Ideal copyright law

[Mephisto]

The odds are that if you live long enough for that to happen she will die before the copyright on your work expires.

Triumph of the Will was shot in 1934. It will enter the public domain in 2073. That is a 139 year copyright ("The Blue Light" racks up at 141 years but is less well known).

Trust me, I'm no spring chicken and 70 years beyond my lifetime might help her until she's slightly older than I am now. I think that's fair, besides I can't conceive of anyone wanting to copy my art for personal gain or even for personal satisfaction.

Comparing cinematic releases with the work of a modest artist is apples and oranges. If you DID manage to find my work and copy it, I seriously doubt that my granddaughter would know about it, and even if she did, I doubt that she would pursue legal action. The same isn't true of whomever owns the rights to a well-known film.

 

[geni]

Trust me, I'm no spring chicken and 70 years beyond my lifetime might help her until she's slightly older than I am now.

Statisticaly if she is 20 when you die on average she will die before the copyright expires.

I think that's fair, besides I can't conceive of anyone wanting to copy my art for personal gain or even for personal satisfaction.

Documenting your art style in the early 21st century.

Comparing cinematic releases with the work of a modest artist is apples and oranges.

Not really. Both are IP. Under UK and I understand French law the copyright would rest with the individuals that made it.

If you DID manage to find my work and copy it, I seriously doubt that my granddaughter would know about it, and even if she did, I doubt that she would pursue legal action.

That isn't really very relivant. It is a risk I cannot afford to take (potential damages go up to $500,000 given that it would be fairly trivial to show that I would have known I was violateing copyright). Thus given the choice between preserving your work through copying and letting it be destoryed I would have to go for the latter.

This is an issue with various forms of preservation where the cost of settleing the copyright issues mades such preservation imposible. The upshot of this is that we have lost most of the films involveing Theda Bara for example.

The same isn't true of whomever owns the rights to a well-known film.

It was over a decade before the owners of the copyright on "The Greatest Gift" got around to inforceing their copyright claim over "It's a Wonderful Life" (still not sure what the copyright status of stills from that film is).

Secondly although for very solid legal reasons I can't prove it most movie studios will lets stuff go as long as it does not rise above a certain profile.

 

[Merko]

30 years from creation or 30 years from publication?

Publication, for some definition of publication that means whenever someone draws any sort of advantage from a work (selling it, or whatever), it is considered 'published', even if it is not available to everyone.

 

[geni]

Publication, for some definition of publication that means whenever someone draws any sort of advantage from a work (selling it, or whatever), it is considered 'published', even if it is not available to everyone.

Been tried in the past. The problem is that for things like text books up to date stuf can have a hard time competeing with the dirt cheap 30 years old stuff.
Or more that you get people endlessly updateing the old stuff rather than do a complete reworking.

30 year old stuff tends to be good enough so the insentive to invovate is reduced. At the same time you would be knocking out author's incomes just as they come up to retirement or halfway though retirement (this is the main reason I tend to prefer life plus something systems).

 

[geni]

bump

 

[geni]

seems to fit in well with the other thread

 

[corplinx]

Does it really matter what the copyright laws are since we are all just stealing what we play, watch, and read off piratebay currently? I mean.... except me of course... ::cough::

 

[geni]

Does it really matter what the copyright laws are since we are all just stealing what we play, watch, and read off piratebay currently? I mean.... except me of course... ::cough::

That is being covered in the other thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119796

 

[Beerina]

You asked about the "ideal" copyright law, since I believe inheritance should be scrapped an ideal copyright law shouldn't contain such a provision.

The "life plus 20 years" stuff isn't about inheritence. It's about companies making a financial deal to buy the rights to X and then be secure in their investments (which may be considerable) if then the guy gets hit by a bus tomorrow. They're still guaranteed 20 more years of exclusivity.

 

[Beerina]

WTH I replied to a thread that was a year and a half old?!?!?

corplinx, if you're so bored to be diving that deep into forum history, I have a garage that I'll pay ya $20 to clean out.

 

[linusrichard]

I think I probably like what's in the OP, and would consider adding the following to it:

No extensions of copyright. Whatever it is, a term of years, or life of creator plus an additional term of years, that should be it. As it is, Mickey Mouse will never enter PD.

Limited IP rights on agricultural inventions. ETA: I mean crops, not tractors. Although maybe tractors too. /EDIT

Limited IP rights on medicine.

Limited or no IP rights on any invention (especially medicine) that was developed using any government funds.

If the IP is art (music, literature, graphic art, poetry, etc.), the creator should only be able to alienate the rights to a certain extent. A certain amount of rights should always stay with the creator and not be transferable.

 

[geni]

Limited IP rights on agricultural inventions. ETA: I mean crops, not tractors. Although maybe tractors too. /EDIT

Limited IP rights on medicine.

Those are covered by patent laws. 20 years is about right when you consider development times and in the case of drugs the problem that you have to patent them some years before you bring them to market.

Limited or no IP rights on any invention (especially medicine) that was developed using any government funds.

Since no invention is standalone you've just killed of thing like pharamicutial industry.

