a perennial favorite topic of debate. sound off in the replies.
I’ve mentioned this before here, but my stance is 20 years flat for a work owned by a corporation, and life for works owned by an individual.
Yeah that seems pretty reasonable to me. Was pissed off when the government here sneakily extended copyright length from 50 to 70 years as part of a trade deal with the UK a year or two ago - even 50 years was far too long IMO!
That’s interesting. Where is here for you? Was that term something pushed by the UK?
Not sure if this person is in the same place but Aotearoa NZ recently extended copyright from 50 to 70 years after death due to a UK trade deal, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK have pushed it. We’ve recently fast-tracked the change due to an EU trade deal, though, so it’s not the UK alone.
Yep that’s the one, turns out I misremembered the exact lengths, cheers for letting me know!
This sounds perfect
Then you just have companies transfer ownership of their IPs to some notable figure in the company and transfers away from them when they die/leave. leading to indefinite ownership of copyrights by a company. This is even longer copyright than what we have today.
So just make it nontransferable.
I honestly really like this idea. I would’ve been a fan of the model where copyright just outright can’t be transferred from actual creators to a company, but that creates massive problems for collaborative works that don’t have a single one creator. This model of giving individual creators lifelong copyright nicely addresses that problem.
why lifetime copyright ownership for individuals?
Mostly, I felt it was important to discourage IP ownership by corps by making the individual term much longer. I’m open to making it shorter, but still considerably longer than that of corporations. An individual isn’t going to be able to harm infringers the way that, say, Nintendo can, and does.
As a published author, I’m glad copyright existed. Without it, none of my publishers would have been in business and I would have had to find some other income source. But I think the default should be “public domain” rather than “copyright”, and I’m skeptical of allowing corporations to own the copyright to individuals’ works.
Do you think that those publishers would be significantly worse off if the copyright length was, say, 20-40 years rather than the 70 years used by most of the western world nowadays?
Well, most of my work was programming books, so honestly a 5 year copyright term would have been plenty. But the internet put most of those publishers out of business anyhow.
Outside of my own special case, I don’t have really strong opinions on the term.
I’m fine with copyright, but it should end when the author dies instead of extending x years after the death. But patents should be limited to a few years after product release and the loopholes closed. Right now some patents can be extened infinitely.
I agree although I would continue it for a spouse or living children under age 18. Also only human persons should be legally able to hold copyrights.
I think that’s how it originally was until Disney realized they were gonna lose Mickey Mouse after Walt Disney died and single handedly got copyright law rewritten in their favor.
Copyright Act of 1790
Term of 14 years
Renewal of 14 yearsCopyright Act of 1831
Term extended to 28 years
Renewal of 14 yearsCopyright Act of 1909
Term of 28 years
Renewal extended to 28 yearsCopyright Act of 1976
Life of the author, plus 50 years (generally)
75 years from date of publication or 120 years from date of creation (anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire)Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (1998)
Life of the author, plus 70 years (generally)
95 years from date of publication or 120 years from date of creation (anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire)Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (1998) is what Disney was able to lobby for to extend the life of Mickey for another 20 years. It expires in 2024. But trademark will still be valid.
Sounds like they had a hand in the one in the 70s as well. https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/how-disney-routinely-exerted-influence-on-the-us-copyright-law-to-keep-its-greatest-asset-mickey-mouse-549141 But yeah not quite as cut and dry as I initially put it.
My biggest frustration with copyright is in situations when the item is out of print or rights owned by an entity that has dissolved. There really should be a way to republish such works without waiting many decades for it to be in public domain.
I think – copyright should apply to humans only and be non-transferable from the original artist except in cases of death. Grant copyright to individuals or joint copyright with groups with fractional right for 7 years if the work is distributed, 1 year if not. Legal entities cannot own any copyright at all.
Legal entities cannot own any copyright at all
Never hear about this idea until now, but I think this is the most logical. Copyright applys to humans, and original authors, and should not be transferable.
If you wrote the song, or book, it is yours. That’s it, no one else can be owner of it.
