Rethinking Handing Copyright On To Heirs Beyond Death

from the doesn't-make-sense dept

As you're well aware, we've seen copyright extended over and over again, in ways that seem to go wholly against the purpose of copyright. After all, copyright is designed to encourage the creation of new content. Extending it after that content has been created makes no sense. The content was already created. However, not only has it been extended over and over again, but people are still pushing for it to be extended, even to the point that some claim that copyright should last forever (or, when pushed about the Constitution's demand that copyright be for limited times, they'll say "forever minus a day.") One of the common arguments in favor of copyright extension is that copyright should be passed down to "heirs," so that just as you can inherit a house, you should be able to inherit copyright. However, there's some new research challenging (or, rather, demolishing) that thinking. Reader (and frequent Techdirt critic) Wilton points us to this paper that questions the very premise of "descendible copyright" by Deven Desai.

Desai points out that the needs of "heirs" are quite often used to defend copyright extension because it creates an emotional image (you don't want the poor kids of an artist to go starving, do you?), but it's entirely misleading and unfair:

Yet, once one probes the heirs assumption, one finds it lacks any historical or theoretical basis. Instead, the assumption hides rent-seeking behavior, clashes between authors and publishers regarding who can extract that rent, and political maneuvering by the copyright industry; all of which are behaviors that copyright policy ought to avoid and/or prevent. In addition, the image of stealing food from heirs permits the debates to marginalize society's interest in a robust creative system with lower costs regarding the access to and use of knowledge and information.

In fact, Desai can find no support for the idea that heirs deserve the copyright of others. He does find it acceptable that copyright should last throughout an author's life, but should end upon death. I have trouble supporting the idea that copyright should even be that long, but the total dismantling of any support for the idea that heirs deserve copyrights is well worth reading. He points out that the whole point of copyright law is to encourage the production of new works -- and once someone is dead, they're not going to produce any new works, so it's silly to continue to "encourage" them.

For me, though, the most troubling part in reading the quotes Desai highlights of politicians and heirs fighting for copyright extension is this impression that somehow the public domain is bad. Just read this, from Senator Orin Hatch, to defend copyright extension a decade ago:

I would like to draw particular attention to the career of Walter Donaldson.... If the present copyright law had been in effect in the 1920's, all of Walter Donaldson's compositions would fall into the public domain within the next 2 years.

The implication,there, is that somehow this is a bad thing. Of course, reality is exactly the opposite. The deal with the public is that creators are given a monopoly for a limited time, so that it eventually goes into the public domain where everyone can benefit from it. Yet Hatch is implying that it's somehow a problem that the public would benefit from Donaldson's works.

Another stunning quote is from Samuel Clemens' (better known as Mark Twain) argument in favor of copyright extension, invoking his daughters as being too clueless and helpless to earn any money on their own:

My copyrights produce to me annually a good deal more money than I have any use for. But those children of mine have use for that. I can take care of myself as long as I live. I know half a dozen trades, and I can invent a half a dozen more. I can get along. But I like the fifty years' extension, because that benefits my two daughters, who are not as competent to earn a living as I am, because I have carefully raised them as young ladies, who don't know anything and can't do anything. So I hope Congress will extend to them that charity which they have failed to get from me.

This reinforces the totally unsubstantiated claim that copyright is designed as a welfare system to "protect" those who have no other means of earning a living. Of course, copyright wasn't designed for that purpose at all. Why the government should support it as a system of welfare for the children of copyright creators is never clearly explained at all. Desai contrasts Clemens' assertions with those of Victor Hugo, who while a big supporter of copyright and authors' rights, also spoke eloquently of how important the public domain is, and how it needs to be supported. He does suggest a royalty system for heirs -- but not a copyright system, saying that the ideas belong to the public.

So, the next time you see someone arguing that copyright should be extended in perpetuity for the sake of "their children," perhaps note that there's nothing in copyright law that has ever supported such an assertion.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will The Supreme Court Give Steinbeck's Heirs Back The Rights To Some Of His Works?

from the watch-this-space dept

Michael Scott points us to an interesting discussion over whether or not the Surpreme Court will take on a case concerning whether or not the rights on certain John Steinbeck books should be returned to his heirs. There have been a series of cases involving similar challenges. A quick summary is that copyright law in the US has long held the right for the original creators to terminate earlier grants of their copyright at certain defined periods of time. Basically, the reasoning was that early on in a content creator's career, they may need to grant the copyright to a large company (publisher, studio, etc.), but later on, after a certain amount of value is established, they should have the right to reclaim the copyright from whoever they granted it to. This seems problematic on a whole variety of levels, but it's the law.

With changes to copyright law in 1976 and again in 1998, this right was once again reiterated -- along with a clause saying that this right to terminate such grants exists "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." The reasoning, supposedly, was that this would stop powerful publishers/studios from getting content creators to sign away such termination rights (which had happened prior to 1976). This has resulted in a series of lawsuits, where heirs of old content creators are trying to reclaim the rights to certain content. Some of the famous cases have involved the characters Superman and the dog Lassie.

The latest battle involves Steinbeck's heirs, and their desire to regain control of certain Steinback works -- mainly for the purpose of selling the movie rights. Different circuit courts have ruled in somewhat contradictory ways on the issue -- which is the sort of thing that is helpful in getting the Supreme Court interested.

That said, it's difficult to see either side having much in the way of moral high ground here. Historically, this wouldn't even be an issue, because the works of Steinbeck should be public domain material by now -- under the terms of copyright when he wrote them. The fact that they're not in the public domain is a huge travesty, and makes the squabbling over which individuals or organizations (who had nothing to do with the actual content in question) should get to profit from these works particularly silly.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do J.R.R. Tolkien's Kids Deserve Money For The Lord Of The Rings Movies?

from the what-did-they-have-to-do-with-it dept

There are some competing opinion pieces in the LA Times, starting off with one siding with J.R.R. Tolkien's kids in their legal fight for royalties from the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies:

Tolkien obviously isn't Peter Jackson, who directed the franchise, or Liv Tyler or Viggo Mortensen, who starred in it, or New Line Cinema, the studio that financed it, or Miramax, which owned the film rights for a second but couldn't get the movie made, or producer Saul Zaentz, who bought the rights in 1976. He's just the guy who dreamed up the cosmology, the whole shebang of hobbits and dwarfs, orcs, ents, wargs, trolls, whatnot.

Then, there's the other side, pointing out that while it might be true that they legally deserve the money, it doesn't make any common sense:

I find it offensive to common sense to argue that the heirs of J.R.R. Tolkien (who are as dismayingly numerous as Kennedys in the court filing) are entitled to a shilling for work in which they had no hand and which was completed in 1949.

Most of the essay focuses on the question of the length of copyright, which we all know has been expanded to ridiculous lengths. However, it does seem like a reasonable question to ask why the kids of Tolkien deserve money for a movie they had nothing to do with based on an idea they had nothing to do with.

97 Comments | Leave a Comment..