3 ms·
You are failing to consider scarcity. For example, if the artist is 70 years and someone is thinking about buying the rights to their work, how long after deat
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
You are failing to consider scarcity.
For example, if the artist is 70 years and someone is thinking about buying the rights to their work, how long after death the work is protected is a big deal.
In this example, if the copyright ended immediately upon the artist's death, then a lot of potential buyers may decide that it is worth it to just wait for the artist to die, and either not make an offer or make a much smaller offer than they would have under the current situation of 70 years after the death of the author.
- mharig 3y agoArtists have to make art, not shovel money.
- londons_explore 3y agoThis is an argument to simply not consider the date of death of an author at all. For example, 70 years since the work was first published seems reasonable. Then most people's descendants will see some revenue from dad's work, and there won't be a sudden cliff date, assuming dad produced works all through his life. An investor who buys the rights no longer has to consider the age and health status of the author while deciding how much the rights are worth.
- kevincox 3y agoI also like excluding the authors lifetime because it makes it easy to determine when works are public. There is no need to track down who the author is, if it has been around for X years it is now public. It gives a definite endtime.
- charles_f 3y agoThat's a fair argument
- BeFlatXIII 3y agoWhy not "the author's natural lifetime or 23 years, whichever is longer"?