Wednesday, February 4, 2009
I never knew before that a copyright only existed seventy years after the creators or authors death. I have always thought that it lasted forever, but the lecture on Tuesday clarified my knowledge of a copyright’s duration. I personally think that a copyright should last forever and not for a certain time period. The idea of something entering the public domain is a little like giving a person the option of claiming a work as their own that was actually created years ago. Of course, many of the profound works of literature or music compositions are well documented as being created by a certain person, but public domain still allows someone to claim a forgotten piece of art, music, literature, or anything else humanly created, as their own. The true creators are dead and cannot defend their work if it is taken and used in a way not suggested by the creator him or herself. If I personally created a work of art, died, and then eighty years after my death someone finds it and claims it as their own, I would be devastated (kind of, but not really since I’m dead). The idea still counts. If it was at all possible to prolong the existence of a copyright, I would completely support it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the only reason why Copyright will not be extended into forever is simply because such will become unwieldy. As sad as it may be, it's impractical. And when I think about it, if I produced a work and 70 years after my death two things will happen: if anyone finds it in the first place, then it was obviously profound/great enough to last 70 years and therefore will be credited as being "created by a certain person" (e.g. literature) OR if it wasn't a great/profound work than chances are, no one will find it nor accept it for their own. Either way I'm dead, why bother the government with holding the rights?
ReplyDelete