For how long should a copyrighted work be legally protected?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Poll question: For how long should a copyrighted work be legally protected?

Until it enters the public domain?

In this poll, I'm not using the "time of death of the author" criterion currently in use for works made by an individual; rather, count time from creation/publishing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. OK, the person who voted "forever" did so just as a gag, right?

...right?

[robinlynne]

3. probably not. Porbably that person creates something which should not go to public domain.

[robinlynne]

2. i dont wnat my owrks to ever be in the public domain. I'm very careful about how my photos

are used. Othwerwise they could be used by the nazi party, or by the porn industry. Can you imagine if the nazi party could use an image of my mother, just because you guys want free downloads off of the internet? which is more important? Of course I put everything in writing so that after my death images will be removed from the web. They do not belong to the public. It is my right to determine when and how and by whom they may be used. I would NEVER publish an image if it could become public after 30 years. period. That is an absurd notion.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. "I put everything in writing so that after my death images will be removed from the web"

Yeah, that should do it. :rofl:

[robinlynne]

17. It is simply an heir cancelling a contract with Getty ten years after I die.

what's so funny about that/ If anyone ever steals an image from Getty, they have coding encrypted in every image and they hunt each theft down. They do it. Believe me. And they do it well.

[kentauros]

4. I went with 40 to 50 years.

Give the creator some decades to make what they can off of their work, and save whatever they will for their family (assuming they have family that could benefit.) The family members are not the original creators, just possible beneficiaries.

Copyrights should not be about protecting corporate profits, especially where the corporation was not the human that created the original. Walt Disney is dead, as are most (if not all) of his direct descendants. Mickey should have been in the public domain for decades by now.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. Just to nitpick, instead of "Mickey", it should read "the early Mickey shorts and strips".

Mickey the character is a trademark, and trademarks don't expire as long as the owner uses it. Which is OK by me.

But forbidding passing around copies of Steamboat Willie? Fuck them.

[kentauros]

7. I have three isues of a comic called "Uncensored Mouse"

and it's nothing but the old, original strips of Mickey Mouse. I think the people that compiled them into those comic books managed to get out four issues before the inevitable "cease and desist" letters from Disney Corporate. The understanding of the people that had created the comics was that the strips were in "the public domain" and available for republishing. But no-o-o-o! Nothing that has any resemblance to Mickey Mouse will ever be "free" so no releasing of old strips.

I have no idea what my copies are worth, but would guess if I were to sell them, either I'd get a decent price, or a Disney would be there to destroy them on the spot :P

As for Mickey being a trademark, who originated that, Walt or the company? Unless his frozen head is revived, ala Futurama, I still don't recognize their hold permanent hold over such things.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Cool! Could you be so kind as to take picture(s) and post here for us?

:bounce:

[kentauros]

10. I'd love to, but

I'd have to dig those boxes out of my closet, a chore I don't really relish. But I'll still give it a try, maybe this weekend. Better bookmark this post so I remember :)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Wow, either opinions are really divided...

...or people voted all over the place just to see all the pretty bar colors.

(Full disclosure: I voted 40-50, at a moment where there were just two other votes, one for 30-40 and other for 50-70.)

[AlabamaLibrul]

11. I'd most likely go with 100 years from creation

if I had to pick one. That seems long enough for me for the creator to be around, possibly for an estate to have time to license products and all of that sort of thing, and long enough for something to be out there, a century, when it is finally turned over to the commons.

(I voted "more than one above option")

[ThomWV]

12. As long as the Author is alive - but that's all

I think the work belongs to the Author, but only so long as they live.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. I could go with "X years or, if by an individual, life of author..."

"...whichever comes latest."

With X being, say, 40 years. That'd be reasonable.

[Modern_Matthew]

14. Other: NEVER. nt

[AlabamaLibrul]

29. I like the idea of owning the photos I take, and don't like that you aren't for that n/t

[MicaelS]

15. A single nonrenewable 25 year term

For either a single patent or single copyrighted work. If you can't make money in that time, you aren't going to make it. And the patent, or copyright can not be renewed, EVER. Not even if it sold to someone else.

Trademarks would be different. If you want to trademark a character, then you have to produce a new work at least every 25 years, or the character goes into the public domain, too.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. If I remember right, trademark law is already somewhat like that.

