Ideal copyright law

[geni]

Ok so if you could pretty much start from scratch what would be the big features of your ideal copyright system?

Mine would be:

Internationaly consistant. One set of laws world wide.

Length

50 years from date of publication or life of the author plus 20 years whichever is longer. For unpublished works life of the author plus 50 years. For corporate works 50 years from date of publication or 70 years for unpublished works whichever is shorter.

Fair use, fair dealing and de minimis.

Probably pretty close to the US system although idealy with a better idea of what you can and can't do enshrined in law rather than established through legal precedence although I'm not sure how this should be done.

Copyright is automatic with no requirement for registation.

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).

[Architect]

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).

You'll find the same thing in the UK. But the design of the building or scuplture is copyrighted, so you can't actually produce a replica.

[Darat]

...snip...

50 years from date of publication or life of the author plus 20 years whichever is longer. For unpublished works life of the author plus 50 years. For corporate works 50 years from date of publication or 70 years for unpublished works whichever is shorter.

...snip...

I don't agree with copyright extending beyond the life of the copyright holder.

Do you hold with the idea that a corporation or company can hold copyright?

[Architect]

Do you hold with the idea that a corporation or company can hold copyright?

It has to, or else work which we produce in the course of our business would be unfairly disadvantaged. :confused:

[Darat]

It has to, or else work which we produce in the course of our business would be unfairly disadvantaged. :confused:

Why unfairly?

[Architect]

Why should a design for a building which my firm pays me to produce not be covered by copyright? Someone could just go and copy the plans (this actually happens, occasionally, to other architects).

If I write a technical guide for (say) steel cladding as part of an office project, why should that not be covered by copyright? And why should it not be office copyright, as they paid me to write it?

[geni]

I don't agree with copyright extending beyond the life of the copyright holder.

A guy creates a brilliant work and the next day gets run over by a bus. His family gets next to no money. We accept that people may pass propert onto their children. I see no reason not to extend this to IP to a degree

Frankly I find the idea that you could potentialy put a work into the public domain by killing people to be rather distateful. I also don't want to be reading todays obituaries to find out what has entered the public domian. For some reason I don't find the idea of reading 20 year old obituaries as bad.


Do you hold with the idea that a corporation or company can hold copyright?

They are a legal person. If a company has comissioned a work who else is going to hold the copyright?

[Architect]

A guy creates a brilliant work and the next day gets run over by a bus. His family gets next to no money. We accept that people may pass propert onto their children. I see no reason not to extend this to IP to a degree


Agreed.

[Darat]

A guy creates a brilliant work and the next day gets run over by a bus. His family gets next to no money. We accept that people may pass propert onto their children. I see no reason not to extend this to IP to a degree

...snip...

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

[geni]

You'll find the same thing in the UK. But the design of the building or scuplture is copyrighted, so you can't actually produce a replica.

However this is not the case in france and not the case with scuplture in the US.

[geni]

Oh the things I missed were a provision that copying an existing work does not create a new copyright (go for the option that therehas to be some form of creativity for copyright to exist) and I'd stick with the current 20 year copyright on typesetting.

[Darat]

I'm not saying by the way that a corporation or company should not be able to hold a copyright just that since we are talking about an ideal copyright law I think we have to examine some of the core principles that copyright law is meant to deal with. For me the core principle is about protecting the rights of individuals over what their work.

The idea that a company and not just an individual can hold copyright I think sites at least a bit uncomfortably with the key principle of copyright (actual examples of how they have repeatedly and in some cases successfully lobbied for extensions to copyright come to mind).

[Architect]

I'm not saying by the way that a corporation or company should not be able to hold a copyright just that since we are talking about an ideal copyright law I think we have to examine some of the core principles that copyright law is meant to deal with. For me the core principle is about protecting the rights of individuals over what their work.


On that basis do you dispute that companies should be able to secure patents? :boggled:

Surely the purpose of copyright is to ensure that the investment - be it intellectual, financial or just in terms of time - in the work is protected and an equitable return provided. Why should a firm investing staff time and resources be different from an individual doing it themselves?

[Darat]

On that basis do you dispute that companies should be able to secure patents? :boggled:

An interesting point but not too sure what's it got to do with the topic of this thread - "ideal copyright law".

Personally I think we need to look at the whole idea of "intellectual property", a lot of the legislation that has been enacted over the centuries about that concept came about when the world was very different and I think a ground up re-work would be a good idea (remember we are talking about ideal here not how we would achieve such a change).

Broadly I would say there are three related but currently separate categories that are the focus of legislation, copyright, trademarks and patents, perhaps before just trying to bolt on bits and pieces to the current legislated areas the best way to come up with an ideal copyright law is first principles, in other words what is it for?

[Architect]

Broadly I would say there are three related but currently separate categories that are the focus of legislation, copyright, trademarks and patents, perhaps before just trying to bolt on bits and pieces to the current legislated areas the best way to come up with an ideal copyright law is first principles, in other words what is it for?

Well in the case of copyright and patents, I'll stick with ensuring that the investment - be it intellectual, financial or just in terms of time - in the work is protected and an equitable return provided.

[geni]

I'm not saying by the way that a corporation or company should not be able to hold a copyright just that since we are talking about an ideal copyright law I think we have to examine some of the core principles that copyright law is meant to deal with. For me the core principle is about protecting the rights of individuals over what their work.

The idea that a company and not just an individual can hold copyright I think sites at least a bit uncomfortably with the key principle of copyright (actual examples of how they have repeatedly and in some cases successfully lobbied for extensions to copyright come to mind).

The extensions in the US probably had more to do with bringing US law inline with most of the rest of the world.

That aside if you want to treat it as the rights of indivduals then you view corporate copyright as the right of shareholders to protect their investment.

[geni]

Broadly I would say there are three related but currently separate categories that are the focus of legislation, copyright, trademarks and patents, perhaps before just trying to bolt on bits and pieces to the current legislated areas the best way to come up with an ideal copyright law is first principles, in other words what is it for?

Copyright and patents are to reward creativity. Trademark is to protect the consumer (in theory anyway).

Copyrights also have the secondary effect of forceing people to be original.

[Architect]

Why don't we suggest Lash or one of the other lawyers joins the thread? I don't know about you, but this isn't a core area of competence for me.

[fuelair]

Ok so if you could pretty much start from scratch what would be the big features of your ideal copyright system?

Mine would be:

Internationaly consistant. One set of laws world wide.

Length

50 years from date of publication or life of the author plus 20 years whichever is longer. For unpublished works life of the author plus 50 years. For corporate works 50 years from date of publication or 70 years for unpublished works whichever is shorter.

Fair use, fair dealing and de minimis.

Probably pretty close to the US system although idealy with a better idea of what you can and can't do enshrined in law rather than established through legal precedence although I'm not sure how this should be done.

Copyright is automatic with no requirement for registation.

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).


My biggie. Copyright in any work is automatically withdrawn if that work is out of publication for 5 years unless that is a decision of the author of that work and 7 years if it is by the authors' decision.
This provision includes any work first (or only) initially provided as a limited edition.

[geni]

My biggie. Copyright in any work is automatically withdrawn if that work is out of publication for 5 years unless that is a decision of the author of that work and 7 years if it is by the authors' decision.
This provision includes any work first (or only) initially provided as a limited edition.

Define publication (btw the definetion I'm useing is the one that british libel law uses but that really wouldn't work for your approach)

The probalem with what you want to do is that it really favors the big guy over the little guy. The big guy (Major film makers, publishers, getty images, Major media companies) would be able to psudo-publish their entire cataloge every 5 years. The little guy not so much.

[fuelair]

Define publication (btw the definetion I'm useing is the one that british libel law uses but that really wouldn't work for your approach)

The probalem with what you want to do is that it really favors the big guy over the little guy. The big guy (Major film makers, publishers, getty images, Major media companies) would be able to psudo-publish their entire cataloge every 5 years. The little guy not so much.

The reason I want to do it is (and this is only one example): Cheneys' wife was able to prevent re-publication of her book by pressure and the fact that she/or company hold copyright. If that provision was in, as soon as either refused (since publication was done over 7 years ago, anybody willing to annoy Cheneys , Bush etc. and make a point could issue it. I do not like material being able to be supressed that way, so........ For films and music, it would specifically have to be made available to the general public in reasonable quantity and usaable format. Otherwise, free piracy with no lawsuits or other reprisals allowed. Actually, that would also extend to theatrical performances ( to the extent that if any agency chose to do a theatrical performance, they must record an audiovisual performance of it that must be made generally available to the public in sufficient quantities to meet reasonable demand within five years of the initial performance of the work or all rights would be lost (and it must be available for performance by any group paying a reasonable fee for performance rights within five years of initial performance or all performance rights would be lost). The idea is that the copyright holder should have rights for the material and its' use BUT the public, including scholars, should have rights of access to that material in a timely and non-preventative way. By default, I would also include the part where photographs of art works could not be copyrighted but add that they could not be used publically for money or the generation of money without permission of the copyright holder unless the copyright holder refused to produce his/their own photographs for use by scholars, students, related within the 5 year period.

[Elizabeth I]

You asked about the "ideal" copyright law, since I believe inheritance should be scrapped an ideal copyright law shouldn't contain such a provision.
You believe inheritance should be scrapped? In other words, I have no right to leave anything to support my family, or as a memento, or for any other reason? Things that belonged to my mother and grandmother and which might have some significance for my children or my brother's children should be...what?

Not to be rude, but you is weird, honey.

[geni]

The reason I want to do it is (and this is only one example): Cheneys' wife was able to prevent re-publication of her book by pressure and the fact that she/or company hold copyright. If that provision was in, as soon as either refused (since publication was done over 7 years ago, anybody willing to annoy Cheneys , Bush etc. and make a point could issue it. I do not like material being able to be supressed that way, so........ For films and music, it would specifically have to be made available to the general public in reasonable quantity and usaable format.

Oh that's trivial to game. Everything in your back cataloge is availible for the nominal sum of $1 billion a time. Music turns up on wax cylinders but they are useable if you have the right kit.


Otherwise, free piracy with no lawsuits or other reprisals allowed. Actually, that would also extend to theatrical performances ( to the extent that if any agency chose to do a theatrical performance, they must record an audiovisual performance of it that must be made generally available to the public in sufficient quantities to meet reasonable demand within five years of the initial performance of the work or all rights would be lost (and it must be available for performance by any group paying a reasonable fee for performance rights within five years of initial performance or all performance rights would be lost).


Define reasonable. So if I'm a poor struggeling playright and I manage to get one of my plays performed but only once and I don't record it will be PD withing 5 years?


The idea is that the copyright holder should have rights for the material and its' use BUT the public, including scholars, should have rights of access to that material in a timely and non-preventative way.

This is generaly covered by the provision that a certian number of copies must be placed in some centeral libiary.


By default, I would also include the part where photographs of art works could not be copyrighted


So despite the creative efforts that went in to the photos on this page none of them should be subject to copyright:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Victoria_Memorial%2C_London


but add that they could not be used publically for money or the generation of money without permission of the copyright holder


You didn't by any chance write the copyright policy for the government of the philippines did you? You see their policy makes the same mistake. You can't impose conditions on something that is in the public domain.


unless the copyright holder refused to produce his/their own photographs for use by scholars, students, related within the 5 year period.

What if no one asks? How are you going to show If I have produced them or not?

[fuelair]

Oh that's trivial to game. Everything in your back cataloge is availible for the nominal sum of $1 billion a time. Music turns up on wax cylinders but they are useable if you have the right kit.



Define reasonable. So if I'm a poor struggeling playright and I manage to get one of my plays performed but only once and I don't record it will be PD withing 5 years?



This is generaly covered by the provision that a certian number of copies must be placed in some centeral libiary.



So despite the creative efforts that went in to the photos on this page none of them should be subject to copyright:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Victoria_Memorial%2C_London



You didn't by any chance write the copyright policy for the government of the philippines did you? You see their policy makes the same mistake. You can't impose conditions on something that is in the public domain.



What if no one asks? How are you going to show If I have produced them or not?
Possibly I was unclear in my phrasing (if the law was being actually written, I would be - and there would be a lot more detail - this was turned out in about 5 minutes in a discussion forum). To be considered published, it would require that the price be consistent with the current, general price of similar materials available to the public - and there would be provision that if there was no functional demand for the item (say under a hundred people wanted it) then they would be able to have copies made by the cr holder for a higher rate that was consistent with the actual costs of that copying (per ex- BBC offered to make me a VHS -NTSC copy of a show that is not available in the US for ca. 25.00 pounds. And that's for one copy for one person. Quite fair and doesn't keep me from getting a legitimate copy while maintaining copyright.) Obviously - as stated above, this would require some minor adjustments - but the ultimate consideration is that data (books, art, music, etc.) needs to be preserved/studied/ provided and copyright should reflect that (also the reason I would require deposition of copies, including performance copies where appropriate in order to obtain copyright. Left that out originally. Yes I recognise the technical problem there - it would be worked out by allowing non-deposition for a limited time without losing copyright - but that time would not be long (six months or so).

[geni]

Possibly I was unclear in my phrasing (if the law was being actually written, I would be - and there would be a lot more detail - this was turned out in about 5 minutes in a discussion forum).


You would either end up with a system invovleing vast amounts of red tape and lawyers or something massive loopholes could be found in inside 30 seconds.


To be considered published, it would require that the price be consistent with the current, general price of similar materials available to the public

First lawsuit claiming that wikipedia is equiv to britannica therefor it is not legal to charage for britannica and mentain the copyright starting in 5..4..3..


- and there would be provision that if there was no functional demand for the item (say under a hundred people wanted it)

Painfuly open to abuse. You just fine a group of 100 people who agree to say that they want anything.


then they would be able to have copies made by the cr holder for a higher rate that was consistent with the actual costs of that copying (per ex- BBC offered to make me a VHS -NTSC copy of a show that is not available in the US for ca. 25.00 pounds. And that's for one copy for one person. Quite fair and doesn't keep me from getting a legitimate copy while maintaining copyright.)

Who gets to specify the storage medium? because I'm going to go for gold plated punch cards. Should keep the number of peopel who can afford coppies down.


Obviously - as stated above, this would require some minor adjustments - but the ultimate consideration is that data (books, art, music, etc.) needs to be preserved/studied/ provided and copyright should reflect that


Why? In any case fictional works are not data (this is rather important because it means that over extensive plot summeries are copyvios).


(also the reason I would require deposition of copies, including performance copies where appropriate in order to obtain copyright. Left that out originally. Yes I recognise the technical problem there - it would be worked out by allowing non-deposition for a limited time without losing copyright - but that time would not be long (six months or so).

You really hate the little guy don't you? Automatic copyright has been one of the biggest equalisers in the IP game.

Your think is horibly 1950s. The days when media consited of easy to identify publications is long gone. Any archive doing what you suggest would likely be snowed under with coppies of student reports lecture material photos of work by low level artists. A million picture postcards.

How would you pay to store this let alone arganise it in any reasonable manner? It would be worse than the The Library of Babel.

Moveing on how would you deal with 3D works? Complete Copies? Photos (which are never going to give you full detials). What about art works that move?

On top of that you have knocked out a fundimental tenent of law. The purchaser makes an offer to buy. The seller does not make an offer to sell.

In practice you appear to have decided to rip apart normal priciples of capitalism in order to deal with a rather rare situation. The book was probably availible to you in any case. Go to your state's biggest libiary and there is a fair chance you will be able to get a copy. A few people being jerks is not a reason to rip a system apart and replace it with something that is basicaly going to be a lawyer's paradise.

