Ideal copyright law

[geni]

Ummmm....No????????? Im going to guess you've read about the United States law which I can't actually see how it requires you to register in a database.

It doesn't but that's what the caselaw will produce unless it makes the law completely useless. Consider I have an image with no idea as to it's history how do I go about traceing it's author. Well I start by hitting the Library of Congress's image database. If I have the cash I can then go through Getty's Corbuis's, Jubiter media's and AP (although that will result in a fair bit of duplication. Then what? Maybe a few other databases but once you heave searched them either the court has to accept that you have made a reasonable search to find the author or the law will become useless for everyone.

It's a kludgy fix for a problem caused by overlong copyright terms and would be better fixed by shortening the terms.

 

[AWPrime]

Well the purpose of copyrights are from my pov:
1. To honor the creator(s)
2. Return for his/her investment.
3. Stimulate creativity

The biggest problem for an ideal law is the corp/private split, laws then to favor one or the other.


In my view each copyright/patent should mention the names of the creators. Now if its on behalf of an company then this will also be mentioned, allowing the company to have some rights (and thus return on investment).

However my idea is that if it is on behalf on an company then the duration of the rights should be shorter.