Our copyright systems are broken, and have been broken for decades at this point.
I don't think copyright should be a thing, ESPECIALLY at the current durations. It's obvious to me that reform is necessary.
Here's what I propose:
- Reduce the duration of existing copyrights to 20 years.
- Reduce the duration of new copyrights to 5 years (maybe 10).
- Provide some form of remittance for individual copyright holders which depends on the income for their living, if the 20 years is not enough.
- Require that what is copyrighted must be submitted to the Library of Congress. When the copyright expires, it is to be released to the public in full.
- Strengthen fair use protections. Make it clear that critiques, reviews, parodies, etc are covered.
- Improve takedown requests. Punish fraudulent takedowns by forcing the filer to pay any lost income to the recipient. Require the takedown requests to have specific information about where the copyright violation occurred and how it isn't fair use.
The changing the term of protection provided by the Berne Convention or TRIPS would mean that the United States would be leaving those treaty... which has quite a few implications for how other countries would treat copyrighted works within the US.
> TRIPS requires member states to provide strong protection for intellectual property rights. For example, under TRIPS:
> Copyright terms must extend at least 50 years, unless based on the life of the author. (Art. 12 and 14)[8]
> Copyright must be granted automatically, and not based upon any "formality", such as registrations, as specified in the Berne Convention. (Art. 9)
I don't believe anyone has a right to a monopoly on information, even if they created it. I don't believe in the validity of intellectual property in general. Even 5, 10, or 20 years is a compromise.
The Library of Congress is just an example, I'm sure some international agreement could be made for an independent entity.
As for the Berne Convention or TRIPS, I wasn't just talking about the US. The international copyright laws should also be reformed.
Why shouldn't I be the only one with the right to sell that image?
The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery."
> Why shouldn't I be the only one with the right to sell that image?
The real question is why should you? Copyright is not a natural right (if it was, it wouldn't require enforcement actions on people who never interacted with the original copy). It's a privilege meant to provide an incentive for artists (the effectiveness of which is questionable, even without taking into consideration the negative side-effects).
> The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery."
And that is entirely within your rights. But once your photo is disseminated into the public sphere, it's information that you no longer have control over.
I don't think copyright should be a thing, ESPECIALLY at the current durations. It's obvious to me that reform is necessary.
Here's what I propose:
- Reduce the duration of existing copyrights to 20 years.
- Reduce the duration of new copyrights to 5 years (maybe 10).
- Provide some form of remittance for individual copyright holders which depends on the income for their living, if the 20 years is not enough.
- Require that what is copyrighted must be submitted to the Library of Congress. When the copyright expires, it is to be released to the public in full.
- Strengthen fair use protections. Make it clear that critiques, reviews, parodies, etc are covered.
- Improve takedown requests. Punish fraudulent takedowns by forcing the filer to pay any lost income to the recipient. Require the takedown requests to have specific information about where the copyright violation occurred and how it isn't fair use.
- No criminal prosecution for copyright offenses.