‘makes it’ after copyright expires is not justification for extending it.

If someone could only keep a business for 14 + 14 or 28 + 28, do you think that everyone would stop opening businesses?

No. Some would probably be put off, but not all. But they wouldn’t like it, and would not consider it fair or right.

Just because people would put up with something, because they are given no choice in the matter, doesn’t mean that they’d like it. Just because society can wrestle away more rights away from the artist, or deny them rights that other forms of “property” enjoy, doesn’t mean that artists will consider it right. But hey! Who cares about “fair” or “right”? Because society can do it, I guess that makes it OK.

Hey, folks, I could use some of you over on MY copyright thread! (Which I impulsively started before reading this one.)

I’m tentatively for: actual human creator(s) have near-absolute rights over their creations (including the right to destroy) for the extent of their natural lives; said rights then pass to someone else as willed by the artist. If to an actual human, 10 further years of near-absolute control; if to some other entity, 10 years of some lesser degree of control (perhaps something like a “use it or lose it” requirement). Then, public domain. (Corporate owners of works-for-hire would be under a rather different regime, perhaps giving control that is almost unlimited in DURATION, but requiring at least a degree of public benefit and “responsible husbanding” in APPLICATION.)

Yosemitebabe, if it matters, I now have a clearer concept of where you’re coming from than I did with your initial posting on the other thread. Disagreeing with the implicit attitude of some here, I do acknowledge that, if we are to have creative work in our society, we ought to be prepared to coddle it a bit. I myself am a creative “type,” and a writer. My beef is with immortal business entities that, having acquired certain rights, use that as a basis to prevent and suppress “variations on a theme” involving elements (NOT whole works) that they have title to. I regard such use of the work of others as legitimate and of value to our culture, not examples of theft-for-profit. Hell, they can have any income derived from such works–I just object to their using the “dilution” argument to keep me from raising the dead.

But I don’t hear anyone begrudging you a fundamental opportunity to make a profit from your Dad’s photos, and good luck to you on that.

I suppose Edison’s heirs consider it unfair that other people can make light bulbs, too.

Too bad for them - it’s more important for everyone to have light than for a few people to profit from something that was created in the past.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that intellectual “property” should have the very same protections as actual, tangible, real property. Ideas, and expressions of ideas, are just not the same as physical objects.

But light bulbs are patented, and there’s a somewhat different dynamic going on with patents, aren’t there? We’re not talking about patents here.

An image that is undeniably recognizable as mine is a tangible thing. It’s not an “idea”, it’s a actual recognizable thing. Just because it can be spread around doesn’t make it any less recognizable as my “thing”, the “thing” that came from my camera, my sketchpad, or my word processor. And if this thing can earn money, then the person who actually made the “thing” should make the money. Even if others gripe because (horror of horrors) they can’t profit from this “thing” that they did nothing to help create, or because they can’t get this “thing” for free. Frankly, I find people who want to hurry along the copyright process to a few decades (so they can get their mitts on something all the sooner without paying for it) are something akin to vultures. They do nothing to contribute, they just want to take. Obviously I am not talking about all people who want to limit copyright, but no doubt many are “vultures” in a sense.

I know it seems terribly unjust to expect people who work hard on something to actually get compensated for it, but there you are. Current copyright laws support the idea that some intellectual property is often not immediately profitable, therefore it’s a good idea to extend copyright. And, current copyright laws support the idea that anyone who works hard (even creative types, believe it or not) are motivated to pass along their fruits of their labors to their heirs.

Another thing—“ideas” are a different dynamic, but a lot of copyrighted works are not just about “ideas”. You can’t copyright the “idea” of Yosemite Valley, and it would be folly to try. But I can copyright the various manifestations of a negative I specifically took of Yosemite Valley. And you know this—no matter how much you parse it with technobabble, one thing is undeniable: if 99% of the population can read a document and know that it’s word-for-word the work of a specific person, then it’s the work of that person. If 99% of the population look at a specific image, and recognize it as the work or a specific visual artist, then it’s their work. It’s not a nebulous “idea”, it’s their work. And golly—some people have this crazy idea about getting paid for their own work, even if it takes many years. And, gosh, some people have this crazy idea that maybe other people shouldn’t say to them that “time’s up, now it’s our turn to have a crack at your stuff!”

Scott Dickerson: Glad you understand where I’m coming from a little more clearly. I haven’t hit the fan fic thread yet tonight, so I have yet to see how it’s developed.

Oh, I see. Inventors don’t “own” their inventions, but photographers “own” their photos.

Just to be clear, who else doesn’t “own” their intellectual output?

