Doesn't an extended term better respect those creators who might have works that time could protect. I'm thinking of works that are created not with the intent of immediate recognition but where unauthorized reproduction would be premature or could harm the creator or the creator's family. Or suppose Disney and his family came to repudiate "his little rodent friend." And wouldn't an extended term allow the family, friends, heirs, to more fully participate in the management of works that might require special attention. An extended term recognizes that one can create with greater (if not complete) control over the "life" of those work--i.e. down the road really matters. I can think of other legal methods to address these concerns but I'm grappling with the idea of copyright as protecting the individual and their personality and not as motivated exclusively by economic considerations. Copyright, too, as an intergenerational resource, perhaps...
Jon Binks
On Wed, 24 Apr 96, Jayne Sebby <jsebby[_at_]unlinfo.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> > The point is that if Walt Disney had been told in 1922 that his
> > monopoly on his creation would expire in 2017 instead of 1997, and
> > then done the math, he would not have discovered an appreciablly
> > increased economic motivation to create his little rodent friend.
> >
> > Paul J. Heald
> > University of Georgia School of Law
>
> Very few creative people do things just for the financial reward or
> create faster/more things in order to make more money, immediately or
> down the road. Copyright extention therefore means little to the
> artist. Also most creators (except possibly authors and muscians)
> sell their creations, including copyright, to others or create under
> a "work for hire" scenario, so any copyright term is irrelevant.
>
> Jayne Sebby
> jsebby[_at_]unlinfo.unl.edu
> Nebraska ETV
Received on Thu Apr 25 1996 - 21:39:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT