Re: music and copyright

On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
>
> But I don't think it is worth protecting either -- not worth the costs
> of litigation and further tying up of PD works like Mark Twain.
>
> And I know the thought and effort and creativity that (sometimes) goes
> into layout. It just isn't worth protecting in light of the limited
> protection and the countervailing interests and costs.

Isn't this a bit hard to codify, and easier to leave up to the judge to decide the facts?

I am thinking of the trend to glorify the author, who gets the copyright and royalties, at the expense of all the others who made the work. For example, performers are underrewarded for their contributions to creative works, and heirs to authors overrewarded. I believe in the legislative debates on the U.S copyright extension it was strongly suggested that the movie studios start paying residuals to the other contributors to their films beyond the director and the studio. Has this happened?

Likewise, today you may be right that much typography is not creative enough to protect, but in many works it really is an integral part of the work and a mere text reformat does not convey the book as a work of art. Maybe if the typographers were properly rewarded then they could exercise their art and do their proper job for the readers. The lost cost of production on the web today might encourage more books to have proper layout and typography as well as art that hitherto was too expensive.

Eric Eldred
<eldred[_at_]mediaone.net> Received on Wed Jan 12 2000 - 22:48:15 GMT