If the IP is art (music, literature, graphic art, poetry, etc.), the creator should only be able to alienate the rights to a certain extent. A certain amount of rights should always stay with the creator and not be transferable.

They are called moral rights and they are fuggining anoying. Aside from potentialy makeing free content licenses unlawful they can create problems with the ability to display art that has been purchased. Then you hit problems with where the edges of art are:

it's a bridge we can modify it.
No it is a work of art and I have the right to ( to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation).
It's a bridge and we need to modify it so it works better as a bridge
Are you questioning my abilities as an artist?
No we just need to be able to modify the bridge
see you in court


(this actualy happened fortunelty the court accept that the bridge could be freely modifed)

 

[technoextreme]

It should be imposible for creator of a building or a bit of public sculpture to claim copyright over photos of that object (basicaly german law in this area).

Most countries all ready do this...

Trust me, I'm no spring chicken and 70 years beyond my lifetime might help her until she's slightly older than I am now. I think that's fair, besides I can't conceive of anyone wanting to copy my art for personal gain or even for personal satisfaction.

Comparing cinematic releases with the work of a modest artist is apples and oranges. If you DID manage to find my work and copy it, I seriously doubt that my granddaughter would know about it, and even if she did, I doubt that she would pursue legal action. The same isn't true of whomever owns the rights to a well-known film.

Im pretty sure once again the United States law has covered old films and copying for intellectual purposes. One still would not be able to view the films or show them because of the copyright issue but libraries can copy them. Which is a good thing because really old films were made using rocket fuel.....

 

[linusrichard]

Those are covered by patent laws. 20 years is about right when you consider development times and in the case of drugs the problem that you have to patent them some years before you bring them to market.

Good good. I don't know what status quo is, I just thought this should be added to what was in OP.

Since no invention is standalone you've just killed of thing like pharamicutial industry.

Wait, the pharmaceutical industry uses government money? All this time I've been hearing about how we can't give Africa cheap AIDS drugs because we have to allow the drug companies to get a return on their gazillions of dollars of investment, and now you're telling me that a lot of that money came from taxpayers in the first place? [/sarcasm] Seriously, though, I didn't say no IP rights, I said limited or no IP rights. Perhaps the extent of IP rights should depend on the proportion of government funding. I don't want to kill the pharmaceutical industry, but I don't want them to take tax dollars with one hand, and then grab as many profits as they can with the other at a huge social cost.

They are called moral rights and they are fuggining anoying. Aside from potentialy makeing free content licenses unlawful they can create problems with the ability to display art that has been purchased. Then you hit problems with where the edges of art are:

it's a bridge we can modify it.
No it is a work of art and I have the right to ( to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation).
It's a bridge and we need to modify it so it works better as a bridge
Are you questioning my abilities as an artist?
No we just need to be able to modify the bridge
see you in court

(this actualy happened fortunelty the court accept that the bridge could be freely modifed)

I'm not saying that an artist shouldn't be able to bargain away some, many, or even most of his rights. I am fine with an artist giving a third party the right to fold, spindle, and mutilate the bridge, chorus, or whatever to their heart's content. If the consideration is right, and the contract is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Here's what I don't like: I write a song, music and lyrics, and I record it myself in my basement. Some company likes it a lot, and they decide to buy "the rights" from me. Full exclusive rights. At this point, as I understand it, they can do whatever they want with it (which is fine with me, as long as I knew what I was getting into when I signed the contract), BUT I can't put it on my album, I can't perform it in concert, etc. That's something I have a slight problem with. Or take Prince - my understanding is that he began releasing albums with that Symbol in part because he's a weirdo, but in large part because he lost the legal right, for a time, to release albums under the name "Prince" - because that name belonged to Warner Brothers. I think it's awful that an artist would not be allowed to release his art under his own given name simply because of IP law, no matter what contract he signed.

In short, I think an artist should be able to grant whatever rights he wants to to third parties to use/display/modify/broadcast/publish/perform/etc. his work, but I think there should be limits to what rights he can take away from himself.

I may have gotten some stuff wrong above, please feel free to correct.

 

[geni]

Most countries all ready do this...

False sculpture in public places is covered by copyright in the US for example. Only a few countries are as extreme as the UK when it comes to Freedom of panorama. Under UK law if it is permanent, 3D and in a public place photos of it are not considered derivates. Definintions of public place and permanent are pretty relaxed. Simular applies to works of artistic craftsmanship.

Im pretty sure once again the United States law has covered old films and copying for intellectual purposes. One still would not be able to view the films or show them because of the copyright issue but libraries can copy them. Which is a good thing because really old films were made using rocket fuel.....

Libraries can copy then yes. Rather a lot of early filmstock isn't in the hands of libraries.

 

[geni]

Good good. I don't know what status quo is, I just thought this should be added to what was in OP.

The OP is about copyright not patent law.

Wait, the pharmaceutical industry uses government money? All this time I've been hearing about how we can't give Africa cheap AIDS drugs because we have to allow the drug companies to get a return on their gazillions of dollars of investment, and now you're telling me that a lot of that money came from taxpayers in the first place? [/sarcasm]

They use a sysnersis route that was developed useing goverment funding 60 years ago. By your standards they should have not be able to make a patent claim on the resulting chemical.

