The Week's article "How the law penalizes writers and inventors," comments on Mark Helprin's Op-Ed in May 20th's New York Times: A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?
The author begins with the following analogy: "Let's say you build a thriving business or a beautiful estate by the sea. After you die, the government tells your children and grandchildren, 'Your family has owned this long enough. We're now handing it over to the public.' Under current copyright law, that's exactly what happens to writers, songwriters, inventors and other owners of intellectual property. Seventy years after our deaths, our novels, songs and inventions go into the 'public domain.'" He questions, does the public benefit? Don't publishers issue these great works of literature free of copyright in fat, leather-bound tomes? They still get paid, but the author's heirs do not. Is it fair that the family does not get the royalties from the work?
Helprin says that when the framers of the Constitution decided to provide copyright protection "for limited times," 95 percent of the population were farmers, so ideas and intellectual property were not seen as anyone's livelihood. Today, more people make their living from ideas than from tilling the soil and it's time Congress extended copyright protection beyond 70 years. "No good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind," says Helprin.
Respondents to the Op-Ed point out that if copyright extends too far into the future, it obstructs artists from, as Newton said, "standing on the shoulders of giants" and could possibly hamper current, as well as future, creativity. Human beings now produce high-quality ideas at a much faster rate than in the past, regardless of profit. Further extensions might also keep "orphan works" out of print and stifle, rather than "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," as the Constitution had desired, say others. "James Madison lived in an age of professional writers liberated from the demands of state licensing and the constraints of patronage. He followed the English precedent in balancing the benefit of copyright to authors with the public good," writes one.
Joseph Bernstein, a medical doctor and founder of a wiki for orthopedic surgery says that "Helprin must be of the same mind as Samuel Johnson, who believed that 'no man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money,'" pointing out that letters to the editor - to say nothing of the blogosphere - are "filled by the work of those willing to create for no reward except the chance to be heard." In other words, if it's riches we are after, we can find much easier ways.
Do we publish to make our work public and be read for the inspiration of others, or is it about getting paid? I wonder what Whitman and Mozart would say.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 71
What public good is served by granting a permanent monopoly and using public resources to enforce it? I don't see any good coming from it, and I see a great deal of harm. Specifically, people are being given monopolies on the dominant culture of entire periods of history, and to a certain extent taxpayers are footing the bill for maintaining that monopoly.
Protection on intellectual property, for inventors and writers, does spur creation and encourage would be creators. At some point, the protection curve becomes counter-productive to the field at large. Arguably that point is upon the death of the creator, but the ability to leave something of value behind to one's family is also an incentive. Seventy years seems to be more than enough.
Besides, in most cases, except for rare classics, republishing for decades afterward is a rare thing. *shrugs*
But I do think it might stifle creativity
after 5 years and again after 12years, all along while trying to get the product off the ground. It is no wonder anyone ever invents anything at all. I know this from experience.
That leaves the possibility of said copywrite being handed down a good 4 generations or more (if you died at say 80 years old).
I don't think more than 70 years is needed.
Now, I'm off to ruminate . . .
why not 80, somewhat arbitrary on the years. Suppose you just finished a novel, and died immediate thereafter. Would you not want your family to have the rights for their lifetimes. With new medical breakthroughs, people are now living 80, 90 and even to a 100 is becoming a standard. I do not have the answer, but thanks
for putting the question out there.
Frankly, as one who has several copyrights, I lean toward the current law. My children already have their own lives and careers. They should not inherit a long economic benefit from my work.
We have that situation in the Adirondack Park, in Upstate NY. Friends of our fmaily owned a house on Silver Lake and were going to have to give it up after their son's life was over. Those laws were pushed by Teddy Roosevelt, I *think.*
Most writers and artists would love to get paid and to leave an income to our children, sure. Most of us would create anyway, even if we weren't getting paid. And why does anyone whose never created anything in their lives have a right to an income off of our work, just because they are genetically connected to us? Don't we owe more to those "spiritual descendants" who will be inspired by our work to create something of their own?
