About This Site
Interesting Links
Recent Comments
Not a story particularly relevant in the UK at this time, but deeply distressing nonetheless as what the USA does the UK eventually follows. But the seemingly perpetual continued extention of copyright is a worrying trend, as it means that (essentially) nothing significant will enter the public domain due to a lapsed copyright. As long as somebody is making a few pounds 70 years after the death of the original creator, other obscure but (possibly) valuable works continue to languish, forgotten, trapped by copyright jail (even if the original creator left no descendents or tracble family). It's such a tragic, short-sighted waste.
It seems to me that the biggest problem behind copyright extension is that it is handled in a one-size fits all system that means that if one piece of work falls into the public domain after a certain amount of time, all pieces of work fall into the public domain after a certain amount of time. It is a non-negotiable proposition, unless you happen to be Disney and can pay off the appropriate people to increase its duration.
Obviously, this is detrimental to the amount of material entering the public domain, especially when you consider quite how much material that encompasses.
Yet, the grasp of copyright is only being increased to protect certain, individual pieces of material from ever entering the public domain.
Which is really short-sighted, as I'm sure most people would agree.
If you applied a system such that all pieces of work fall into the public domain after say, 50 years, but the copyright owner is granted the ability to extend the copyright license based on a scheme of graduated taxation (or some other significant fee, for example) for a period of time on an individual property then, in my opinion, a better system emerges.
In the case of "The Mouse", Disney Corporation would pay a fee that guarantees protection beyond the standard copyright terms, but other, less high-profile (and uneconomic) works get released into the wild. As time goes on, it may become uneconomical to continue to extend the license, and so that property would enter the public domain.
I realise that in an ideal world, copyrights would expire and that would be that. But this isn't the world we live in. Any taxation raised in doing this could be fed back into restoring/preserving original work that has expired. As well as buying bombs and votes and suchlike, but I digress. ;-)
It's a compromise and a kludge, but it might just work?
That's a pretty good suggestion imho. I too am all for a system without extensions of copyright, because if nothing else it would spur the corporates to concentrate on creating quality new product instead of rehashing the old (102 Dalmations anyone?). Your suggestion sounds like an OK compromise.
On the other hand I can see people arguing that such a system would only benefit copyright holders with money, while those without resources lose their works to the collective commons.
Hmm, a tricky proposition, but all in all I think that you may be onto something!
steve, surely the point is that there is little point in extending a copyright that is not making sufficient income for you to pay the tax, therefore there is no real detriment to those without money? You have a 50 year window in which to exploit the commercial potential of the product (whatever it is), and if you've not done so, then surely it makes sense for it to be allowed into the wild where it may finally flourish?
seems like a good idea to me, which is a shame, cos it will therefore probably never happen! ;-)
Indeed Mike. Personally I would like to see much more work enter the public domain. I was just pointing out that there is a potential unfairness where those with the most money could benefit most.
Imagine I'm the creator of the beloved cartoon series "Spratt!". I have a cult following of people who have followed the series for 50 years (since they were 10), but I make just enough from royalties to keep me in kippers in my retirement. Suddenly my copyright gives up and McMegaCorp releases a giant series based upon my characters adventures, to cash in on the nostalgia value. Especially as they no longer have to pay me a royalty. What they do to my beloved characters in the name of commercialism prompts me to take up dangerous sports such as crossing the road, in an attempt to end it all!
I agree that more material should find its way into the public domain, but if I as the creator of Spratt lose control over my characters, why shouldn't the same fate befall McMegaCorp so that I can write witty political parodies of their characters without being sued??
Of course, nothings fair in this world and I still think that Chris' suggestion is pretty good, I just think that there are other angles to it that would need to be explored.
This copyright extension is blowing my mind nowadays. It is a real interesting debate! Right now, ive read so much about it i dont really now if extension is a good idea or not.
But at the end one idea is coming to mi mind: passed 50, 60, 70, 75 years after creator's death, the creator is death and no other people should make money based on creator. I think intellectual property rights are created to defend creator's right. When he's dead, what the heck is it defending?