[geni]

bump

[casebro]

I'm creative. I design and build custom furniture. Having built a chair, should I get a royalty every time somebody sits on it? That is the way Musicians work- record once, get paid every time somebody uses the record.

How long before music will all be copywrited? 88 notes on a piano gives a finite number of permutations. Seems that as short a riff as three notes have been used for suits...

Should Ford sell you a license to use a car, rather than sell you the car outright? How are the poor going to afford to go places?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Ideal copyright" would be about making clear who is, or was, the intellectual author. Thats it.

When you make it a business you create interests that have NOTHING to do with protecting the notion about the author.

But anyway, we have to go beyond the economic driven society before this things change.

[geni]

I'm creative. I design and build custom furniture. Having built a chair, should I get a royalty every time somebody sits on it?

No you should get a payment every time someone copies the design.


That is the way Musicians work- record once, get paid every time somebody uses the record.

Nope I can play the old 45 of "Quinn the Eskimo" I have here as many times as I like with paying a penny to Dylan.


How long before music will all be copywrited?


Never. Gilbert and Sullivan's work is unlikely to cease being PD.


88 notes on a piano gives a finite number of permutations. Seems that as short a riff as three notes have been used for suits...

The end to music has been a long running debate. Hasn't happened yet.


Should Ford sell you a license to use a car, rather than sell you the car outright? How are the poor going to afford to go places?

Car leases are hardly unknown. People get by.

[geni]

"Ideal copyright" would be about making clear who is, or was, the intellectual author. Thats it.

Have you any idea how anoying the credit the author clause is in CC-by is? The problem is comeing up with a way to force author credit that doesn't create in invariant section.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Have you any idea how anoying the credit the author clause is in CC-by is? The problem is comeing up with a way to force author credit that doesn't create in invariant section.

Sorry, didnt understood. CC? invariant section of what? Maybe you are talking about legal terms, I dont know, Im talking about that, when somebody listen to some song, or read some book, or use some software... "ideal copyright" is closer to the GNU than to current "RIAA type" of abuses.

[geni]

Sorry, didnt understood. CC?

Creative commons. A family of lisences some free some not free. Figureing out which is which can be a fun sport for copyright nerds

for example

CC-by-sa-US-3.0 is free (mostly it's messy)
CC-by-sa-fr-3.0 isn't
cc-by-sa-fr-2.5 is free (except it can be converted to the 3.0 version) but may become illegal in the future under certian proposed french laws.

The upshot of this is that normal people are left hopelessly confused.

CC-by is the lisence that is closest to "you have to credit the author" although there are some issues with derivatives.


invariant section of what?


The work which is a real pain when it happens to be a watermark on an image. I think there is a work around but that is still under debate.


Maybe you are talking about legal terms, I dont know, Im talking about that, when somebody listen to some song, or read some book, or use some software... "ideal copyright" is closer to the GNU than to current "RIAA type" of abuses.

The pure GNU Free Documentation License sucks. It allows for invariant sections and if you tried to use it for a song you might have to read the licence aloud at the end.

It is said there is a LGFDL in the works that will fix most of these problems. We shall see.

The update of the creative commons lisences to version 3.0 hasn't gone to well.

[Mephisto]

I can't say much beyond, I'm happy with the way copyright law currently exists (at least in the U.S.) I feel the time span is just about right and will allow my grandchildren to some financial gain should my art become more valuable after my death. I feel the current laws protect my original work fairly well.

Having said that, I'm far less concerned with corporate copyrights. They are often the most fervent in pursuing copyright infringement and because of their corporate budgets can afford better lawyers. I'd go along with cutting the time limits on corporate copyrights. The artists or designers rarely make much beyond the intial fee anyway.

[Skeptic]

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

That would significantly reduce motivation to innovate, since one of the most important motivations people have to work and invent in the present is to provide for their descendants in the future, even if they themselves are dead.

[Darat]

That would significantly reduce motivation to innovate, since one of the most important motivations people have to work and invent in the present is to provide for their descendants in the future, even if they themselves are dead.

Something often claimed.

[geni]

I can't say much beyond, I'm happy with the way copyright law currently exists (at least in the U.S.) I feel the time span is just about right and will allow my grandchildren to some financial gain should my art become more valuable after my death. I feel the current laws protect my original work fairly well.

Given current life expectancy the odds of your dieing before any grandchildren are born are limited. 140 year copyright terms are unreasonable.


Having said that, I'm far less concerned with corporate copyrights. They are often the most fervent in pursuing copyright infringement and because of their corporate budgets can afford better lawyers. I'd go along with cutting the time limits on corporate copyrights. The artists or designers rarely make much beyond the intial fee anyway.

You can't cut them. If you do the companies will respond by technicaly asigning copyrights to a 7 year old girl with exclusive rights lisenced to them.

[Mephisto]

Given current life expectancy the odds of your dieing before any grandchildren are born are limited. 140 year copyright terms are unreasonable.

But I already have a grandchild and with current life expectancy she might just be getting ready for college when I die (if I'm lucky enough to die of natural causes). You'll have to admit, that would actually be perfect timing for her to reap any benefits from my copyrighted work.


You can't cut them. If you do the companies will respond by technicaly asigning copyrights to a 7 year old girl with exclusive rights lisenced to them.

You could conceivably shorten the length of copyrighted work for hire ten to twenty years from its inception WITHOUT allowing those rights to be transferred to an individual. Corporations would have to hire artists, writers and designers more often and innovation would be encouraged.

[geni]

But I already have a grandchild and with current life expectancy she might just be getting ready for college when I die (if I'm lucky enough to die of natural causes). You'll have to admit, that would actually be perfect timing for her to reap any benefits from my copyrighted work.


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).



You could conceivably shorten the length of copyrighted work for hire ten to twenty years from its inception WITHOUT allowing those rights to be transferred to an individual. Corporations would have to hire artists, writers and designers more often and innovation would be encouraged.

That same argument would apply to saying that descendants of the artist would have to come up with their own works and thus innovation would be encouraged

[Merko]

I'm not particularly interested in ideals. Everything is entangled
into other nasty stuff and theorising about some ultimate ideal were
everything is nice just gets unrealistic.

However, I would support a copyright that lasted for 30 years, period.
Authors of great works should be richly rewarded, but not infinitely
rewarded. There's no reason why someone should expect to live for more
than 30 years from one single work.

While I'm opposed to unlimited inheritance, I think it is neither
realistic or desirable to eliminate inheritance altogether. So 30
years even in the case of the author's death sounds fine by me.

[geni]

However, I would support a copyright that lasted for 30 years, period.


30 years from creation or 30 years from publication?

[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://forums.randi.org/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.

[geni]

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.

It doesn't but that's what the caselaw will produce unless it makes the law completely useless. Consider I have an image with no idea as to it's history how do I go about traceing it's author. Well I start by hitting the Library of Congress's image database. If I have the cash I can then go through Getty's Corbuis's, Jubiter media's and AP (although that will result in a fair bit of duplication. Then what? Maybe a few other databases but once you heave searched them either the court has to accept that you have made a reasonable search to find the author or the law will become useless for everyone.

It's a kludgy fix for a problem caused by overlong copyright terms and would be better fixed by shortening the terms.

[AWPrime]

Well the purpose of copyrights are from my pov:
1. To honor the creator(s)
2. Return for his/her investment.
3. Stimulate creativity

The biggest problem for an ideal law is the corp/private split, laws then to favor one or the other.


In my view each copyright/patent should mention the names of the creators. Now if its on behalf of an company then this will also be mentioned, allowing the company to have some rights (and thus return on investment).

However my idea is that if it is on behalf on an company then the duration of the rights should be shorter.