Originally posed by teddybearcholla:
Excellent article. In fact, it confirms that while copyright holders do have certain rights, they are
limited in nature.
From the link:
We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good.
emphasis added
One of the ways they are limited is by time. It was originally 14 years. Currently, copyright for individuals lasts for the duration of the author's life, plus 70 years. Expect another extension a bit before 2019, when works are scheduled to start entering the public domain again.
The link also confirms that copyright is intended to provide the potential of profit as an incentive to create.
From the link:
It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.
emphasis added
Originally posed by teddybearcholla:
The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power 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."[1] The framers of the Constitution did not discuss this clause at any length prior to or after its adoption.[2] The purpose of the clause was described in the Federalist Papers by James Madison:
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.[3]
I understand this to mean there was no question at the time the Constitution was written, that authors and inventors *owned* their creations.
emphasis added
I would agree with that. Along with the above mentioned ownership, inventors and authors are granted rights to control certain aspects of how their works are reproduced, for a limited time. After that limited time has elapsed, the works enter the public domain, where they may be freely reproduced, and used to create derived works.
-------------
Let us return to the original topic of this thread. The
Orphan Works Act of 2008.
Please take time to read the complete act, to insure that when writing to representatives, we can make specific comments and suggestions.
In my
opinion the bill requires certain clarifications, if it is to both aid copyright holders and those that might eventually create a derived work. Again, this is my opinion. In a community of artists, there should be sufficient creativity to come up with comments that are constructive.
1.
It needs to clarify that authors works will be copyright automatically, for a set limited time. I believe that time should be 14 years, as was the original term.
2.
It needs to clarify that after the initial term, copyright holders will be required to register their copyright if they wish to prevent their works from entering the public domain. I believe that only one extension, of equal length to the original term, should be allowed. This will let others build on existing works, as I'm sure many of the people reading this have done at some time, legally or otherwise.
3.
If a registration fee is to be charged, it should not be a revenue generator; it should cover the costs of registration, and maintenance of the database.
4.
Access to the information in the database should be provided cost free, so those who wish to check the status of a copyrighted work, or to find the author's contact information, may easily do so. Access via the Internet would be ideal.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the management of such a database could be (read as most likely will be) troublesome.
I believe that
something needs to be done about copyright. As is, I don't think this bill is it. Are there any constructive ideas out there, or am I the only one that thinks the system could use some (major) tweaks?
