Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.
The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.
This highlights that we are fucked in the head how we take care of ourselves, kids shouldn’t be made to struggle becsause of the economics of parents. Neither should adults. Neither should retirees.
Neither should adults, but economics based survival is what we have until we all decide why the fuck don’t we just cover the basics of a decent life, no strings at all, waste your life doing what you want or be the best version of yourself, getting us from financial from would just solve so many problems.
Like needing copyright to secure financial gain/benefit.
Especially for creative/cultural works that only have value because other humans went to to share an experience
You might expand that to “society continuing to allow children to suffer because their parents are unable to care for them is a larger issue than the question of copyright.”
Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid at the time and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.
Plus companies wouldn’t be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.
In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
Hmm, I think there may have been some confusion on my part here. I’m fine with copyright directly serving individual authors and their families.
I’m not into how that is expanded and abused by corporations.
But I’m also not into the idea that my creative work could be taken and used in ways I don’t want it to be to undercut me and destroy my ability to subsist off of my labor. I so I think copyright has a place in society.
A publisher currently publishing a book when an artist dies would have one less expense as they continued to rake in the money.
People make money off of the public domain all the time. Printing bibles is a booming business and copyright on the text expired ages ago. They do get to claim copyright on all of the stuff surrounding the text, like any illustrations, introductions, covers, etc. Most early Disney movies were based on works in the public domain.
Sure, it would allow instant access to copyrighted works which is neat and all but getting it earlier because the person died earlier is a silly reason based on all artists being hermits who have no families. It also ignores all the copyrights that aren’t owned by individuals, and companies don’t get into car accidents. Why should someone who keeps their copyright be more at risk of their family losing income than a company?
Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.
The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.
This highlights that we are fucked in the head how we take care of ourselves, kids shouldn’t be made to struggle becsause of the economics of parents. Neither should adults. Neither should retirees.
Neither should adults, but economics based survival is what we have until we all decide why the fuck don’t we just cover the basics of a decent life, no strings at all, waste your life doing what you want or be the best version of yourself, getting us from financial from would just solve so many problems.
Like needing copyright to secure financial gain/benefit.
Especially for creative/cultural works that only have value because other humans went to to share an experience
“Nope, the kid is fucked. We need public free access to his father’s work ASAP.”
I’m just being silly and taking the counter view to the extreme
This happens all the time to people who don’t receive royalties. Parents die, kids get nothing. End of.
You might expand that to “society continuing to allow children to suffer because their parents are unable to care for them is a larger issue than the question of copyright.”
If we addressed the core issues of people having what they need to live then copyright would no longer have a reason for existing.
Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid at the time and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.
Plus companies wouldn’t be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.
Like I said, all it does is prioritize the desires of the dead over the needs of the living. It’s not justified.
In this example, the child is living, and has needs.
In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
So you would rather the publisher make the money instead of giving it to the family of the artist for a short period of time.
What terrible priorities.
I do think they said a publisher was involved.
But what about when they are not?
If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?
Hmm, I think there may have been some confusion on my part here. I’m fine with copyright directly serving individual authors and their families.
I’m not into how that is expanded and abused by corporations.
But I’m also not into the idea that my creative work could be taken and used in ways I don’t want it to be to undercut me and destroy my ability to subsist off of my labor. I so I think copyright has a place in society.
I think they mean it would become public domain and nobody would make money off of it. Books could be downloaded or used for free without a publisher.
A publisher currently publishing a book when an artist dies would have one less expense as they continued to rake in the money.
People make money off of the public domain all the time. Printing bibles is a booming business and copyright on the text expired ages ago. They do get to claim copyright on all of the stuff surrounding the text, like any illustrations, introductions, covers, etc. Most early Disney movies were based on works in the public domain.
Sure, it would allow instant access to copyrighted works which is neat and all but getting it earlier because the person died earlier is a silly reason based on all artists being hermits who have no families. It also ignores all the copyrights that aren’t owned by individuals, and companies don’t get into car accidents. Why should someone who keeps their copyright be more at risk of their family losing income than a company?