4 ms·
Covers and remixes are no different than derivative works of books, plays or film. Copyright should be universally applied to all creative works. That said I d
by roc 15y ago
Covers and remixes are no different than derivative works of books, plays or film. Copyright should be universally applied to all creative works.
That said I do like the idea of a potentially staggered coverage. Perhaps 0-X: monopoly. X-Y: compulsory licensing. Y+: attribution
Particularly because music already enjoys compulsory licensing and it seems to work fine. And attribution seems like the right thing to do, regardless of the age of the work.
- frobozz 15y agoI don't mean to claim that covers and remixes are any different, merely that the practice is quite prevalent, meaning that tunes penned by various artists 20-50 years ago are still being heard in the charts today, spurring a resurgence in interest in the original. The same can only be said of a small handful of authors, whose older books lend their names, and occasionally their stories to new films. I also agree that attribution is right regardless of age; but over time, without a central rights management authority, it could be difficult to assign proper attribution, leading to the potential for copyright trolling akin to the kind of patent trolling we see today. Perhaps instead of expiry, there should be a time immemorial for copyright.