3 ms·
I'm not am artist and have only created software for hire so I guess my opinion is just that - opinion. And probably not worth as much as someone in the industr
by smhenderson 10y ago
I'm not am artist and have only created software for hire so I guess my opinion is just that - opinion. And probably not worth as much as someone in the industry. But here goes...
I believe the original copyright term put into our constitution is reasonable. Fourteen years should be enough for an artist to publish, promote and reap the benefits before a work is released to the world for others to build on and enjoy.
And with the way things move so quickly these days fourteen years seems more reasonable than ever.
But I've heard arguments for varying copyright terms for different types of works, e.g. software, which changes very rapidly, only getting seven to ten years, movies, which ideally stand the test of time getting longer than fourteen years and music falling somewhere in the middle.
I'm open to persuasion on the topic I guess. But when I said "decades" in my OP I meant just that. I really don't see it as justifiable that people get continuously paid for something twenty, thirty, seventy-five years later.
I also don't believe copyright older than fourteen years should be inherited. I see nothing that society gains when the children and grand children of an artist not only get paid long after a work was created but in a lot of cases actively cause copyright to be extended over and over to the detriment of society. Not to mention the nasty disputes that arise between heirs that do nothing by end up tarnishing the original artist's good name and deeds. (E.g. Frank Zappa [1])
Finally, let's face it, this Spinal Tap story is not unique. Artists may get small residuals for things that are older than I'm comfortable with but that's a much lesser concern for me than companies reaping the rewards for things that have outlived the creators by decades. Extreme examples being Mickey Mouse and Happy Birthday.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-name-just-ask-frank-zappas-feuding-heirs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-...
- panglott 10y agoWhether something can be inherited by your children is an intrinsic part of its value and the incentives of the producers. Say you have an elderly novelist that is concerned for his wife's income after his death, and is pondering whether to finish and release a draft novel. If that copyright couldn't be inherited by his wife, his incentive would be to find some other money-making activity rather than finish the novel. I also think that artistic works should have a finite time limit (rather than author's life + x), but I think on the order of about 40-50 years. OTOH, a patent term of 20 years seems to work really well.
- smhenderson 10y agoPaul, appreciate the debate but I think we've beat this enough... Fair enough, you think copyright should be a few decades longer than me and that its ok to pass said rights on to heirs. Got it! I guess what most of us agree on in this discussion is that copyright law could use at least some reform given copyrights in some cases have been extended by over a hundred years.