I think somewhere in the ballpark of 10-20 years is probably enough to reward creators. Anything significantly longer than that, and it just incentivizes them to milk their creations forever, and punishes other creators who might otherwise make novel derivative works.
I am also of the belief that intellectual property in general (copyrights and patents) should be subject to eminent domain in the same way that physical private property is, i.e. it should be possible to force the creator to sell it to the public (with fair compensation) in cases where it would be an invaluable public good.
Yes, copyright and should exist, but only for about ten years, which should be enough time to get rich off it. Afterwards you can just come up with new ideas.
Ya copyright that lasts longer than 10 years likely stifles innovation because the people who have experience in the industry and the capital / resources just stick with making the same thing instead of improving it.
Thinking about it in terms of other industries shows some of the issues with copyright. I get that the protection is probably necessary since there is value in the content that’s higher than simply the marginal cost of replicating it. I don’t think a person should be able to do something once and get a lifetimes income from it though, and I’m definitely opposed to things like large producers giving the talent shitty contracts that funnels the profits to the production company and bypassing the actual actors, writers, crew, etc…
10 years probably sounds about right. I’d also like it to be more liberal about exceptions like personal/private use, non-commercial use, educational use, journalistic use, etc… One big issue for some kinds of small media is if they use a clip from a big name bit of content the filters on many media sites will pull it down. While there’s an appeal process to claim it as news media or similar exemption, and get the media content returned the timeframe to process this often means things like news coverage lose out on the monetization because week old news type coverage isn’t very valuable. Similar things can happen with things like a home video where there’s copyright content playing in the background, even if it’s just incidental to the intended content of the video.
I’m also okay with some kind of renewal options. This would be things like if a content producer remasters something like re-releasing a movie in HD, then 4K then HDR, or remastering a video game for a current-gen console, then the clock can start over on the remastered content, while the previous release would still roll-over into public domain.
Long live copyleft
username checks out
Fun topic! Copyrights have their place in society even now. However, I say it should be a fixed 20 to 30 years MAXIMUM. That should be enough time for people to commercialize and profit for the original creator or organization. Anything beyond that just starts getting ridiculous.
I don’t have a clear answer, but it’s really interesting to look at places like Shenzhen in China where copyright is largely ignored. The tech industry there is booming with competition, and good ideas are adopted (or stolen depending on how you look at it) quickly between products. In many ways it seems better for the consumer.
Edit: I might be muddying the waters here between copyright and patents, but it seemed relevant to bring up anyway given the discussion of capitalism.
I think we need to separate copyright, patents, and trademarks.
Trademarks are obviously useful and helps the consumer distinguish between products.
Patents incentivize the sharing of novel technology by granting short term monopolies. But many patent systems around the world are largely besieged by trolls. IMO, patents should be tied to intent to manufacture. If you don’t, it should expire sooner. Your example about shenzhen tech scene is mostly around this issue of patents.
Copyright on the other hand, is intended to allow artists to gain monetary rewards from their work. This one is probably the most complex especially in the age of AI. I don’t have good thoughts there, as there are so many edge cases. I definitely agree the length of copyright is way too long.
This is a very good point, trademarks are pretty much identity theft protection for things other than individuals and that’s pretty important to have.
Copyright and patents… lately, I’m feeling like the world is just kicking and screaming against the single most beneficial aspect of digital technology, the ability to freely copy information. If the ability to freely copy information makes something unprofitable, honestly, I believe the importance of not nerfing that benefit comes first. It would be better than the cyberpunk DRM hellhole we’ve created for ourselves.
How about an annual renewal fee that increases exponentially over time? The mouse can afford it.
Payable to whom?
Society. That is how taxes work.
The US government?
Each country has it’s own copyright office. So you would need to pay in each of them where your work is distributed. They are just enforced almost globaly as majority of countries signed an agrement to recognize them.
Each jurisdiction in which it has protection
As a hobby artist, I think copyright should exist to protect individual artists commercial rights. Whether I sell my work or not, should be up to me. On the other hand, we should not punish people for finding inspiration in other people’s works or using them as wallpapers, and usually we don’t.
