Copyright protection has mushroomed over the last three centuries. The duration of copyright is now ludicrous.
In Britain the Copyright Act of 1842 introduced the idea of post mortem copyright protection; it established a copyright period of 42 years from the date of first publication or 7 years after the author's death, whichever was the longer.
This was the law when Virginia Woolf was born in 1882 but by the time she published her first novel, "the Voyage Out" in 1915, the Copyright Act of 1911 had extended the period to 50 years after an author's death. This added not only 8 years to the duration of copyright but the remainder of the authors lifetime. No matter how old the author lived she would be guaranteed to receive income from her work for the rest of her life. Not only that but she would have an enduring bequest.
Unlike some other enduring copyrights Woolf’s copyright did not benefit from her own longevity. She committed suicide in 1941 before she reach the age of 60. And so she set the copyright clock ticking a little earlier than might otherwise have been the case.
Had the law not been changed in 1911 her copyright would have expired in 1957 however as it was the copyright expired in 1991.
However the European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January 1996) further extended the standard period to 70 years after the author’s death. Thus in 2007 works by authors who died in 1937 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright".
We have the ridiculous situation that 1992 you could have legally downloaded "The Voyage Out" from the internet but to do the same today would be illegal.
Copyright has become a tradable investment with large publishing houses buying up huge portfolios of copyrights. It is the interests of these investors that are being placed before the interests of the next generation of artists and musicians. An important part of the tradable value of such cash investments is how long is left to run on the copyright.
Who does it serve that the compositions of Strauss (born 1864) Ravanello (born 1871) or Rachmaninov (born 1873) should still be "in copyright" Only the copyright holders benefit.
Woolf had ample chance to profit from her own creativity and even if copyright were only valid for 42 year after publication of "The Voyage Out" in 1915, royalties from her work would have befitted her beneficiaries for 16 years after her death. Strauss, Ravanello and Rachmaninov never made half as much money from their own work as is extracted by their current copyright holders. However today's culture is stifled by copyright holders refusing to relinquish their grip on what should be our shared heritage.
Surely by now modern musicians should be unhindered in producing derivative works based on the heritage of these great classical composers.
Had Shakespeare suffered under today's copyright law he would never have dramatised Arthur Brooke's poem "the Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" which wouldn't have been out of copyright until 1633, 17 years after the death of the great bard.
There is a better balance to be had between the rights of a creator to benefit from their creativity and the rights of those who come after to build upon it.
A person with a technological creation may patent their work for just 20 years. The products of their creativity are their own for that time which affords them ample opportunity to profit from their work and thus reward their creativity. After that time others may build upon their work unhindered. This means that James Dyson's vacuum cleaner creation propelled him to billionaire status within his own lifetime but now that his patent has expired, other manufacturers such as Hoover are unhindered in their attempts to use his creativity and build upon it to hopefully produce improvements. Everybody benefits.
Why should a the rights over a cartoon mouse be afforded greater protection than a life saving drug?
Governments see the financial benefits of releasing patents for further development and innovation. Stifling development would see the nation being left standing by technological advances elsewhere in the world. It would be economic suicide.
With copyright it is the financial interests of the holders who prevail. The advantages of releasing the protection of such material are more cultural than economic. These pale into insignificance compared to the economic interests of the large copyright portfolio holders. It seem that the ideals of the free market apply only to goods. Nobody anywhere in the world should be allowed to produce a tangible thing that we should not be allowed to buy at a fair price determined by the market. However when it comes to ideas and less tangible creations, protectionism of an outlandish nature is allowed to dominate the market.
Before another 20 years are up the copyright holders will be lobbying for further legislative changes to further protect their investments.
It is time to reverse this trend. Sign the petition to reform copyright so that works are protected for a more than adequate 50 years from the date of publication rather than the current 70 years from the date of the author's death.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/copyright50/
In Britain the Copyright Act of 1842 introduced the idea of post mortem copyright protection; it established a copyright period of 42 years from the date of first publication or 7 years after the author's death, whichever was the longer.
This was the law when Virginia Woolf was born in 1882 but by the time she published her first novel, "the Voyage Out" in 1915, the Copyright Act of 1911 had extended the period to 50 years after an author's death. This added not only 8 years to the duration of copyright but the remainder of the authors lifetime. No matter how old the author lived she would be guaranteed to receive income from her work for the rest of her life. Not only that but she would have an enduring bequest.
Unlike some other enduring copyrights Woolf’s copyright did not benefit from her own longevity. She committed suicide in 1941 before she reach the age of 60. And so she set the copyright clock ticking a little earlier than might otherwise have been the case.
Had the law not been changed in 1911 her copyright would have expired in 1957 however as it was the copyright expired in 1991.
However the European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January 1996) further extended the standard period to 70 years after the author’s death. Thus in 2007 works by authors who died in 1937 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright".
We have the ridiculous situation that 1992 you could have legally downloaded "The Voyage Out" from the internet but to do the same today would be illegal.
Copyright has become a tradable investment with large publishing houses buying up huge portfolios of copyrights. It is the interests of these investors that are being placed before the interests of the next generation of artists and musicians. An important part of the tradable value of such cash investments is how long is left to run on the copyright.
Who does it serve that the compositions of Strauss (born 1864) Ravanello (born 1871) or Rachmaninov (born 1873) should still be "in copyright" Only the copyright holders benefit.
Woolf had ample chance to profit from her own creativity and even if copyright were only valid for 42 year after publication of "The Voyage Out" in 1915, royalties from her work would have befitted her beneficiaries for 16 years after her death. Strauss, Ravanello and Rachmaninov never made half as much money from their own work as is extracted by their current copyright holders. However today's culture is stifled by copyright holders refusing to relinquish their grip on what should be our shared heritage.
Surely by now modern musicians should be unhindered in producing derivative works based on the heritage of these great classical composers.
Had Shakespeare suffered under today's copyright law he would never have dramatised Arthur Brooke's poem "the Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" which wouldn't have been out of copyright until 1633, 17 years after the death of the great bard.
There is a better balance to be had between the rights of a creator to benefit from their creativity and the rights of those who come after to build upon it.
A person with a technological creation may patent their work for just 20 years. The products of their creativity are their own for that time which affords them ample opportunity to profit from their work and thus reward their creativity. After that time others may build upon their work unhindered. This means that James Dyson's vacuum cleaner creation propelled him to billionaire status within his own lifetime but now that his patent has expired, other manufacturers such as Hoover are unhindered in their attempts to use his creativity and build upon it to hopefully produce improvements. Everybody benefits.
Why should a the rights over a cartoon mouse be afforded greater protection than a life saving drug?
Governments see the financial benefits of releasing patents for further development and innovation. Stifling development would see the nation being left standing by technological advances elsewhere in the world. It would be economic suicide.
With copyright it is the financial interests of the holders who prevail. The advantages of releasing the protection of such material are more cultural than economic. These pale into insignificance compared to the economic interests of the large copyright portfolio holders. It seem that the ideals of the free market apply only to goods. Nobody anywhere in the world should be allowed to produce a tangible thing that we should not be allowed to buy at a fair price determined by the market. However when it comes to ideas and less tangible creations, protectionism of an outlandish nature is allowed to dominate the market.
Before another 20 years are up the copyright holders will be lobbying for further legislative changes to further protect their investments.
It is time to reverse this trend. Sign the petition to reform copyright so that works are protected for a more than adequate 50 years from the date of publication rather than the current 70 years from the date of the author's death.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/copyright50/
Last edited:
