Should copyrights die with the author?

[Dream Theater]

The rights to such books as "Lord of the Rings" remain intact even after 30 years after Tolkien's death. Shouldn't copyrights expire before then?

[revtroy]

I don't think so. I tend to agree with Samuel Clements who argued that if someone can pass down the results of his life's work to his heirs if it were in other forms he should be able to do so with his creative work. It is rare that creative work provides any significant income, and devoting one's life to it often means hardships for one's family. To cut off copyright at the end of the creator's life shifts any income the spouse, children, or causes of the creator to those who sell the work.

I also think that literary estates should not be passed down forever. I don't know what the maximum for renewals should be, but it should be generous--a good long lifespan for children, or enough for heirs or a non-profit foundation to have a good start. More than a few decades, less than a century. However, I'd limit the types of claims and the amounts of damages that can be granted much sooner. Sort of phase them out of copyright, rather than all-or-nothing.

[Dream Theater]

I don't see why children should benefit directly from what their parents did thirty years ago. The Tolkien family and their publishers monopolize on JRRT's ideas. This stifles innovation and limits the number of projects one can develop as a sidetrack.

Copyrights are taken too far, in my opinion. Suing fan fiction authors is absolutely atrocious.

[revtroy]

I don't see why children should benefit directly from what their parents did thirty years ago.If that were a general principal of law, I'd also agree when it came to copyrights.

The Tolkien family and their publishers monopolize on JRRT's ideas. This stifles innovation and limits the number of projects one can develop as a sidetrack. I agree that this protectionism often goes too far. But, considering the truly vast amounts of Tolkien inspired material not subject to copyright, such as much of the fantasy fiction genre, I have a hard time believing that it stifles innovation. People can always go back to Tolkien's sources of inspiration, which they have done in many cases.

Copyrights are taken too far, in my opinion. Suing fan fiction authors is absolutely atrocious.This I agree about. That's one reason why I'd have different levels of copyright. One to protect a living creator from things that impact upon his/her livelihood. A lesser form that would protect the work from reproduction and for-profit use for a time. Then, just covering reproduction for the remaining period.

The current state of copyright law has little to do with protecting creators, but are about making money for corporations. Some make their main profits by suing over copyright violations that are far beyond the scope of the original concept and purpose of such laws. I'd exclude them from holding creator copyrights, but let them keep the lesser forms.

[jonny]

The rights to such books as "Lord of the Rings" remain intact even after 30 years after Tolkien's death. Shouldn't copyrights expire before then?

I'm not sure about the timeline, but I do know that they expire eventually. I think it's around 70 years or so. I had to make a CD of classical music for work, and we didn't have to buy the rights to use music that is older than around WWII - we just had to get permission to use the recording.

[Slatka]

I believe an author should, of course, have full copyrights for the duration of his life. Upon his death, those copyrights should be relaxed. Whoever the author leaves those copyrights to should simply receive royalties on any for-profit use of the copyrighted materials. There should be exceptions - in my country, for example, an author's work can be declared a National Historic Landmark (Movable Property). These declarations should provide copyrights as strong as those that currently exist in the United States today.

[wh44]

I think that copyright should survive the author: imagine the case of an author supporting his family, who dies relatively young (e.g. Douglas Adams) - it would leave his family with no source of income when they need it most. On the other side, I don't believe in overly long copyright either. I'm a fan of the original American copyright: 17 years renewable once to 34 years.

[jonny]

What about copyrights owned by organizations? Are you saying that after 34 years, anyone should have the right to copy and distribute a book or movie (for example). I thought the 17 years applied to patents. Was that originally for copyrights also?

[wh44]

What about copyrights owned by organizations? Are you saying that after 34 years, anyone should have the right to copy and distribute a book or movie (for example). I thought the 17 years applied to patents. Was that originally for copyrights also?
Whoops! Remembered it wrong: it was 28 years for an initial grant, with one renewal possible. And yes, especially copyrights owned by organizations. If you want to trademark something, like Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse, that's something else, but copyright should expire. Or do you think Disney should still be earning on the original "Snow White" movie? Should they still be earning in another 100 years, too? Still charging people to use clips from it?

[Nettiemac]

I would have to check with kiwimac (a trained and qualified librarian) but I think copyright law in NZ is for 50 years past the death of the author.

This feels right to me. But corporations having copyrights to books feels wrong. How can a corporation write a book for public consumption? Or am I missing something.

[Dream Theater]

The author sells off his or her rights; it used to be your contract would have nothing more than basic rights around the publishing and distribution of paperbacks and hardbacks, but now publishers expect everything to be included: video, name, etc. More $$$ for them, less for the author. I think after the author has died - at the bare minimum - most copyright protections should be gone.

I also think all non-profit work shouldn't be liable. Youtube spoofs and fan fiction are not going to hurt.

[Vex]

How much do we really need artistic copyrights to expire at all? It's one thing if it's a patent, but an artistic idea - are our lives really going to be bettered by unapproved LotR fanfiction being sold at our bookstores?

For the record, I'm totally against the way copyright law is currently set up - it was essentially written by the Disney corporation, so their current executive board could live off the profits of movies made 70 years ago. Mickey Mouse is now 80 years old, and he wasn't even created by Walt Disney.

[Dream Theater]

How much do we really need artistic copyrights to expire at all? It's one thing if it's a patent, but an artistic idea - are our lives really going to be bettered by unapproved LotR fanfiction being sold at our bookstores?Look at classics. They tend to be cheaper and you can find practically a dozen different versions in the bookstore alone.

Mickey Mouse is protected by a trademark, although Disney tries to pass it off as a copyright.

[Krashlocke]

No.

Intellectual property belongs to whoever legally paid for it - not the creator. You don't lose the ownership of an original painting after its creator dies. When you write a book or sing a song and sell the rights to a publisher, it's just as a painter sells the rights to his painting. In truth, it's rather remarkable that copyrights expire at all.

On a related note I do like the more extensive and useful Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) copyright system. It gives the owner more control over how the material can be used as opposed to the all or nothing that tends to go along with "all rights reserved."

[Krashlocke]

How much do we really need artistic copyrights to expire at all? It's one thing if it's a patent, but an artistic idea - are our lives really going to be bettered by unapproved LotR fanfiction being sold at our bookstores?

For the record, I'm totally against the way copyright law is currently set up - it was essentially written by the Disney corporation, so their current executive board could live off the profits of movies made 70 years ago. Mickey Mouse is now 80 years old, and he wasn't even created by Walt Disney.

:yeahthat:

Maybe I should have read the second page before I posted. :D

[Dream Theater]

You don't lose the ownership of an original painting after its creator dies.Uh, maybe not the original, but you can freely replicate the Mona Lisa. If I take a picture of your painting, should I be sued for distributing the photos? It's my camera.

When you write a book or sing a song and sell the rights to a publisher, it's just as a painter sells the rights to his painting. In truth, it's rather remarkable that copyrights expire at all.That's ridiculous. You're just creating monopolies. The accumulative effort of one person shouldn't go to benefit a company fifty years after the fact. Copyrights are social constructs meant to help artisans; what you're talking about helps people who had no contribution to the work.

I should also mention that what you're talking about is a "private property contract," but private property derives from social will. Just because I sell away my rights as a person for some bread doesn't mean the state has to uphold my decision.

[wh44]

How much do we really need artistic copyrights to expire at all? It's one thing if it's a patent, but an artistic idea - are our lives really going to be bettered by unapproved LotR fanfiction being sold at our bookstores?

For the record, I'm totally against the way copyright law is currently set up - it was essentially written by the Disney corporation, so their current executive board could live off the profits of movies made 70 years ago. Mickey Mouse is now 80 years old, and he wasn't even created by Walt Disney.
Hmmm - I'm not clear on how you think non-expiring copyrights isn't going to give Disney et al. even more power. Care to explain how that should work?