No… the actual thing that came from your camera is a negative, which is processed and ends up as a piece of photo paper with an image on it. If I make a copy of that photo, and give the original back to you, you haven’t lost any tangible things. I have made one of my own.

The image–the arrangement of colors–on my photo is the same as the one on yours, yes. The size and shape are also the same. But you don’t own the size, even if you cut the paper to a very precise and unique size, now do you? Why should you have any kind of “ownership” over a particular arrangement of colors, other than the monopoly society gives you as copyright?

The arrangement of words is that person’s work, but that isn’t a tangible thing. There’s no natural reason that everyone else should be prohibited from arranging words the same way, like there is with physical property: a book can only be in one place at a time, but the arrangement of words can be anywhere.

The only reason to grant a monopoly on that arrangement of words is to give the author a profit incentive to keep writing books. And the reason we want the author to keep writing books is so the public can read them… even if he decides, 50 years later, that he doesn’t want the public to read them after all.

Sucks to be those people, I guess. An underlying principle of copyright is that you only “own” a certain arrangement of colors, words, or bits for a limited time, after which everyone else is free to arrange their own bits the same way.

Please copy and paste where I said patent owners did not “own” their work.

Is this a patent thread? Is it? Is the word “patent” in the OP title? Is it? Has not the different dynamics of patent been discussed earlier in this thread?

Parsing again… Yadda yadda yadda.

So, is the image that you copy from my negative suddenly become a picture that you took, because you’ve got a copy of it? No.

Oh, I see. So I don’t “own” the thing that I did, the thing that I was soley responsible for. So why is there a copyright at all…? Oh, because our society “grants” us copyright.

And why are people allowed titles to their cars? Oh, because society “grants” us titles. Why do people get to write out wills and grant property to their heirs? Oh, because society grants them that right. An “artificial” right, granted by society. And it can just as easily be taken away. So why not take it away? It’s easy to take it away. I’m sure that the rest of society would greatly benefit by being able to split up and share the estates of dead people, rather than honoring wills and allowing the heirs to keep the property.

And there’s no natural reason why someone can’t take away your car, or your house (pit bulls notwithstanding). If they have a bigger pit bull, they can take it away. No “natural” reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to. They want it, after all. What’s more “natural” than that?

It’s only society that forbids that. But society can take that away, just as easily. Society has decided that it’s better to allow people to keep their property, the stuff they worked for, and earned. And so society supports individual property. Just like society supports copyright.

The “only” reason? So, unlike other professions, where people are rewarded and compensated for their work and contributions, the “only” reason to allow a person to actually get paid for their creative work is just so they’ll do more? So, basically, creative people aren’t entitled to get paid for their work, (like the rest of the working population). It’s just because society hasn’t figured out any other way to squeeze more creative works out of a person, other than to (apparently grudgingly, according to some of you) allow them some time to actually (horror of horrors) actually get a little money for their time and efforts? Oooh. How generous! To “allow” the artist some time to get paid, just so they’ll do more work!

So, if an artist goes blind right after they create a popular masterpiece, let’s take away their copyright immediately! Or, if an author writes a bestseller novel, and then has a stroke and isn’t able to write anymore, just take away all rights to his novel! Sounds fabulous! Cool! They obviously aren’t going to be making any more work, so no need to grant them copyright as a form of “encouragment”. I would assume that you’d support such a scheme, since the ONLY reason artists are giving copyright is to “encourage” them to do more work.

So, do you support a policy which would allow an individual to petition to remove a copyright from a living artist who is no longer (physically or mentally) able to create? I should think so, since the ONLY reason to grant someone copyright is to encourage them to do more. And if the option of doing more is removed, there seems to be absolutely no reason to allow them to keep the copyright for one single more day.

And after he’s dead, and after his heirs lose copyright (which should be 70 years, or possibly less) then everyone can read it.

Oh, of course, but who cares, if you aren’t the person affected? As long as you are on the recieving end instead of the giving end, all’s well with you.

And that “limited time” is Life + 70 years as it stands now. It’s not infinite, it’s “limited”. And artists and writers are “encouraged” to keep creating under this law.

I have asked this before and no one’s responded: If a private collector buys an original painting by a contemporary artist, should they be able to publish prints of the painting, even if the artist did not specifically say that they wanted the painting published? The collector “owns” the physical painting, after all. So should they be able to do whatever they want with it, including publishing it?

Yosemitebabe:

To the extent that you believe that anyone in this thread has actually stated that “creative people aren’t entitled to get paid for their work” I believe you are wrong. You are the only one in this thread that has come to that conclusion. Equating the end of a copyright term with theft is similarly not helpful.

