4 ms·

Agree with these ideas of limits, but I'd also add limits to transfer. It seems where we get into trouble is artists transferring the rights to corporations--w

Agree with these ideas of limits, but I'd also add limits to transfer. It seems where we get into trouble is artists transferring the rights to corporations--which seems okay--but then the corporation can use substantial political power to fight for them forever, long after the artist has expired. You might want something like "until artist dies, or if sold to another party, 10 years for that party." We see the same sort of thing with patent trolls - if all you do is buy up IP and then sue someone, that's not a model that furthers humanity or IP creators.

koolba 8y ago
> You might want something like "until artist dies, or if sold to another party, 10 years for that party." Any law like like that would be circumvented through creative “leasing” of royalties.
- ummonk 8y ago
  It would still only last until the artist dies in that scenario...
  - buboard 8y ago
    the artist would use his baby daughter's name .
ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
Only the person who created a work should get copyright. It shouldn't be transferable at all. Something like: Individual copyright: 25 years or date of death + 10 years. Corporate copyright: 25 years.
- shakna 8y ago
  If it's non-transferrable... a) That +10 years after holder death no longer makes sense b) Corporations would be unable to posses copyright.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    I think intent is pretty clear and legal types could fairly easily turn it into precise enough legislation and find ways to prevent creative evasion. a) Is a clear and simple exception, that permits inheritors to receive proceeds of a work for a limited time. It would prevent the abusive control some estates have over copyright decades after the creator's death. b) Intent seems rather like the clauses for code copyright many of us have had in contracts of employment. IANAL but I'm sure something could be drafted that limits transfers but still allows design companies assigning copyright of the customer's new logo. Perhaps the only transfer can be limited to the first three months after creation or something.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

koolba 8y ago

> You might want something like "until artist dies, or if sold to another party, 10 years for that party." Any law like like that would be circumvented through creative “leasing” of royalties.

ummonk 8y ago
It would still only last until the artist dies in that scenario...
- buboard 8y ago
  the artist would use his baby daughter's name .

ObsoleteNerd 8y ago

Only the person who created a work should get copyright. It shouldn't be transferable at all. Something like: Individual copyright: 25 years or date of death + 10 years. Corporate copyright: 25 years.

shakna 8y ago
If it's non-transferrable... a) That +10 years after holder death no longer makes sense b) Corporations would be unable to posses copyright.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I think intent is pretty clear and legal types could fairly easily turn it into precise enough legislation and find ways to prevent creative evasion. a) Is a clear and simple exception, that permits inheritors to receive proceeds of a work for a limited time. It would prevent the abusive control some estates have over copyright decades after the creator's death. b) Intent seems rather like the clauses for code copyright many of us have had in contracts of employment. IANAL but I'm sure something could be drafted that limits transfers but still allows design companies assigning copyright of the customer's new logo. Perhaps the only transfer can be limited to the first three months after creation or something.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]