4 ms·

How do you handle things without revenue?

• jedberg 5y ago
  Good point. Minimum fee of $100?
  • Zarel 5y ago
    That seems really low. The point of copyright is to incentivize people to create more art, so We The People can experience more art. If you're not going to sell your art, why are we enforcing your rights at all? I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate reason to share your art with all except one person you hate, or to keep it locked where no one can see it, but I am saying that there's no need for Us The People to use our government apparatus to help you with that.
• irrational 5y ago
  From what I understand of OPs rules, it could remain under copyright indefinitely (you don't care if the fee is 100% of your revenue if your revenue is 0).
  • jedberg 5y ago
    Yeah that was a flaw in the system. I updated the rules to have a minimum fee.
• kazinator 5y ago
  Revenue can be used to determine the cap on the actual damages that may be awarded in a successful copyright infringement suit. Moreover, copyright suits should only allow actual damages + cease and desist (copying). Thus, if the work has no proven revenue, and the copyright holder sues someone for infringement, the only remedy they will obtain from the court is an order instructing the defendant to stop the copying. Copyright lawsuits where no actual damages can be awarded wouldn't even go before a judge necessarily. There could be a hearing and some summary decision handed down: you assert the copyright, and the defendant is served the prohibition order. If fees were awarded to the plaintiff, they would be limited to absolutely minimal amounts related to the filing of affidavits and whatnot (documented by receipts from the court registry); the system would not allow some copyright troll to act in collusion with lawyers in order to rack up legal fees to extract from defendants.