Green Party on copyright

[Ian Osborne]

What does everyone think of the UK Green Party's pledge to reduce copyright to 14 years? Is this even possible, while remaining a member of the EU? There are currently international agreements in place regarding length of copyright, and there's certainly EU Directive 2006/116/EC, which covers the European Union.

Also, is it desirable? Do we want to live in a world where every new movie is based on a book or comic that's a decade and a half old, with no payment to the author? And why would a production company ever pay for film rights when they can just wait a few years and get it for free? And what about, say, new novelists, whose work might only take off a decade or so after it's first published? Surely such a short length of copyright would discourage a major publisher taking on the work of a relative unknown that's only had a very limited print run. Why buy it when you can get it for free a few years down the line?

It makes no sense to me, and is certainly completely out of step with the rest of the world. Has the Green Party actually thought this one through?

 

[The Don]

There's no mention of this pledge in their manifesto as far as I can find:

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/asset...015_General_Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf

What problem would the change to the copyright law fix ?


edited to add....

It is mentioned on their website (as has the Citizens' Income which has been kicked into the long grass)

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html

EC1011 On cultural products (literature, music, film, paintings etc), our general policy is to expand the area of cultural activity, that is ways that culture can be consumed, produced, and shared, reduce the role of the market and encourage smaller and more local cultural enterprise (see CMS200 onwards). Specifically we will

introduce a Citizen’s Income (see EC730), which will allow many more people to participate in cultural creation;

introduce generally shorter copyright terms, with a usual maximum of 14 years;

legalise peer to peer copying where it is not done as a business;

liberalise ‘fair use’ policies to operate outside the academic environment, and allow greater development from existing copyright material; and
make it impossible to patent broad software and cultural ideas.

Personally I think it will destroy entire creative industries.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Interestingly, a friend of mine asked Caroline Lucas about this on Twitter. He got this reply.

Was aimed at ending stranglehold by big corporates but if unintended conseqs will of course look again http://bit.ly/1byuLqj

 

[Darat]

One change I would make is that only a person can be a copyright holder and copyright ends immediately on death, a dead person can't be a copyright holder anymore then they can be a creator of copyright.

 

[Ziggurat]

One change I would make is that only a person can be a copyright holder and copyright ends immediately on death, a dead person can't be a copyright holder anymore then they can be a creator of copyright.

That really doesn't work for movies or even TV. The capital requirements mean that these are only going to be funded to any significant extent by corporations, not individuals, but why would a corporation put up the capital to make a movie or a TV show if it didn't hold the copyright as a result?

Or let's say that it was an individual who is funding something. Maybe it's a TV show, maybe it's a technical manual, whatever. Should it be impossible to assign copyright to whoever paid for a work-for-hire copyright?

Plus, bad idea to end copyright immediately upon death, that creates an incentive for murder. The current standard extends it too far past death, but immediately upon death isn't good either.

And lastly, who holds the copyright to a song made by a four-person band, each of whom had a hand in its creation? What happens if one member of that four-person band should die before the others?

 

[Information Analyst]

One change I would make is that only a person can be a copyright holder and copyright ends immediately on death, a dead person can't be a copyright holder anymore then they can be a creator of copyright.

Copyright is a property, just like physical possessions. Historically the idea of posthumous copyright protection was the security of a writer's spouse and/or heirs, essentially more for the originator who died young, rather for than those who died old. That said, I do think things have gone too far with the extension to 70 years in 1995, as the previous 50 was more than sufficient.

One aspect that I find particularly iniquitous, though, is that in the UK unpublished works are treated different from published ones. It used to be the case that unpublished works were protected indefinitely until they were published, and then were covered for 50 years from that, not matter how long publication happened after the death of the originator. The 1988 Act addressed the "perpetual copyright" issue by fixing a term of 50 years from the date the Act became law, but this still means that many unpublished works are protected until the end of 2039.

The government did recently hold a consultation on harmonising unpublished copyright with published, and while tehre was a lot of support it this on the part of archives and libraries, as well as researchers, the rights lobby stubbornly resisted, with many rioghts holders complaining that it would deprive them of residual income over the next 25 years, even though most had benefitted to a much greater degree from the 1995 20 year extension to published copyright.

As a practical example, the copyright in all of H.G. Wells's published works will lapse at the end of next year, but his unpublished works - controlled by a notoriously avaricious literary agent - will not for another 23 years.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

And lastly, who holds the copyright to a song made by a four-person band, each of whom had a hand in its creation? What happens if one member of that four-person band should die before the others?

Maybe it's like a Tontine: The last surviving band member holds the copyright.

 

[Beerina]

One change I would make is that only a person can be a copyright holder and copyright ends immediately on death, a dead person can't be a copyright holder anymore then they can be a creator of copyright.

I still think you need a death buffer of an extra 10 or 15 years to allow better publishing deals and so on. It allows companies making deals to feel confident forking out cash today (and investing perhaps considerable money in, say, a movie) without fearing the money will be lost if copyright evaporates because you stepped in front of a bus.

 

[MikeG]

It could be a little annoying for architects, who would go to the trouble and huge expense of designing buildings and doing all the associated contract documents, only to see clones of those buildings appearing within a few years, but no fee cheques.

 

[dudalb]

I would go for life of the original copyright holder plus ten years. I think he has the right to leave his kids some income from his work.
I would never vote for the Greens because they so obviously have a basic problem with the idea of personal property.

 

[Corsair 115]

I would go for life of the original copyright holder plus ten years. I think he has the right to leave his kids some income from his work.

That's what the copyright holder's will is for.

