3 ms·
They could always put their work in the public domain themselves. However I agree that copyright laws are now insane. Apart from the ridiculous length of the te
by incompatible 12y ago
They could always put their work in the public domain themselves. However I agree that copyright laws are now insane. Apart from the ridiculous length of the terms, it can be hard to work out if any particular work is public domain since not all author's death dates are known. I really think that if copyright has any reason to exist at all, then a term of 5 years would be sufficient.
- joepie91_ 12y agoThere's a few issues with that: 1) "Putting in the public domain" isn't actually possible in considerable parts of the world; you'd have to use a license like the CC0 to achieve as such, 2) Dead people can't give out licenses, and 3) Society has largely come to rely on the (mistaken) notion that copyright is a measure for ensuring income for artists, and in return this makes it very, very hard for an artist to break that notion by CC0ing their work, and still gain an income.
- rgbrenner 12y agoAnd why can't they have a license that simply says: "10 years after the publication date, this work will enter the public domain" And in countries where they do not have a concept of public domain, simply change the royalty to 0 after that period of time. Or, simply say, after 10 years, you'll also be permitted to do x, y, z with this work (where x might be redistribution, derivatives, etc). At least in the US, authors have the right to do this today.