SCOTUS and Congress make moves to Copy-right Public Domain Works.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Photonic, Jan 18, 2012.

  1. Photonic
    Offline

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,746
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +247
  2. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,366
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,714
    Immortality no longer lies in the creation of art but in the legal ownership of it.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    The decision seems to address only foreign works produced during the 1920s, attempting to line-up international and American copyright policy.
     
  4. Photonic
    Offline

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,746
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +247
    Should they not then do that going forward, and leave public domain works as they are?
     
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617

    It ought to, though and here's why...

    Because if it doesn't, then people can find themselves in violation of copyright laws EX POST FACTO.

    And that does violate a principle of FAIRNESS that we ought to be able to expect in our laws.
     
  6. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,935
    It's complex, but I'd hope the original artist of a work would benefit from his or her work for a lifetime if his or her financial situation is marginal or the artist became disabled from producing more work and needed the income. In general, a person who has dedicated his or her life to an art is more likely to be obscure than one who is able to capitalize, profit, and move on due to a knack for management, or one who is able to capitalize on the poorer artists' work after the copyright expires 17 years later. Art requires a focus and a discipline, but that trait does not always leave the artist capable in financial management, so he dies with a brush or baton in his hand, too poor to afford a decent burial like Mozart or Van Gogh or Poe.
     
  7. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    WTF? "benefit from his or her work for a lifetime IF his or her financial situation is marginal....."

    IF?

    It's theirs. For their lifetime... and for those who inherit. No one owns someone else's work.
     

Share This Page