5 ms·
David Bowie died two days after his final album was released. Are the people who worked on it, put it out, somehow less entitled to make money because he died?
by kevinmchugh 3y ago
David Bowie died two days after his final album was released. Are the people who worked on it, put it out, somehow less entitled to make money because he died?
It doesn't feel overly specific when the topic is copyright after death to think about how people die.
- realusername 3y agoThere's two solutions here, either they are co-creators and then all the creators aren't dead or they aren't and they were never going to receive additional revenue beyond their work anyway. Either way, that's not working as an argument against stopping copyright when the authors are dead.
- kevinmchugh 3y agoThere's a publisher, who did boring things like pay the cover artist, buy the plastic and vinyl, pay the printer. The record came out, they had a bunch of copies, and then two days later Bowie died. If they're exclusive right to sell they music disappears, they overpaid Bowie.
- realusername 3y agoThe cost of publishing a music online after it's been produced is close to zero nowadays. I could see how that argument was relevant 30 years ago though. And the initial costs are similar to any other non-copyright related work, paid per service.
- kevinmchugh 3y agoBecause the costs to publish online are zero there would be innumerable other copies of the work posted, meaning the initial outlay for the studio time etc cannot be recouped.
- realusername 3y agoIt's exactly like any other work, your plumber doesn't receive royalties whenever you use your bathroom, those costs should be paid upfront.
- kevinmchugh 3y agoYep! The costs to press vinyl and print sleeves and market the work _are_ paid upfront. So cutting off the revenue stream unexpectedly means no more expensive projects for old artists