To answer your question about the artwork. The collector has purchased only the physical painting, not the copyright. There have been instances where the owner of the painting has lost a copyright infringement case for publishing copies of the work that they actually own. This is the usual case, so if you have someone’s artwork, remember that you probably don’t own the copyright.

Another thing that I feel is important to point out is that intellectual property is entirely distince from real property. There is no common ground other than some similar terminology. Intellectual property relates to ideas and more particularly to the expression of ideas. It is only the EXPRESSION of an idea that gets any protection at all. This concept is valid for all areas of intellectual property law.

One reason that copyrights are harder to enforce/defend that say a patent, is that the expression in a copyrighted work tends to be almost identical to the idea itself. Where the idea cannot be conveyed in another manner, then there can be no copyright in the work that conveys the idea. Technical writing is therefore harder to protect than is creative writing as the idea is more intertwined with the prose in technical writing than it is in creative writing. I’m not sure where I was going with this, but rather than delete it, I’ll leave it in.

Historically, ideas had no protection at all. Once you uttered the idea in the presence of another, that idea was gone. The only way of protecting the idea was to either keep it completely secret (trade secrets anyone?) or to petition the crown/government to give you a monopoly.

On the other hand, the proponents of the natural rights theory argued that when someone expends energy to accomplish a task, the fruits of their labor belong to them. This applies to clearing farmland or thinking great thoughts.

Each of these policies is obviously flawed. By coming to some compromise, the flaws can be minimized and the benefits maximized. Creativity and hard work can be fostered by ensuring that the benefits flow to the person(s) that deserve them. In addition, society gains access to the creativity of the creative and can build on that creativity instead of having to start from scratch each time.

At present, our Congress has determined that the life+70 term coupled with the legal restrictions copying is the proper balance. I, however, believe that this is not the case. I feel that a system wherein a work is accorded no more than 50 years, whether the author is alive or no, is more proper.

At other times in our history shorter periods have been put forward. Those earlier terms were shorter and the trend has been for ever increasing terms. In short, the terms have been steadily increasing and I am not aware of a significant increase in the creativity of the American people that could not be accounted for in the prevalence of higher education and inexpensive means for putting works out (i.e. easier and cheaper publication using typewriters, mimeographs, copiers, laser printers, and the computer).

I feel that it would be reasonable to state that a 28 year term would be too small, but in the same vein, I believe that a life+70 term is entirely too long. Longer than life+70 is absolutely criminal in my view.

Is there any way that we could actually quantify the level of creativity of human society (the Berne Convention makes copyright laws fairly uniform so these arguments would apply around the world) as compared to the term of copyrights? I feel that this type of comparison might give us a good idea of what the term should be. Perhaps statistics on how long an item remains in print?

I feel that it should be pointed out that the balance struck as between the natural rights crowd and the anything goes crowd will always screw someone. There will always be the little old crippled widow living off of her late, sainted husbands royalty checks that will lose some income when the copyright royalties cease to come in the mail. But, like any policy issue, dem’s the brakes. This is an issue that must be decided on a statistical scale and not on a discrete one.

back to work,

cj

I’m aware of the practical reasons that patents are handled differently than copyrights by the law.

But you believe that you have a moral ownership over your intellectual output, because you worked so hard at it, right? That it’s unfair for other people to distribute it, build upon it, and profit from it without your permission. In that case, inventors should deserve the very same protections, because surely they work just as hard as photographers.

By your own logic, if you support shorter terms for patents than copyrights, you’re saying inventors don’t deserve the same rights that photographers apparently do.

Because physical property can only be in one person’s possession at a time. If anyone could just grab someone else’s car (or house, clothes, …), there would be chaos. The same is not true of copyright.

That’s pretty harsh. He made that masterpiece in the understanding that he would receive a copyright on it for a certain time. If his copyright can be revoked before it expires, the notion of copyright terms becomes meaningless, and society has broken its promise to the artist.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the proper length of a copyright term, only with shortening the term retroactively.

Some of us happen to be on the giving end, but we’re all on the receiving end. I’ll benefit from your photos entering the public domain just as you’ll benefit from my software.

I assume you want a moral answer, not a legal answer. If that’s the only copy of the painting in existence, then yes, because the only use for a copyright at that point would be to control access to a work that he has already sold in its entirety. He wants to have his cake and eat it too (to coin a phrase :wink: ).

There’s nothing to stop the artist from entering into a contract with the collector and keeping the distribution rights for himself, though.