Patents, on the other hand, last LESS than 25 years currently. Don't give them any ideas.

[MicaelS]

18. Well the problem with patents is that patentholders

Will simply make one minor change to the patent, submit it under a new patent, and the clock start all over again. I wouldn't let them do that. You have 25 years to make your money off the idea, and that would be it, period. No renewals.

[hifiguy]

19. Creator's lifetime plus 20 years is

PLENTY. The point is to protect the creator's right, not his descendants in perpetuity.

And you will eventually see copyright stretched to infinity because that is what Disney wants. They will NEVER give up the mouse, EVER, regardless of how many people have to be bribed. Assholes. And the mouse is a shitty, gormless character to boot in the eyes of this Warner Bros. fan. Mickey Mouse SUCKS!

[TuxedoKat]

32. I think you're right

that seems like a fair amount of time. As far as Mickey Mouse, I first visited Disney World in 1978, not long after it opened. It was new and fresh and looking to the future. I went back in 2002 and it had been Mickyfied! Micky Mouse was everywhere, there was a Mickey-like twist added to just about everything. Even Epcot had added a giant Micky Mouse arm on the outside - yuck. The whole ambiance of Disney World and Epcot had changed too, not forward-looking and much more nostalgic and backward-looking. They also kept shoving the idea of "Disney magic" in your face everywhere you turned, which along with Mickey Mouse, was just so much "Mickey Mouse" (see explanation below).

Funny, writing this just reminded me that occassionally my dad used to use the term "Micky Mouse" in a derogatory fashion, as in "what a bunch of Micky Mouse" or something like that. It had the connotation of something that was trivial, annoying, insignificant, cloying, aggravating, stupid, irritating, nauseating, just to name a some.

Edited to correct spelling of "ambiance" the way I normally spell it, but found spelling it with an "e" was correct too.

[cbdo2007]

20. Why not use "time of death of the author"?

That seems fair.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. (1) Doesn't apply to works made by corporations;

(2) Is inherently unfair. Two authors write a book each at age 25. One of them lives to be 104. The other dies in a car crash at 28; (3) Would complicate the poll too much.

[cbdo2007]

22. (2) - how is that unfair? Dead people can't spend money and can't enjoy notoriety.

:)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. I think SOME consideration for the author's descendants is warranted.

A couple decades minimum protection would be fair.

[Codeine]

24. Too simple. We need a corporate choice and an individual choice.

I believe they should be handled differently.

[MilesColtrane]

25. Other: Life of the Author + 18 Years

Long enough to allow any royalties help provide for minor children

Corporate creations are limited to a single 25 year span.

[Posteritatis]

27. I'd add a year for late arrivals, but other than that I agree. (nt)

[CBGLuthier]

26. Irving Berlin outlived some of his copyrights

Under the old more reasonable laws coupled with his living to 100.

I believe 75 years should be more than enough time to exploit.

The funny thing about all this is a lot of the pressure to extend the lengths was brought by Disney.

The very same Disney that made a hellofalotof money from public domain works.

For the good of civilization there must be a reasonable length to copyrights.

[Odin2005]

28. Until the death of the author.

If there is no single author, 60 years.

[LWolf]

30. I voted "forever," even though I don't mean that literally.

If you are talking royalties, probably the 100 year mark. Or death +50.

If you are talking about the ability to legally plagiarize, FOREVER sounds good to me. An example: I HATE hearing good music from the past suddenly appear in a stupid commercial. Yes, I know that often the owner of that copyright has sold rights, and even though I fervently wish they would not do so, I certainly understand the economic temptation. I'd like work whose rights HAVEN'T been sold to be protected from that kind of violation, whether the author is alive or dead.

If you are talking about the ability to significantly CHANGE a work, FOREVER also sounds good to me. An example: The on-going efforts to rewrite Twain, to "cleanse" his language. I had this conversation just yesterday with some 7th graders who are preparing to read him. We talked about the language issue ahead of time, to keep it in context. What did one of my students say? "If Samuel Clemens were here, he'd smack them upside the head with his pipe." I agree.

[NYC Liberal]

31. 10-15 years.

You want more income? Then create something new.