On the other front: maybe not LotR fanfic :p , but I've read some really good Star Trek and other fanfic. There's also the issue of software copyrights (I'm a programmer).

[wh44]

Dream Theater: What do you say to the case of the author supporting a family who dies young? Under your proposal, the family be cut off with no support. Is that fair?

[Nettiemac]

On the other front: maybe not LotR fanfic :p , but I've read some really good Star Trek and other fanfic. There's also the issue of software copyrights (I'm a programmer).

I have also seen the copyright issue raised in the area of sewing patterns. Vogue in particular is coming down very heavy on people who swap patterns, or who make more than one outfit from a pattern, especially if the pattern is used for more than one person (eg, to outfit a bridal party). They seem to feel that you should buy a new pattern every time you want to use one. Hmm. I know this is extreme, but it has happened. I think this is wrong of the pattern companies, and I can see book publishers and other corportions going the same way. In fact, think Microsoft.

[Dream Theater]

Dream Theater: What do you say to the case of the author supporting a family who dies young? Under your proposal, the family be cut off with no support. Is that fair?

In any other job you dying young means an end to $$ regardless of what kids need. I'm speaking as an aspiring author when I say copyrights are at best a necessary evil.

[revtroy]

Dream Theater: What do you say to the case of the author supporting a family who dies young? Under your proposal, the family be cut off with no support. Is that fair?

In any other job you dying young means an end to $$ regardless of what kids need. I'm speaking as an aspiring author when I say copyrights are at best a necessary evil. It is a mater of analogy. Your analogy of a job is incorrect. Unless the author is being paid to create, in which case the author does not own the copyright, the one paying does.

A better analogy is starting a business, improving land such as a farmstead, or constructing a building. In each of these cases the creator/improver undertakes the risks involved, works without a guarantee of a return for that work, and failure is more common than success. None of these things simply become common property when the owner dies.

Humans tend not to confiscate all the property someone owned when they die, kick their family out, and let anyone else take it home or move in. If we did, then it would make sense to do so with copyrights.

[Dream Theater]

Unless the author is being paid to create, in which case the author does not own the copyright, the one paying does.Rarely does a successful author own his or her own copyrights (in the contemporary world it's probably a .01% chance), so yes my comparison does stick.

A better analogy is starting a business, improving land such as a farmstead, or constructing a building. In each of these cases the creator/improver undertakes the risks involved, works without a guarantee of a return for that work, and failure is more common than success. None of these things simply become common property when the owner dies.Who says they shouldn't? Inheritance is based off of a subjective belief that a certain type of biology (family) comes before other forms (friendship, romantic love).

And why are we comparing ideas to physical objects. Do you believe one can own ideas? :scratchchin:

Humans tend not to confiscate all the property someone owned when they die, kick their family out, and let anyone else take it home or move in. If we did, then it would make sense to do so with copyrights.Unless you think "ownership rights" are illegitimate and "use rights" are legitimate...

[revtroy]

Unless the author is being paid to create, in which case the author does not own the copyright, the one paying does.Rarely does a successful author own his or her own copyrights (in the contemporary world it's probably a .01% chance), so yes my comparison does stick.This is not my understanding. I would need to see some data on this.

A better analogy is starting a business, improving land such as a farmstead, or constructing a building. In each of these cases the creator/improver undertakes the risks involved, works without a guarantee of a return for that work, and failure is more common than success. None of these things simply become common property when the owner dies.Who says they shouldn't? Inheritance is based off of a subjective belief that a certain type of biology (family) comes before other forms (friendship, romantic love). This is another matter entirely. As I have repeatedly said, if this were the general case copyright should follow suit. These things move from the general to the particular.

