3 ms·
I don't really have much of a problem with Mickey Mouse getting an infinite copyright extension. I do, however, have a problem with the fallout to everything e
by derekp7 13y ago
I don't really have much of a problem with Mickey Mouse getting an infinite copyright extension. I do, however, have a problem with the fallout to everything else. What I'd like to see is the following:
First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process.
But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re-registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.
- tunesmith 13y agoSongwriters everywhere would hate this. :-) I speak from the recent experience of trying to register one cd of seven songs, some of which were previously released on my website, some of which weren't, some of which had lyrics previously published, some of which weren't. The email threads with the library of congress on how to properly register, and how to properly amend my previous registrations, are legendary. If a songwriter with 50-100 (or more) songs were given a semi-short registration expiration, they'd never get anything done.
- redblacktree 13y agoWhat if "short" is 28 years?
- derekp7 13y agoWhen I mentioned shorter, I meant shorter than "life of the author plus [bignum] years". My main concern is to figure out how to track down the original author, and also for preservation efforts (esp old films that are rotting away, and no one can archive copies of them legally if the "copyright holder" can't be tracked down, or is unknown). An alternative could be compulsory licensing of unregistered works that are beyond a given age. So that if someone uses it, and no one comes by to claim it is theirs, then all is good. But if a copyright holder shows up (and can prove ownership), then appropriate fees can be transferred at a standard rate.
- rmc 13y agoI support the current "automatic copyright without needing to be registered" system. I think it helps the little guy, and if we switched to a "copyright on registration" system only big professional companies would ensure they dot their i's and cross their t's, the little guy who takes a photo at would probably not register it, and would have no copyright protection.
- derekp7 13y agoI agree completely, but should that copyright last over a hundred years? If you haven't sold that picture in 20 years, why not let it fall into the public domain (assuming you have already published it)? Now if it is unpublished, then it should stay with the author, from a pure privacy standpoint.