Besides, most writers and artists are working on a brainload of material from our culture; we aren't "self-made" and we don't create by spontaneous generation in a vacuum. Why not give back -- let other work freely grow out of ours?
I would be far more thrilled to have created something that became a cultural landmark than to have given my descendants a source of income they would never have to do anything to earn.
Would that mean we have to pay somebody every time we sing, "Happy Birthday?" And how much would we owe the descendants of Plato and Homer?
It would seem that copyrights promote new creativity from authors rather than fund vacations for their great, great grandchildren.
It is nice to get paid for something that you love doing, but humans have a tendency to get way too greedy. However, I am glad it's not my decision to make. Excellent article, by the way.
It may seem counter intuitive, but it actually stiffles creativity in the long run...
Having a house is not the same as 'intellectual property' ...
A house is a matter of shelter, saftey, "home" to most...
Intellectual property... Creative or Inventive Work ... is a matter of income for one and a matter of the act of contributing and creating as well... But it is a matter of work... I would love to keep getting paid continuously for all the work I've done every time that particular 'work' has been useful to someone after it was done... or to have that work protected so that I would be the only one ever to be able to do that work if it had to be done some more ...
Copyrights are a recognition of 'uniqueness' (sp?) and of the effort gone into the creation... There has to be a line drawn somewhere and a balance right?
Very important and good topic...
I think 70 years is more than enough. What a pity if Munch for example was not everyone's property these days. LOL Those of us non famous should be honored if our work survies us and those unique ones should not forever be something only for a wealthy elite.
Ref: U.S. Copyright Office Circular 15a (Duration of Copyright: Provisions of the Law Dealing with the Length of Copyright Protection)
Generally speaking, copyright laws protect a publisher's investment in publication; they do not assure royalties over the copyright period. Royalties are part of the deal with the publisher. A publisher (like the owner of a sports team) tries to make an offer high enough to keep the author (or sports player) from going elsewhere -- but not so high as to lose money on the deal.
If heirs want money from the work of their ancestors, they need to renew the copyrite. Seventy years isn't enough to encompass many folks current life span. I think I have to look into this more. Thanks for inviting me to read this article.
See the Snopes article on this topic.
I see art and creating as an expression of myself, not my children or future generations way of lining their pockets without working for it. Art, to me is not "property", and if I created for the sole reason as a money making process, then it is not art, it is work. I do sell my art, but each is something I created out of my free will, and an extension of my liberal mind and creativity. It really takes away from the beauty of it when it is thought of as only a way to make money. If my art sells, great, if it doesn't then I am fine with that too. I am flattered when others see my art as something they feel compelled enough to buy (this means they are experiencing some sort of self gratification or relate to my art). If I made something, and no one is interested, then it is fine.
I benefit from reading and viewing art and writings from the great masters and writers. If we all were not allowed access to these, we, as artists cannot gain incite to the beauty the original artist or writer intended to show the world. If I had not seen artwork from my favorite artists, because some copyright and heir prevented me from seeing it unless I paid them a fee. then I lose out on experiencing the greatest inspiration: admiration and learning. This interaction causes me to want to produce more--myself. Putting the ideas in the heirs hands leads way to a lot of greed. In cases the heirs having no idea of what the original artist intended for his/her art. Inspiration and learning is stifled. The physical artwork or writing is still the "property" of the owner, so if they chose to sell it, then they can make a huge chunk off the original, since many collectors who appreciate the mind and creativeness behind the art, are willing to pay the price to have the actual piece. The idea behind it is nice to share with everyone after the 70 years. Life is short, and holding onto the greatness of the great, because of greed doesn't help society. It leads way to more problem.
Lisa B. is absolutely correct in my mind. The heirs need to work and be creative themselves. Earn instead of being lazy. I wouldn't want my heirs being unproductive members of society. What would this make of our future generations? I don't mind leaving them family property and what I left in savings, etc, because I can't take it with me. I do want to give them a reasonable foundation. But, I also want them to grow up both mentally and physically. Not be another statistic that has no care about being responsible and productive. I think they inherit so much more when taught work ethic and morality.