And why are we comparing ideas to physical objects. Do you believe one can own ideas? :scratchchin:No, we are not talking about ideas. Copyright assumes by its name and nature that we are talking about something that is reproducible in an objective form--copying. Ideas as such cannot be copyright protected.

Humans tend not to confiscate all the property someone owned when they die, kick their family out, and let anyone else take it home or move in. If we did, then it would make sense to do so with copyrights.Unless you think "ownership rights" are illegitimate and "use rights" are legitimate... The specific principle, copyright, follows from the general principle, ownership of property. Whatever we may think about it, it is the state of things and the guiding legal principle involved.

[Vex]

Hmmm - I'm not clear on how you think non-expiring copyrights isn't going to give Disney et al. even more power. Care to explain how that should work?I'm not in favor of non-expiring copyrights. I don't think your copyright should even last you your whole life - come up with some new ideas, already.

But on the other hand, my point is, in terms of cartoons, does it really matter?

There's also the issue of software copyrights (I'm a programmer).Well, with these, I think, it's imperative that they be protected - imo, with more regards to the actual creator than the funding company. But it should still expire, so new ideas and improvements can be made by other people.

[wh44]

How much do we really need artistic copyrights to expire at all? ...
This is what confused me - it sounded like you were arguing for copyrights not expiring.

I generally agree that copyrights need to be short to allow continued innovation. The shorter, the better for most people. This needs to be balanced against the need to motivate people to do creative work, which then includes profit and control issues.

[jonny]

What about copyrights owned by organizations? Are you saying that after 34 years, anyone should have the right to copy and distribute a book or movie (for example). I thought the 17 years applied to patents. Was that originally for copyrights also?
Whoops! Remembered it wrong: it was 28 years for an initial grant, with one renewal possible. And yes, especially copyrights owned by organizations. If you want to trademark something, like Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse, that's something else, but copyright should expire. Or do you think Disney should still be earning on the original "Snow White" movie? Should they still be earning in another 100 years, too? Still charging people to use clips from it?

There are fair use laws that allow people to use clips for free for certain purposes. And yes, if people are making money off Snow White in 100 years, it should be Disney.

[Dream Theater]

This is not my understanding. I would need to see some data on this.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/points.html

The publisher's contract will almost always seek to obtain all rights to the book.

Copyright assumes by its name and nature that we are talking about something that is reproducible in an objective form--copying. Ideas as such cannot be copyright protected.

That's a very subjective statement.

[Vex]

There are fair use laws that allow people to use clips for free for certain purposes. And yes, if people are making money off Snow White in 100 years, it should be Disney.Why? No one working at Disney now had anything to do with Snow White. As far as I know, no one who worked on Snow White is even still alive.

[Krashlocke]

There are fair use laws that allow people to use clips for free for certain purposes. And yes, if people are making money off Snow White in 100 years, it should be Disney.Why? No one working at Disney now had anything to do with Snow White. As far as I know, no one who worked on Snow White is even still alive.

To be fair, there is one entity that worked on the animated film, Snow White, that is still alive: The Walt Disney Company. While not a person in a biological sense, a corporation is a person is a very legally binding sense. It pays taxes, is civilly liable, and can own property - including intellectual property.

That said, I think that vague corporate rights are the crux of this matter, since many of the copyrights are owned by corporations rather than individuals (including the author). Corporations have only retained this sort of status and ease of creation for about one hundred years, now. Due to their power and inability to face individual criminal prosecution (though civil prosecution is still possible), they have certain protections that individuals lack while retaining all of the benefits. As with the case of the Walt Disney Company and others, it has been pointed out that rarely does the author own the copyright, but rather some sort of publishing entity.

Not to hijack the thread, but I think that the better question is, what are the rights of a corporation with regards to intellectual property? Obviously corporations lack the ability to die, so should there be an arbitrary expiration or can a corporation continue to sell the rights to another corporation upon its dismantlement with no limits?

