7 ms·
I have an idea myself to solve this; Unregistered works, are granted 10 years of protection, then either must be registered or become public domain. For indiv
by Aloha 14y ago
I have an idea myself to solve this;
Unregistered works, are granted 10 years of protection, then either must be registered or become public domain.
For individuals, After registration, Artist Lifetime, then renewal every 5 years thereafter.
For corporate owned/created work, registration good for 30 years, and renewal every 5 years thereafter. Possibly, work must be kept in commercial availability somewhere in the 5 year cycle or you potentially could be challenged for the right to renew.
I like this system because it solves something I see as a serous problem, abandoned works.
- geon 14y agoRegistrations sounds like a bad idea to me. As long as you have the original publication date well documented, any registration should not be neccessary.
- josteink 14y agoBefore Mickey mouse and similar ilk came along, copyright was 7 years. 7. No copyright which includes anyone's lifetime (and most copyrights are held by corporations anyway) can be deemed reasonable in an age where information and culture moves 100s of times faster than it did when the term was 7 years.
- tzs 14y ago> Before Mickey mouse and similar ilk came along, copyright was 7 years. 7. It was 56 years (28 year first term, which could be renewed for a second 28 year term) when Mickey Mouse was created. The shortest it has even been under Federal copyright law in the US was 28 years (14 year first term, renewable for another 14 years) under the Copyright Act of 1790.
- josteink 14y agoThat may be, and if so thanks for correcting me, but I think my point still remains pretty clear. Copyright was granted to benefit the public, arts and sciences. It was not created as a right to profit indefinitely to mega corps.
- anigbrowl 14y agoDude, you owe him an apology. I agree with your point but you made a major factual error and damaged your own standing in doing so. Look it up and correct your mistake rather than resorting to weasel words.
- josteink 14y agoUh. No. I've been entirely civil and I've been open about corrections. What on earth would there be to apologize anyway?
- wpietri 14y agoI think individual copyright is reasonable for one's lifetime. I'd be ticked if somebody used my photos from 10 years ago for profit. Corporate or collective works, though, I agree. I think a 7-year expiration would be fine. I expect that approximately zero investment decisions on new movies or TV shows turn on the money they expect to make in year 8. And even without copyright, modern studios are adept at producing new versions and higher-end editions that would get new 7-year terms.
- darkarmani 14y ago> I think individual copyright is reasonable for one's lifetime. What is individual copyright? It becomes debased if you are saying it cannot be sold to corporations. Lifetime is a ridiculous capricious standard.
- wpietri 14y agoI'm ok with saying it can't be sold. Note that a lot of writers, for example, don't sell copyright outright. They instead license somebody to be, say, the US hardback and paperback publisher for their work. A lifetime standard is only as capricious as life itself. Given that the laws are made to serve human needs, I'm ok with it drawing a distinction between serving living ones and dead ones.
- dredmorbius 14y agoAnd how are we to know who the author of a photograph was, and or when s/he died? Which is, actually, pretty much precisely the issue with a large number of works presently under copyright: their owners cannot be identified and their copyright status not determined. These are the so-called "orphan works".