Re: CNI-COPYRIGHT digest 1287

From: Denis Borges Barbosa <denisbarbosa[_at_]unikey.com.br>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:48:46 -0200

Reading the very sensible Guide to Berne Convention by Masouyé, WIPO's Official book on the convention:

7.4.    It is not merely by chance that fìfty years was chosen. Most countries have felt it fair and right that the average lifetime of an author and his direct descendants should be covered, i.e., three generations. Clearly the justice of the period varies; it depends always on the length of the author's life and the difference between cases in which he is cut off in his youth or becomes a centenarian cannot be avoided. But it is generally felt normal to add to the author's lifetime a period long enough to allow his heirs to profit from his work while they remember him. Experience has shown that, when an author is dead, his works sometimes fall into a sort of limbo from which they may or may not emerge some time later. In any case, apart, perhaps, from books and certain dramatico-musical works. modern means of exploiting works often make the length of the term of copyright of little financial importance to the users: the latter negotiate blanket licences with the authors' representatives to use large repertoires and normally the lapse into the public domain of any given work makes little difference to the amount they pay. For all these reasons, this minimum period laid down in the Convention seems to provide a fair balance between the interests of authors and the need for society to have free access to the cultural heritage which lasts far longer than those who contributed to it.


At 11:49 28/01/03 -0600, you wrote:

Hello Joseph,

I create with the expectation and hope that my work will someday enrich my heirs.

Without that expectation, I'd have to be very selfish to devote myself to such a

difficult path which has required sacrifice from every member of my family. I hope

and expect that Congress will keep extending the term. If I didn't have that

expectation, I would probably have to stop creating and devote myself to tracking

down infringers and seeking licensing opportunities. Term extensions are the carrot

that keeps me producing new work so my kids will have more works to license if I

don't manage to get around to it myself.

Creators are often driven by their muse which means everyone in the family has to

take up the slack to allow Mom or Dad time to finish a new work. The children and

spouse of an original creator often have to make financial sacrifices while s/he

produces work which may not sell because the world isn't quite ready for it. For

whatever reason success evades a creator, the family probably did without just so

s/he could keep on pursuing a creative career that never did pay off.

Thank goodness the heirs inherit the copyright because the heirs may be even more

determined than the creator to build his/her reputation and to see that the works which

the whole family sacrificed for were not done in vain. The act of creating is fulfilling,

but that's a selfish benefit - not one that extends to the rest of the family. So in my book,

the heirs deserve to benefit from their sacrifice and their marketing efforts just as much

as the creator does.

I understand your point that longer term limits means more competition among licensors,

due to an expanding base of creators, but that's nothing compared to allowing everyone

in the world to market works after they've entered public domain. Longer term limits also

means that heirs may be able to pursue opportunities that  were not available to the

creators while they were alive. Just to show how times have changed, I include the following

quote from "Art Licensing 101" © 2002 Michael Woodward:

"The licensing industry is a $175 billon industry, and growing.

That's a huge increase from 20 years ago, when it was estimated

to be a $10 billion industry worldwide."

A 20 year term extension may be worth a lot when markets are expanding at that rapid pace.

Linda Gruber

Novel Art

http://www.novelart.com

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ@compuserve..com> wrote:
>
> Linda Gruber writes,
>
>   >> The CTEA was a good thing. The Supreme Court made a wise decision.
>
> She goes on to explain why she feels that strong copyright protection is,
> by and large, necessary and desirable. What she says, IMO, recognizes both
> the original spirit of the enabling clause and today's technology; as a
> self-employed writer, I'm inclined to agree with her (although I'm not sure
> that life+20 is the optimum term). I'm also inclined to concur with most of
> what Ivan Hoffman has said here.

Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:

Although the rest of your post is all correct, I don't think
that you as well as Linda and many other alive authors and artists
have the correct grasp of the decision.  Very large majority of
authors and artists who are still alive do not obtain any
substantial benefit from the decision.  It is the heirs,
corporations and their stockholders, entities (such as universities
and organizations), and very small number of lucky authors and
artists that gain from the decision.

Moreover, the longer copyright term makes it more difficult for
your copyrighted works to stand out of many billions of copyrighted
works.  Every year, there are many thousands of new writers and
artists and every year, they produce some hundred thousands of
new copyrighted works.  As the number of works that still have
valid copyright increases, the chance that your copyrighted works
will stand out decreases.

If parents happen to be very famous writers or artists, heirs are
lucky to have them so that they can exploit their parents'
copyrighted works.  And this is where the decision really benefits
them because they have 20 more years to exploit the works while
doing nothing.  For the rest of the heirs, the copyrighted works
will languish in basements and be forgotten and forsaken.

Your copyright protection will not be stronger as the result of the
decision.  Allow me play devil's advocate for a moment.  It is DMCA
that makes your copyright protection stronger.  Also, you should
support Digital Rights Management (DRM) to make your copyright
protection even much stronger.  Just imagine how rich you will be
when you charge readers a penny for each page that they turn.


Joseph Pietro Riolo

<riolo@voicenet.com>

Received on Wed Jan 29 2003 - 13:52:46 GMT