Again, I will return to the analogy of a painting. If we can own a piece of original art and sell it as we see fit, why does music, film, or literature
have exemption to this? All are essentially nothing more than ideas - which we have to be able to own in a capitalist society or else the writer might leave them to private discourse, the artist may leave them to imagination, and the director to his own daydreams. It's the promise of a possible monetary reward that gives artists the ability to create (in lieu of performing other work) and encourages them to do so. The exchange of ideas in the open market is remarkable, because it allows for copies to be made and distributed to multiple recipients and the economic reward for the creator (or for the copyright holder who adds value to the creator's content either through the infusion of investment capital for an expensive project or by adding distribution avenues) is directly proportional to how valuable the recipients believe it to be.

[jonny]

There are fair use laws that allow people to use clips for free for certain purposes. And yes, if people are making money off Snow White in 100 years, it should be Disney.Why? No one working at Disney now had anything to do with Snow White. As far as I know, no one who worked on Snow White is even still alive.

Because the company invested its money into the film. The reason it is called an investment is because you're supposed to be able to make money on it in the future. In any case, the employees don't own Snow White or the company. The shareholders do.

[Dream Theater]

Investments only occupy what the law determines. That's true for both copyrights and patents.

[Vex]

To be fair, there is one entity that worked on the animated film, Snow White, that is still alive: The Walt Disney Company. While not a person in a biological sense, a corporation is a person is a very legally binding sense. It pays taxes, is civilly liable, and can own property - including intellectual property...I'm aware, and that's really messed up.

[jonny]

To be fair, there is one entity that worked on the animated film, Snow White, that is still alive: The Walt Disney Company. While not a person in a biological sense, a corporation is a person is a very legally binding sense. It pays taxes, is civilly liable, and can own property - including intellectual property...I'm aware, and that's really messed up.

Not really. Can you imagine how little investment there would be if the investors were personally liable for everything the corporation did? I give you $1000 to do something and you end up losing that $1000 plus creating a lawsuit where I'm now liable for $1,000,000. There's no way that people would be investing their money in corporations like they do today. The corporation being considered a person protects the investors and encourages investment. I'm only risking the amount of money I put into the company.

[Vex]

The reason it is called an investment is because you're supposed to be able to make money on it in the future. In any case, the employees don't own Snow White or the company. The shareholders do.
So the people who should make the most money off an idea are the ones who took the smallest risk and contributed nothing intellectually - if they were alive for the formulation of the idea at all?

[Vex]

Can you imagine how little investment there would be if the investors were personally liable...I think more personal responsibility would be a welcome change.

[jonny]

The reason it is called an investment is because you're supposed to be able to make money on it in the future. In any case, the employees don't own Snow White or the company. The shareholders do.So the people who should make the most money off an idea are the ones who took the smallest risk and contributed nothing intellectually - if they were alive for the formulation of the idea at all?
I'm curious, who do you believe made a bigger risk than the people who invested money into the company? What did they risk and what did they have to lose?

[jonny]

Can you imagine how little investment there would be if the investors were personally liable...I think more personal responsibility would be a welcome change.

Some of these companies have millions of shareholders, many of whom probably don't even know that they own shares in the company because they've purchased them through retirement plans and mutual funds. If these millions of people are going to be held personally and financially liable for the company then you'd better be prepared to have millions of people being involved in every decision that the company makes. If they have everything to lose, they're going to want control.

There's no way that an investor should risk more than what he's willing to invest. You're view of "personal responsibility" means that when a company files for bankruptcy, creditors could start going after the assets of anything the shareholders own - their homes, bank accounts, cars, etc. Can you imagine the chaos of your dream world?

[Krashlocke]

Can you imagine how little investment there would be if the investors were personally liable...I think more personal responsibility would be a welcome change.

Nobody is stopping the formation of sole proprietorships by creative individuals. There must be some reason that they are instead selling their efforts to corporate entities...

...oh, yeah. It's a free market. They can do what they want with it.