4 ms·

Cross-posted from the G+ thread: Regarding limiting copyright to 10 years, and since you brought up ponies, I feel that solves the wrong problem. The issue I s

by grncdr 15y ago

Cross-posted from the G+ thread: Regarding limiting copyright to 10 years, and since you brought up ponies, I feel that solves the wrong problem. The issue I see is that a few large greedy corporations effectively monopolize the copyrights for the vast majority of the nation/worlds creative output, that they then further exploit a corrupt political system to extend those copyrights indefinitely is almost secondary. A thought experiment: make the sales/purchase of copyright ownership illegal. This would still allow an artist or creator to license the right to sell and distribute their work, but leave them unable to lose (legal) control of such distribution. This still allows a lot of room for the mega-corps to profit, but with less outright exploitation of artists than we currently see. Copyrights are held by the creator(s) for life, and works pass into the public domain after death, not the artists estates (or more often, the organization that owns the copyright). I feel this is simple to understand, fair to creators, and still provides business incentives to non-creators to invest time and money in the production and promotion of quality content.

stan_rogers 15y ago
A lot of legitimate copyright ownership depends on the ability to assign copyright. It varies by work and by jurisdiction, but the default copyright holder (by statute) is not always the party it should be. In the US, for instance, a corporation's identity might belong by default to the designer, such that they may be able to register trademarks but be prevented from using them freely without copyright assignment. In Canada, the commissioner, not the creator, of a work holds copyright by default, so contracts of commission for things like portraits and weddings photos usually include a copyright assignment clause. (That's actually an improvement over the previous state of affairs, in which the photographer would have to hire the subject as a model for a nominal fee in one contract, then have another contract for purchase and use of the work.) I suppose you could legislate the general condition, but there will always be edge cases. Unfortunately, allowing for edge cases is going to result in abuse.

by grncdr 15y ago

stan_rogers 15y ago

A lot of legitimate copyright ownership depends on the ability to assign copyright. It varies by work and by jurisdiction, but the default copyright holder (by statute) is not always the party it should be. In the US, for instance, a corporation's identity might belong by default to the designer, such that they may be able to register trademarks but be prevented from using them freely without copyright assignment. In Canada, the commissioner, not the creator, of a work holds copyright by default, so contracts of commission for things like portraits and weddings photos usually include a copyright assignment clause. (That's actually an improvement over the previous state of affairs, in which the photographer would have to hire the subject as a model for a nominal fee in one contract, then have another contract for purchase and use of the work.) I suppose you could legislate the general condition, but there will always be edge cases. Unfortunately, allowing for edge cases is going to result in abuse.