3 ms·

I would go with 10-20 years after last "use". That is to say your copyright is extended as long as you keep producing new derivative works but once it stops be

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  Copyright owners notoriously work around “use it or lose it” clauses (common in rights contracts) already, adding one to the law will just prompt junk works to extend copyright. A better idea, IMO, is just to have a limited free copyright period (say, 30 years) and beyond tha copyright owners pay an annual ad valorem tax at a rate which increases over time (time holding the copyright past the 30 year mark, specifically, so someone with a 31 year old copyright in 2053 would pay the same rate as someone with a 31 year old copyright in 2075, but the former would be paying more in 2075 than the latter) on the declared value of the copyright, with the caveat that: (1) the declared value constitutes acceptance of that valuation as fair compensation for purposes of eminent domain, and (2) a list of all works with such a declaration, and their declared value, will be published, with the work itself available for inspection (deposit requirement being mandatory for extended copyright), and (3) any person may, by paying the declared value plus a fixed administrative surcharge to the Copyright Office, trigger the government exercise of eminent domain to purchase the work into the public domain. The tax assures that if it's not driving new work it comes into the public domain, the public domain purchase option and public right of exercise safeguard against underrating the value and provide a way to pull works into the public domain if there is a constituency which sees sufficient value for it.