It should not be legal for H&M to scrape Artstation or Deviantart for images to print on their T-shirts, not even if 20 years have passed since it was posted. If they want to use an image, they should have to contact the artist and get permission first.
I think works owned by corporations is a different beast. Corporations should also be allowed to profit of their works, but I don’t think they should be able to hold copyrights as a default. Copyright should protect those who make art, not those who commission art.
It was created to protect individual artists commercial rights. But at this point, it’s rent-seeking. Corporations who own copyrighted works long after the death of an artist/writer/musician and the sale of the asset by the heirs benefits nobody but the mega-corps who have the power to brutally enforce them.
Society does not benefit by this.
Surely there has to be a better way to encourage and reward creative people. In truth, how many truly prosper by their works? A handful. It’s much more common to create something in service of a corporation, who then immediately owns the rights to it.
If only artists could hold copyrights to their works, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Corporations are usually not the ones who create art, they just hire people who do. If Disney spends an astronomical amount on money on hiring artists and producing a work, there should be a separate set of laws that protects them from someone sweeping in and stealing the franchise or the product. It shouldn’t be down to copyright-laws, because Disney isn’t an artist.
Copyright also grants the right to opt out of the commercialization of your work. Even if you really like a painting I have done, you should not have the right to demand that I or someone else sell prints of it. If I instead want to just keep it on my Instagram profile, in my attic or hanging on the walls of a gallery, I should be free to do so.
If you make something public people have the right to look at it and to get inspired by it, but I don’t think it’s unfair to ask that the artist retains the commercial rights to it.
It’s a good idea to know the history of US copyright before answering this question.
As far as my answer, maybe 10 years. Even then, all content is remixed and remastered, so I don’t really see a point to copyrights at all. Anything that relies on copyright are a part of incredibly incredibly oversaturated industries, so people should just make what they are passionate about, and not worry about whether some dude decides to rip it off to create some other thing. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all. Jazz musicians certainly don’t give a shit, and people have been stealing the Amen Break for decades.
People are too damn concerned over trying to be rich and famous from whatever idea they foolishly think is unique. Every melody has essentially already been created, and if it hasn’t, then AI and LLMs will take care of the rest. Create art because you like to create art.
The problem is the work-to-live death spiral. Install UBI and abolish copyright.
You might find this interesting, then: https://youtu.be/sfXn_ecH5Rw
Related TED Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJtm0MoOgiU
Copyright is essential. Without it, it would be nearly impossible for most creators to make a profit or even recoup their investment. Some other companies would just reproduce the finished good and sell it for less due to having fewer expenses. And while some may argue “people who want to support the creator will buy the official source” but the point is, without copyright, it will be almost impossible to know what is the official version and what isn’t.
For example, books. The official first release has to pay for the time the author spent writing the book, it has to pay for the editors working on it, they have to pay for an artist to create cover art or any other illustrations used, they have to pay for advertisements, and finally the distribution. Someone else can just copy the finished work and then just have to pay for distribution. A person buying the book would have no chance of knowing which book is the original one because the books are identical. If Trademarks are still a thing there might be a different company name on the book but it would take a lot of effort for consumers to figure out which is the original.
Same with any kind of software. Someone has to pay for the time spent by the programmers, the designers, the person coming up with the ideas, and all other people involved in getting the program finished. Without copyright, someone else can just create a somewhat official-looking site and sell the product for slightly less. Mark it “On-Sale” and people wouldn’t even be able to tell from the price whether the product is “official” or not.
We can get rid of copyright once the need for work is eliminated. If all of our basic needs are taken care of regardless of what we do, then creating art can entirely turn into something done out of passion. It could be achieved by implementing a UBI or however else the need for work/money is eliminated.
I agree that the current time of 70 years or the life of the author+70 years is too long and unnecessary though. A reduction to 20-30 years should be sufficient. Especially since trademark law can extend that. I don’t think the moral argument of an author having control over how their creation is supposed to be used holds up.
deleted by creator
