2 ms·

Aye, but instead the reality is that copyright can only expire by running out its term. If a company gets acquired, its copyrights get transfered to the new own

Aye, but instead the reality is that copyright can only expire by running out its term. If a company gets acquired, its copyrights get transfered to the new owner. If a company goes out of business, the copyright either gets sold to cover bankrupcy or becomes the property of the people who owned the company. If a person holding a copyright dies, it goes to their heir(s), and finally, if someone dies without heirs, it becomes state property in the US. The only way for a copyright to expire is either by running out its term, or by the current copyright holder voiding it. It's such a great system.

FreshStart 3y ago
Should have a yearly renewal bureaucracy..
- lamontcg 3y ago
  no.
  - FreshStart 3y ago
    We shall meet again, in a year and a day.
- arsome 3y ago
  Not a bad idea - some entity must show legal ownership via chain of custody and make a claim every year, if they can't do so, it becomes public domain with an extra 1 year grace period or something.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  No, it should be non-transferable (but commissionable, so that companies can still own copyright if they paid employees to generate works), have a fixed short term (say, 20 years), and should be voided when the copyright holder expires before the copyright itself expires.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Corporations would love it. Disney isn't going to forget to renew a copyright. Many solo authors or their heirs would.
- hyperman1 3y ago
  Let's go further and tax it. If it's still worth something for you after X years, claim it, but also pay the tax. When calculating piracy damages, use the same value as what you declared as taxable. If you want society to defend your rights, pay for it.
ryoshu 3y ago
I'm pretty sure if a copyright owner dies without heirs the copyright is orphaned, it doesn't become state property in the US. That's the problem. If the work became public domain it would make more sense.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  Then https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87919/does-copyright-no-longer-apply-if-one-cannot-find-the-owner https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87919/does-copyright... should be both surprising, and depressing.
  - toyg 3y ago
    That's the sort of provision that is effectively unenforced, and is hence null in practice. I expect most states do not know whether they own any IP from dissolved companies, nor will they prosecute anyone who "infringes" such rights.
    - TheRealPomax 3y ago
      Ignorance of the law is no defense against prosecution, and any claim that "it's null in practice" is about as bad legal advise as you can give. Even if the company went bust, and the former owners died, and they have no legal heirs, that copyright is STILL active and now lies with the state, whether the state knows that or not. It might be called an orphan work, and it might take a whole lot of digging to discover it's now owned by the state, but it is owned, and they do have the right to prosecute over infringement if someone at any point goes "hang on, we own this, and we can make close to 50% of our annual budget by prosecuting".
DropInIn 3y ago
Hmm... So you're saying the issue is the mere existence of transferability of copyright? Theres a pretty simple way to deal with that isn't there? No reasonable argument can be made that licencing is inadequate to provide compensation, can there?

FreshStart 3y ago

Should have a yearly renewal bureaucracy..

lamontcg 3y ago
no.
- FreshStart 3y ago
  We shall meet again, in a year and a day.
arsome 3y ago
Not a bad idea - some entity must show legal ownership via chain of custody and make a claim every year, if they can't do so, it becomes public domain with an extra 1 year grace period or something.
TheRealPomax 3y ago
No, it should be non-transferable (but commissionable, so that companies can still own copyright if they paid employees to generate works), have a fixed short term (say, 20 years), and should be voided when the copyright holder expires before the copyright itself expires.
ghaff 3y ago
Corporations would love it. Disney isn't going to forget to renew a copyright. Many solo authors or their heirs would.
hyperman1 3y ago
Let's go further and tax it. If it's still worth something for you after X years, claim it, but also pay the tax. When calculating piracy damages, use the same value as what you declared as taxable. If you want society to defend your rights, pay for it.

ryoshu 3y ago

I'm pretty sure if a copyright owner dies without heirs the copyright is orphaned, it doesn't become state property in the US. That's the problem. If the work became public domain it would make more sense.

TheRealPomax 3y ago
Then https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87919/does-copyright-no-longer-apply-if-one-cannot-find-the-owner https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87919/does-copyright... should be both surprising, and depressing.
- toyg 3y ago
  That's the sort of provision that is effectively unenforced, and is hence null in practice. I expect most states do not know whether they own any IP from dissolved companies, nor will they prosecute anyone who "infringes" such rights.
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    Ignorance of the law is no defense against prosecution, and any claim that "it's null in practice" is about as bad legal advise as you can give. Even if the company went bust, and the former owners died, and they have no legal heirs, that copyright is STILL active and now lies with the state, whether the state knows that or not. It might be called an orphan work, and it might take a whole lot of digging to discover it's now owned by the state, but it is owned, and they do have the right to prosecute over infringement if someone at any point goes "hang on, we own this, and we can make close to 50% of our annual budget by prosecuting".

DropInIn 3y ago

Hmm... So you're saying the issue is the mere existence of transferability of copyright? Theres a pretty simple way to deal with that isn't there? No reasonable argument can be made that licencing is inadequate to provide compensation, can there?