4 ms·

Yes and no. It would create some... unfortunate incentives. Take Harry Potter, for example, or Star Wars. End copyright at death of creator might give people s

Yes and no. It would create some... unfortunate incentives. Take Harry Potter, for example, or Star Wars. End copyright at death of creator might give people some ideas on how to deal with ideas of canon. Or take JK Rowling right when HP started to be popular. Who'd profit if she died then? Probably the publishers that are already having the books set, printing and deals with bookstore chains already signed. I don't think "sudden death" should be something that ever enters a business strategy meeting. Or just natural death at that moment would leave her family just as poor, quite obviously contrary to her wishes.

pyuser583 4y ago
How to handle sudden deaths of creative people is a common problem. Nothing morbid about it. When a prominent writer dies, their output should become zero. What’s really morbid is when a writers next of kin keeps finding and editing works long after their death. J.R.R kept publishing new work until his son Christopher died. All of it merely “edited” by Christopher, or course. When a key creative talent dies, there are consequences. I don’t see why eliminating copyright is especially bad.
zzo38computer 4y ago
> End copyright at death of creator might give people some ideas on how to deal with ideas of canon. Problems with canon are possible regardless of copyright, and changing copyright durations does not add or remove these problems. If it is made clear that any changes or new works made due to modified canon are not the work of the original (now dead) author, then this may mitigate some of these problems somewhat. Abolishing copyright makes it easier to improve too, since then if someone thinks they have a better idea (which might or might not be true, but it can be judged by people after it is done, and it is OK if people do not all agree) then they can do it without a lawsuit. (Just, you will have to be clear than these are now new works rather than the original works. The original canon is not to be changed, but you can make up new ones which are based on them.)

pyuser583 4y ago

How to handle sudden deaths of creative people is a common problem. Nothing morbid about it. When a prominent writer dies, their output should become zero. What’s really morbid is when a writers next of kin keeps finding and editing works long after their death. J.R.R kept publishing new work until his son Christopher died. All of it merely “edited” by Christopher, or course. When a key creative talent dies, there are consequences. I don’t see why eliminating copyright is especially bad.

zzo38computer 4y ago

> End copyright at death of creator might give people some ideas on how to deal with ideas of canon. Problems with canon are possible regardless of copyright, and changing copyright durations does not add or remove these problems. If it is made clear that any changes or new works made due to modified canon are not the work of the original (now dead) author, then this may mitigate some of these problems somewhat. Abolishing copyright makes it easier to improve too, since then if someone thinks they have a better idea (which might or might not be true, but it can be judged by people after it is done, and it is OK if people do not all agree) then they can do it without a lawsuit. (Just, you will have to be clear than these are now new works rather than the original works. The original canon is not to be changed, but you can make up new ones which are based on them.)