Matthew Hunter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:50:48AM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > >>Discussions over the years have pointed out some other things -- such >>as that if copyright doesn't extend significantly past death, creators >>who are old will have a difficult time negotiating decent terms on new >>works. "We can't pay you much for this, because you'll probably die >>in the next 5 years, and all we're buying from you is the license to >>use your copyright; if that ends in 5 years, it's not worth much to >>us." >> >>This leaves me thinking that "life + 25" is a vaguely reasonable place >>to end up. It's by no means a "precisely right" point. > > > I get to this same point by the following reasoning: > > An author needs copyright on his works to make money. So long as > he is alive he has some right to revenue from those works. In > the event that he dies, his works should retain protection > sufficient that their proceeds can be used to the benefit of his > children, up until their majority and assumed independent means. > > So, life + enough time for a child born the day before to reach > adulthood. I'd be happy with life + 18 or life + 21. Life + 25 > is enough for a college education. > This sounds like quite a reasonable scenario. However it doesn't address the issue of corporate ownership of copyrights. Which, from memory, in the US are set to the age of Mickey Mouse plus a bit :) There is also the issue of extending copyright via the back door. Take for instance a painting painted in the 15th century. Its definatley out of copyright. If I however scan that painting, and publish that _new_ image, I have copyright over the new image. Now if that is the only image available in the public domain, cause say you can't take cameras into art galleries, then you basically get an extension on the copyright of a work that has already lapsed. Andrew.