3 ms·

The 1960s were 50 years ago though — more than half a lifetime. That falls well outside of what I find a reasonable duration for copyright. Even a limit of 30 y

The 1960s were 50 years ago though — more than half a lifetime. That falls well outside of what I find a reasonable duration for copyright. Even a limit of 30 years (or perhaps the historical 14 + 14 years) would mean anything published before the 1980s would already be in the public domain by now. The article hints at the artist simply preferring people to forget some of his older work, and that is his prerogative. But once media takes root in our culture society has its own interests to defend. We would find it really weird to leave out certain works of Shakespeare from a comprehensive omnibus because he wasn't particularly fond of them himself. Copyright should balance the rights of the author and the needs of society; in its current form that balance is lost.

ghaff 10y ago
>We would find it really weird to leave out certain works of Shakespeare from a comprehensive omnibus because he wasn't particularly fond of them himself. I agree up to a point. On the other hand, artists often destroy or leave instructions to have destroyed upon their death all manner of works (unpublished novels, paintings that were never fully finished to the artist's satisfaction) still in their possession that they aren't happy with or don't want to make public for whatever reason. I really hesitate to say that society has some right to those works that override the desires of their creator.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Oh I don't think we disagree there; no one should be able to force someone to publish their works. But an artist (and their estate) shouldn't be able to retroactively banish any of their published works from society simply by holding on to their copyrights. Copyright is a deal made with society; you get to publish your work without fear of anyone else making a profit of it by simply copying your work, but for a limited time. After that it enters the public domain.

ghaff 10y ago

>We would find it really weird to leave out certain works of Shakespeare from a comprehensive omnibus because he wasn't particularly fond of them himself. I agree up to a point. On the other hand, artists often destroy or leave instructions to have destroyed upon their death all manner of works (unpublished novels, paintings that were never fully finished to the artist's satisfaction) still in their possession that they aren't happy with or don't want to make public for whatever reason. I really hesitate to say that society has some right to those works that override the desires of their creator.

Freak_NL 10y ago
Oh I don't think we disagree there; no one should be able to force someone to publish their works. But an artist (and their estate) shouldn't be able to retroactively banish any of their published works from society simply by holding on to their copyrights. Copyright is a deal made with society; you get to publish your work without fear of anyone else making a profit of it by simply copying your work, but for a limited time. After that it enters the public domain.