I'm a bit of a broken record on this, but copyright lasting beyond the death of the author is important so that near-death authors can still sell their work. It would be near-worthless to a buyer/publisher/etc. if it was about to enter public domain. Imagine the headline "Famous artist diagnosed with terminal cancer - suddenly can't sell her work to fund her treatment."

This is why the lifetime of the creator should have nothing to do with copyright terms. All works get a fixed term of 20, 30, whatever years, if the creator dies before that term the rights can be transferred via their estate.

I believe this is the correct answer. And the time frame needs to be shorter than the life of an average person. Personally I think 25 is correct.

The original 14 years plus 14 extra years upon active renewal made sense.

That applies not just to people very close to death. If copyright ended right on death, the the work of someone in their 20's would have twice as long to earn revenue as the work of someone in their 50's. The former work would still be covered when nostalgia bump came, while the later work would not. This would create significant financial incentives for publishers/labels/etc to pick up younger artists instead of older ones.

Fix term makes so much more sense. We should have never signed the Berne Convention.

You could do like 50 years or death of author, whichever comes 2nd. Then an author knows they own their work for life no matter what, but an author near working death still has something to pass on.

This feels very similar to the "think about the children" lines when people want to keep their privacy online. It's stupidly specific, and if you have to twist this far to find an example, I think you have nothing.

I don't think its _stupidly_ specific to point out that people should still be able to sell things when nearing death. But 10/15 years should be more than enough. The amount of years is beyond parody at this point.

David Bowie died two days after his final album was released. Are the people who worked on it, put it out, somehow less entitled to make money because he died?

It doesn't feel overly specific when the topic is copyright after death to think about how people die.

There's two solutions here, either they are co-creators and then all the creators aren't dead or they aren't and they were never going to receive additional revenue beyond their work anyway.

Either way, that's not working as an argument against stopping copyright when the authors are dead.

There's a publisher, who did boring things like pay the cover artist, buy the plastic and vinyl, pay the printer. The record came out, they had a bunch of copies, and then two days later Bowie died. If they're exclusive right to sell they music disappears, they overpaid Bowie.

The cost of publishing a music online after it's been produced is close to zero nowadays. I could see how that argument was relevant 30 years ago though.

And the initial costs are similar to any other non-copyright related work, paid per service.

Because the costs to publish online are zero there would be innumerable other copies of the work posted, meaning the initial outlay for the studio time etc cannot be recouped.

It's exactly like any other work, your plumber doesn't receive royalties whenever you use your bathroom, those costs should be paid upfront.

Yep! The costs to press vinyl and print sleeves and market the work _are_ paid upfront. So cutting off the revenue stream unexpectedly means no more expensive projects for old artists

But it's a plausible situation (terminal/severe illnesses are not that rare) and a relevant argument against the "expire on death" copyright proposal. Laws often need to deal with "stupidly specific" cases because they do happen in the real world.

Yeah... Each time I see someone cashing in on a dead artists licenses I picture Sony Bono chiming in from an RIAA luxury lounge in the sky: "I got you babe!"

> That you would copy an image, apply a random filter, then call it your own and sell it, is ridiculous.

It's pretty easy to counter your assertion by simply saying, "I find no value in the original work but I find value in Warhol's rendition". Since the argument is that the court is supposedly defending Goldsmith's right to prosper from her works, then you cannot say that she would have benefitted unilaterally because I would not have paid her for her art, only Warhol. Personally I don't care for Warhol much and I'm using the royal I, but to say that applying a filter to an image cannot create a new work is, I think, preposterous.

Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. All it does is add more confusion into the mix. So if Warhol hadn't commercialized the work, would it have been fair use? That's now an open question after reading the supreme court's majority opinion/ruling.

All this case does is demonstrate that in this specific instance 7 of 9 judges didn't obviously see how Warhol's work transformed the original source material enough to constitute a new work, or Warhol foundations' lawyers didn't make it obvious enough. And it now throws into the mix that "fair use" is not solely dependent on the idea of transforming a work, it's in fact way more complicated and so yes let's open the flood gates for a bunch of new copyright cases arguing that one artist, even though they did transform an original work, was too adjacent and not distinguished enough to constitute fair use.

I mean honestly I'm super confused how to interpret fair use now.

> But the real scandal is that copyright survives the artist. Marvin Gaye, Andy Warhol... Dead guys. So called "estates"... Insects feeding on corpses.

Agree.

so.... no intergenerational wealth transfer then? if estates can't pass on intellectual property, then why should they be allowed to pass on physical property? If they can pass on physical property, then why not intellectual property, at least within the legally defined (and IMO far too long) windows of protection?

It's in the constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The question is does the heritability of IP promote the progress of science and useful arts, or does it simply enrich heirs? I can see the argument that people wouldn't create art or do science if they couldn't profit from it, but it's much greyer whether they wouldn't do it if they couldn't pass it to their heirs.

It seems that any language stating intentions in the Constitution has only as much relevance to real laws as the relative strength of the lobbyists arguing for/against the provision in question, e.g. "A well regulated militia..."

I'm not an expert on the science part, but as far as the arts are concerned, IP being inheritable not only does not promote progress, it actively harms it. See: The Marvin Gaye estate and the damage they wreak on the music industry by thrashing about every few years with another cash grab lawsuit based on hamfisted and incompetent explanations of music theory.

I don't think that is a very good example of active harm due to inheritance. Marvin gaye could have done the exact same thing if he was still alive.

Marvin Gaye was making music, which is to be encouraged. His estate makes nothing.

>or does it simply enrich heirs?

This was one of the original arguments in favor of copyright, except in reverse, as the poverty of heirs was an argument in favor of copyright:

When, in 1749, Thomas Newton's (1704-1782) edition of Paradise Lost was published, it carried details about the impoverished circumstances in which Elizabeth Foster, Milton's granddaughter, lived.[33] The account gave rise to a performance of Milton's Comus at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from which Elizabeth received £130, the profits of the evening. When aligned with the fact that Milton himself received only £20 from Simmons, the tale became a staple in subsequent accounts of neglected genius and avaricious publishers.

Deazley, R. (2008) ‘Commentary on Milton's Contract 1667', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

I don't think it's grey at all, what other productive effort do people only do on the grounds that it will enrich their heirs? Maybe that's what it takes to encourage knocking off a king, if that's something you want to encourage, but I can hardly think of anything else.

Still that cuts in both directions, in that you could use it to argue that other properties don't necessarily need to be heritable.

Either way it's pretty clear the "limited times" they were imagining were a portion of a lifespan, not multiple lifespans. It's pretty ridiculous that as the world moves faster these durations are increasing rather than decreasing.

Could someone argue that transferability of copyright is not constitutional because it's not explicitly authorized by constitution ? The exclusive right is explicitly given to authors and inventors, not to other people.

I don't think you can argue that at all. The point is to promote the science and arts. Being and to transfer ownership makes it easier to promote the individual artists and inventor. Also how do you deal with large projects that have the efforts of a lot of people?

I’m against it until I’m in that situation myself. And if I am I’m probably not passing on all my wealth to my family besides a really healthy trust.. because if they can’t manage to stand on their two feet and make hella gains with a few million dollars they are losers imo. I personally started with $0 and have managed to do well enough for myself thus far as a swe and pursuing some business ideas. I know people who can’t do shit with millions.

Rather have the money go to St Jude or some other charity.

* * *

Did you miss the "with a few million dollars" part? That's more than enough money to be comfortable for your entire life, several lives really, plus enough capital to start any kind of business your passion leads you to. I truly don't think the viewpoint GP expressed is incompatible with familial love and setting up a great life for your children.

I did miss that as being significant but did read it: yet based on the attitude displayed, it's not entirely clear that's in the cards.

It seems the commenter is more talking about her/his idea of a "principle" whereby we can "judge a person's value (and eligibility to inherit from the commenter)" by what they have done / would do with such money. This person seems to suggest they themselves have high value in that regard, and seems to suggest their family does not. To me, it wasn't clear the commenter intends to leave them "a few million" as you seem to suggest.

Feel free to judge me.

I personally grew up poor AF in a 3rd world country with no resource (no running water, a hole for a toilet, and we used lamps at night to study). It bothers me when I see people in USA basically live off their parents and complain non-stop over dumb things. That's like, my opinion bro.

I'll be leaving my family a generous amount, don't you worry about them. I love them very much, and I want them to be successful on their own two feet and not depend on me to die so they can ball out.

More importantly, I'll raise my kids right compared to the fools I see around me in USA who just live off their lineage and still manage to complain over the dumbest things.

Case in point - my housemate from a few years ago when I was broke AF and living in a cheap 10x8 room.. this dude spent basically 16 hours a day playing call of duty/drinking/smoking weed and he basically told me he was waiting for his grandmother to die so he can receive some money. She ended up dying from Covid and he got almost 600k. He still smokes weed, gets drunk, and even got a DUI recently. I would be ashamed if he was my kid for failing as a parent. He's probably the most egregious example, but I know plenty of others who don't work hard because they know they're going to get a ton of money from their grandparents/parents dying so they just play the long game. I find that gross.. imagine wasting your life until you're 40 waiting for a payday from granny or mommy passing away.

* * *

The primary reason where I'm from has so many problem is because of my own people hoarding money and doing corrupt things like diverting funds for projects to their own bank accounts. I don't think it has anything to do with race, it is a mentality.

Isn't there research that shows that wealth concentration across generations just leads to that wealth dissipating within 2-3 generations? What's the point of that? I want my children to know the value of money.. that is that money comes by providing value to others. Pleasing one's parents/guardians/family is not that hard, IMO that's just a baseline.

Actually getting people to pay for something one made or can do is a lot harder, and takes deep efforts to accomplish. If my kids want to ask me for some money to start a business or attend some course, sure I'm more than happy to oblige. When I pass away, I hope my kids would have been able to build something of their own because they took inspiration from the world and people in it to be valuable human beings while I was still alive. I would honestly be proud if I don't have to leave anything to my children, because they have become capable individuals. It would be trivial for me to leave everything to my family, took like 20 minutes to write a will.

It is far more challenging and rewarding to raise good men and women, and I think I can do that by encouraging them to provide value to others. My parents could barely afford to feed themselves but after we moved to US put me into things like Kumon, a basketball camp, took me to the hospital to volunteer, encouraged me to do after school activities like robotics and math club, go to the library, etc.. I think it made me a far better person. When my grandfather passed away he had no money or assets to his name. You know what he said on his death bed? He was proud of his children and grandchildren, that they had taken life by the reins and done their best to steer that horse. "Have a good life" is what he said to me. I want my kids to have a good life too. While I'm alive I'll set them up for it. We all have our viewpoints, so that's mine.

Sounds like your parents Had good ideas about how to make the most of the opportunity they acquired by coming to America. As it happens, my grandfather said something very similar to me and repeated it to me throughout his life.

> grew up poor AF in a 3rd world country with no resource (no running water, a hole for a toilet, and we used lamps at night to study)

My own dad grew up without indoor plumbing in the US for much of his early childhood (I think until he was 12 or so; his older brother would have been 20). Much of the rural areas of the US didn't have electricity, or at least indoor plumbing, until the New Deal started moving things in the 1930's. Robert F Kennedy even remarked on the lack of utilities in his 1968 tour of Appalachia.

He (and my aunts and uncles) raised us to appreciate what we have, and to understand the difference in life that working hard and not being wasteful can make. Though normal (perhaps even small) compared to most suburban houses in the US, what I grew up in was practically the lap of luxury compared to the farmhouse he did.

I'm still amazed at how few people seem to appreciate the difference one or two generations' time has made on life here.

FWIW I'm not sure analogies between intellectual property and actual property really work, since they are pretty fundamentally different if you compare the specifics.

It's almost like Intellectual property is some kind of made up thing that isn't really property, and people can make a distinction between actual property and IP.

Weird, huh?

As you said, you can pass physical property, why would you need that to be extended to other area on top of it ? I mean you would think that inheriting the actual capital generated by the art pieces, on top of the unsold original pieces, would be enough as far as money goes (moral right is different, I see why you would want to inherit that). It's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that...

>it's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that

yeah but it's less of a bit that than it is a bit that your parents owned physical property and intellectual property and when they died you inherit the physical property so why not the intellectual property.

> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit.

Having read various fair use decisions over many years, I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent. Courts try to apply the four fair use factors and maintain consistency with previous decisions, but it's just a mess. If you look at this case, the district court decided it was fair use, the appeals court decided it wasn't, and the Supreme Court agreed it wasn't but with a 7-2 split. The point is that even expert judges can't agree. It's kind of hopeless to try to make sense of fair use law.

> I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent

Logically speaking fair use would have to have some degree of indeterminance and incoherence given that there is not mathematical formula detailing specifically how much change is needed for transformation in relation to commercializing that change. Without such a formula there will always be edge cases that will look wacky in relation to everything else.

> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. All it does is add more confusion into the mix.

The Roberts Court in a nutshell. At least they made a ruling. Versus slipping this case thru the emergency shadow docket.

> It's pretty easy to counter your assertion by simply saying, "I find no value in the original work but I find value in Warhol's rendition".

Finding value is not a concern of the various copyright and IP infringements though. Nearly any copy will find value, as that was the point of copying it in the first place.

It's Lynn Goldsmith's copyright, and she is still alive.

That is only because copyright is too long. Of course copyright should survive the creator. But not for 95 years(or even 75)

One big problem is that some things are a flat year number and others are N years past the death of the author, and it feels like the priorities are reversed. Like in music the composition has the longer copyright than the recording, so fun derivative works like cover songs are more protected than just selling somebody else's album.

> Of course copyright should survive the creator.

Why "of course"? What purpose does it serve after the creator is dead?

Copyright is a temporary monopoly for the creator to be able to profit from their creation, when they are dead, there's no point to it anymore.

In a broader sense, having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works rather than a different source of income where assets accrued can benefit them. In particular in cases where your spouse and children are dependant on your income. That it should be restricted by a lot is obvious by now of course.

Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case.

> , having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works

I'd argue the exact opposite, that reduce the incentive to produce new work, why creating new work when you can profit from old ones you haven't put any effort into it?

> Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case.

That could be a good argument for it yes, I haven't thought about the external pressure.

The vast majority of artists struggle to make even a living wage. Many successful artists only become financially so late in life, if ever, and were often in extreme poverty until that happened. Cormac McCarthy is a good example. Is it really fair to their estate to cease all protection of their works just because they died?

Is Apple going to relinquish control over patents and the products they protect when their inventors die?

Most people care about leaving something of value for their descendants. This includes both financial resources and a proud legacy. Indeed, especially late in life, this might be more of a motivator than the limited personal benefit they might derive.

I'm still mad that the box set of Rocky & Bullwinkle, copyrighted in the 1960s, comes with the fun and apropos music replaced with generic crap.

Copyright should expire after 5-10 years.

All the more ironic considering how Prince himself approached copyright:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_Can_Wait

It should survive to some extent. Otherwise disney would just have you shot so that they could take your copyrighted material.