Seriously, though, I didn't say no IP rights, I said limited or no IP rights. Perhaps the extent of IP rights should depend on the proportion of government funding. I don't want to kill the pharmaceutical industry, but I don't want them to take tax dollars with one hand, and then grab as many profits as they can with the other at a huge social cost.

You seem to think that funding is more dirrect than it is.You get your money back in that the company pays for the required trials.

I'm not saying that an artist shouldn't be able to bargain away some, many, or even most of his rights. I am fine with an artist giving a third party the right to fold, spindle, and mutilate the bridge, chorus, or whatever to their heart's content. If the consideration is right, and the contract is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Here's what I don't like: I write a song, music and lyrics, and I record it myself in my basement. Some company likes it a lot, and they decide to buy "the rights" from me. Full exclusive rights. At this point, as I understand it, they can do whatever they want with it (which is fine with me, as long as I knew what I was getting into when I signed the contract), BUT I can't put it on my album, I can't perform it in concert, etc. That's something I have a slight problem with.

When then perhaps you should have sold a more limited set of rights.

Or take Prince - my understanding is that he began releasing albums with that Symbol in part because he's a weirdo, but in large part because he lost the legal right, for a time, to release albums under the name "Prince" - because that name belonged to Warner Brothers. I think it's awful that an artist would not be allowed to release his art under his own given name simply because of IP law, no matter what contract he signed.

He was always free to release music under the name Prince Rogers Nelson. Warner Bros held the trademark on "Prince". They were also right in their view of how the albums he wanted to release would sell.

In short, I think an artist should be able to grant whatever rights he wants to to third parties to use/display/modify/broadcast/publish/perform/etc. his work, but I think there should be limits to what rights he can take away from himself.

Why? If they want to sell those rights why shouldn't they be able to?

 

[technoextreme]

False sculpture in public places is covered by copyright in the US for example. Only a few countries are as extreme as the UK when it comes to Freedom of panorama. Under UK law if it is permanent, 3D and in a public place photos of it are not considered derivates. Definintions of public place and permanent are pretty relaxed. Simular applies to works of artistic craftsmanship.

Very interesting. I did not know that.

Libraries can copy then yes. Rather a lot of early filmstock isn't in the hands of libraries.

I didn't say it was a perfect plan though technically an orphaned works act would alleviate this problem. Unfortunately, I have no idea whether or not the current law up for contemplation in the United States is a good one or horrible. Canada has an orphaned works law.

 

[geni]

Very interesting. I did not know that.

I didn't say it was a perfect plan though technically an orphaned works act would alleviate this problem. Unfortunately, I have no idea whether or not the current law up for contemplation in the United States is a good one or horrible. Canada has an orphaned works law.

Orphan works is a great law if you are a fair sized company. For an individual it sucks. A fair sized company can afford both to register it's works and to search whatever databases end up becomeing standard. An individual will find this more problematical.

 

[linusrichard]

The OP is about copyright not patent law.

Okay. That's a distinction I always have trouble with. Aren't they both covered in IP though? But you're right, the thread is about copyright law.

They use a sysnersis route that was developed useing goverment funding 60 years ago. By your standards they should have not be able to make a patent claim on the resulting chemical.

I have no idea what "sysnersis" is, and I have no idea how to find out what "sysnersis" is, but - I will say once again - I didn't say no IP rights, I said limited or no IP rights. Obviously this is a case for limited IP rights, not for no IP rights.

You seem to think that funding is more dirrect than it is.You get your money back in that the company pays for the required trials.

Okay, I'm not sure I get what you're saying, but I think I get it well enough to feel like you're probably right. If that makes sense. And I'm not being sarcastic.

When then perhaps you should have sold a more limited set of rights.

Right, that misses my entire point. My point is that there should be limitations on what you're able to bargain away. I don't expect you to agree with this. I realize that "freedom of contract" is a very popular view.

He was always free to release music under the name Prince Rogers Nelson. Warner Bros held the trademark on "Prince".

I wonder if that first sentence is true. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. He should have been able to use "Prince," "Prince Rogers Nelson," "P.R. Nelson," "Prince Rogers," or whatever else he wants that is part or all of his own real name. I can see maybe having some restrictions on "Nelson," because there's a band called Nelson, and there might be some confusion. But otherwise, it's his own name, and if I'm asked what my ideal copyright law would be, it would include that any contract provision that prevented a performer from performing under his own name would be unenforceable.

They were also right in their view of how the albums he wanted to release would sell.

Irrelevant to what we're talking about.

Why? If they want to sell those rights why shouldn't they be able to?

That's what I'm saying. Why? Because the thread is called "Ideal copyright law," and that's my ideal copyright law.

 

[technoextreme]

Orphan works is a great law if you are a fair sized company. For an individual it sucks. A fair sized company can afford both to register it's works and to search whatever databases end up becomeing standard. An individual will find this more problematical.

Ummmm....No????????? Im going to guess you've read about the United States law which I can't actually see how it requires you to register in a database.