Isn't the idea of copyright is for protection of the author of the work so that they can benefit from their work? If so, then why should the author's offspring benefit from copyright protection since they didn't create the work? The author created the work, not his/her family. Any financial benefit for the offspring of the author should have been handled by the author himself/herself during their life while accruing the financial benefit of that copyright protection of their work.

 

[Darat]

That really doesn't work for movies or even TV. The capital requirements mean that these are only going to be funded to any significant extent by corporations, not individuals, but why would a corporation put up the capital to make a movie or a TV show if it didn't hold the copyright as a result?

Nothing stopping the copyright holder licencing out their copyright - which is what happens now.

...snip...

Plus, bad idea to end copyright immediately upon death, that creates an incentive for murder. ...snip...

Hadn't thought about that - good reason to get rid of all inheritance then....

And lastly, who holds the copyright to a song made by a four-person band, each of whom had a hand in its creation? What happens if one member of that four-person band should die before the others?

Surely the same as happens now?

 

[Darat]

I still think you need a death buffer of an extra 10 or 15 years to allow better publishing deals and so on. It allows companies making deals to feel confident forking out cash today (and investing perhaps considerable money in, say, a movie) without fearing the money will be lost if copyright evaporates because you stepped in front of a bus.

Why assume it would be lost? Shakespeare plays are still performed every year without anyone holding the copyright.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nothing stopping the copyright holder licencing out their copyright - which is what happens now.

But if the copyright expires immediately upon the death of the person holding it, then that's still too big a risk. The corporation could dump tons of money into the project, and have it all evaporate because whoever they designated to officially hold the copyright just died. Why would they take the risk?

But suppose they're not worried about that. They pick some young person who is meticulously safe, they even get the world's only true psychic to guarantee that this person won't die for another 50 years, so they're not worried about that. This person will hold the copyright, but the company will license it exclusively for a pittance.

Why is that superior to having the corporation hold the copyright directly? I fail to see any advantage.

Hadn't thought about that - good reason to get rid of all inheritance then....

That does nothing to solve the problem. And good luck getting rid of inheritance.

Surely the same as happens now?

Well, no. First, inheritance of copyright means that the estate of any dead band member can hold onto their stake, so it's not like a tontine. Second, the band can collectively hold the copyright. But if groups of people can collectively hold a copyright, then there's no reason that a corporation (which is really just a group of people with specific legal formalities) shouldn't be able to hold one as well.

 

[fuelair]

One change I would make is that only a person can be a copyright holder and copyright ends immediately on death, a dead person can't be a copyright holder anymore then they can be a creator of copyright.

Agree completely!!! And, it should be retroactive.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why assume it would be lost? Shakespeare plays are still performed every year without anyone holding the copyright.

And how much does Shakespeare's estate collect from those performances?

The money may not be "lost" in the sense that money may still flow, but it won't flow to the hands of the people who invested the capital to make it happen. Especially now, with basically free copying and distribution of digital content, if you don't hold the copyright on a TV show or a movie, you can't make any significant money from it.

 

[Beerina]

Why assume it would be lost? Shakespeare plays are still performed every year without anyone holding the copyright.

The point is to ensure the exclusive and natural monopoly of an artist's work to the artist himself.

I don't agree with the for the kids reason -- that's just tangential. The real reason is so deep pocket investors can fork over a lot of money now, based on a financial calculation that they have exclusivity for some definite minimum period.

This does make a difference. Ask those who put their money up.

Hollywood runs in cycles -- one company schedules a Columbus movie, suddenly there are several, diluting the value.

One schedules a volcano movie, suddenly there are several.

One schedules a giant asteroid movie, suddenly there are several.

And don't get me started about the vampires and zombies!

 

[The Don]

Surely the same as happens now?

At the moment, the proportion of the publishing rights he/she owns will form part of his/her estate and pass to his/her heirs. In the event that the copyright lapses on his/her death then.....

• For material where they are the sole copyright holder there's no issue - the copyright would expire
• In the case where the copyright is jointly held (I guess usually in some publishing company) then either the copyright expires for all holders (not fair IMO), the copyright is now shared between the remaining holders (I can see that working) or that the copyright can be passed on to will beneficiaries and only lapses on the death of the last original member

I'm still not sure what problem the Greens are trying to solve. My mum wrote some books shortly before she died. My dad still owns the copyright and has had them published in English and has sold the rights to have them published in Brazil in Portuguese. Under your proposed scheme the rights would have been in the public domain but I'm not sure who is harmed, and how badly, by my father retaining the copyright.

In the event or artists who have died young, why should they be prevented for providing for their young children ? If the copyright for all of their work expires, the only people making money are the companies selling their work and image rights.

 

[The Don]

I would go for life of the original copyright holder plus ten years. I think he has the right to leave his kids some income from his work.

I'd make a case for life of artist +n (10 or 20 sounds reasonable) years or, say 30 years whichever is longer.

edited to add...

Of course that works for individuals but not for companies - forget that proposal then, makes no sense in that context.

 

[Noztradamus]

I'm still not sure what problem the Greens are trying to solve. My mum wrote some books shortly before she died. My dad still owns the copyright and has had them published in English and has sold the rights to have them published in Brazil in Portuguese. Under your proposed scheme the rights would have been in the public domain but I'm not sure who is harmed, and how badly, by my father retaining the copyright.

In the event or artists who have died young, why should they be prevented for providing for their young children ? If the copyright for all of their work expires, the only people making money are the companies selling their work and image rights.

The Greens are for the rights of Corporations, not individuals.