In Britain and Europe copyrights are for 50 years. There are a couple of British record companies that sell box sets of music that you can't get in the US. It's PD over there and there are no impediments to its release. Oddly enough they haven't been sued by the RIAA.
Look for JSP and Proper recordings if you're interested in jazz, blues, and country music that's more than 50 years old.
I'm ok with extending it over 70 years if the family keeps the copyrights. In any other case, I'm against it.
Real farmers, like the framers, are very solid thinkers.
I feel that there should be some limit, not forever. I thingk that 70 years is too long already, it should go back to 50 or even 25 years. It doesn't do the Artist any good to protect his or her work that long after their death, it only helps the Corporation that owns the copyright or patent.
The family should do their own work and get it copyrighted, not try to live of parents or grandparents work for the rest of their lives.
I have some mixed feelings about copyrights, as I have seen many Artists get screwed because they didn't get protection. After I got ripped off, I got most of my work copyrighted to try to prevent it happening again. But after I have been dead for more that 25 years, what do I care any more?
Intellectual property IS different, but it is still property. Is an artist who reserves a few of his works for his heirs different from a writer? Paintings are not forcibly taken from the artist's family.
Yet, a piece of art (not prints, but the painting itself) doesn't necessarily make money for the owner. The printed word in book form does.
There are valid points on both sides of this issue.
One point that does bother me--why is it acceptable for anyone to make money off something they didn't create? Prints and posters from the old masters are sold every day. The companies which make those didn't paint the pictures--why should they benefit financially? But of course, if they didn't print them, who would? Still, the image wasn't created by them or commissioned by them.
For my part, I would love to write something that people will be fighting over 70 years after I'm gone!
Why would you want to make money off someone else's idea. The point is to write something and have some jerk slam the heck out what you wrote. Trust me, I've been there. But I never stop writing. But the point is well taken that if Shakespeare worried about copywriting we all be 37 plays poorer.
People who "slam" and can't be civil are sick. Critique, encourage but don't unleash your psychotic tendencies. Sheesh.
Why would anyone want to make money off someone else's idea? $$$ ?
A couple of months ago I heard an interview on Fresh Air about this topic with someone who is a big promoter of no copyrights (or consciously sending your work out and releasing the rights to the public immediately so other artists can use it). Unfortuately I can't remember the person, but it was a very interesting interview.
I find it interesting that so many people in this comment section are so down on heirs getting their "looms" (where does that word "heirloom" come from, anyway?). I'm personally OK with people benefiting from their parents/grandparents/etc. I think the creator of the work should get to decide - and they should be able to release the rights when they die if they choose, or give the rights/rewards to their family for 147 years.
Great debate, thank you for generating a thoughtful discussion.
An IPod is a 'want', not a 'need'. A car might be a 'need', but an expensive car
is a 'want'.
I have a daughter who's frugal like me. She dresses well, but she looks
for the best bargains. In clothes, at least.
Talk about greed. With patents, big companies who don't wish to pay for the use of them just wait until they expire and the original patent holder or his/her family has forgotten to extend it (or run out of extensions), then they come in and make millions.
As this points out, the same happens with books when copyrights have expired. How many publishers bother to put out fancy leather bound books of those still with copyrights? Once the material is in public domain they do, and then all the profit is theirs. Those fancy books are expensive and there's not much work for the editors and publishers. Easy gravy money for them. Greed? It's not with the families or original copyright holders, is it?
As in anything, I think if we have earned a living as writers, had intellictual property stolen or had relatives with literary works, we look at things a bit differently.
Art builds upon art. If copyright lasted forever, then artists could not revisit older works. Or worse, works would be completely lost to the world because nobody could find the most recent heir or agree on whether or not a book should be republished. The world would be a terrible place if it was possible to censor art just by buying up the copyright to it. Imagine some anti-evolutionist buying the copyright to Origins of the Species and refusing to allow the book to be republished. Or some anti-semitic buying the rights to the Diary of Anne Frank and then refusing to let it be published.
A writer or artist has a right to profit from their work, but since they built their work upon what came before them, their work too should be accessible to those that come after.