Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 31 Aug 1998, Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> To be honest, I much prefer the US model (at least without the
> registration requirements) but I would prefer to extend it with a
> compulsary licensing regime to prevent authors and owners from
> manipulating the market for works and restricting the creation of
> derivative works.

I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulating the market" for property. Most people I know exercise absolute control over all their property to the full extent of their abilities. Why should copyright be second-class property?

Authors should be in a position to negotiate.

The author of a novel, should be able to control translations and dramatic adaptations as a matter of artistic integrity.

The author or publisher of a nonfiction work should be able to withdraw it or to make corrections. It may be in error, or libelous.

The author of a letter should be able to oppose publication absolutely ... even to burn the letter.

An artist should be able to exercise some control over the quality of reproductions.

A poet should be able to withhold permission for his/her poems to be set to music or used in a dramatic work.

There are also plain economic issues. Today a photographer with authorized photos of celebrities can grant limited exclusivity and command a good price from magazines, TV, and advertisers and make a decent living. Compulsory licensing would end all that, IMHO. Art would degrade to the quality of TV news with the same clip (f.e Monica hugs Bill) everywhere ad nauseum.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu Sep 03 1998 - 15:42:45 GMT