I absolutely agree about poor lecturing, I have thought the same!
I will present an alternative perspective though to the 70 year after death expiration for copyright concept:
I actually wish that works had to be released by the artists wishes or family/estate.
This is for two reasons, first artists often don't have retirement plans or nest eggs. The residual income that can be generated from successful work can be a way of passing on an inheritance to their children and grandchildren, etc. This seems very similar to traditional methods of saving revenue gained from labor over years to pass on to future generations.
Secondly, and this is more philosophical, when an individual's creative works are automatically "given to the public" it implies society's "right" to the labor and work of another individual, which doesn't rest well with me. Instead, I think that the artist should need to explicitly request how their work is handled after their death (including intellectual rights), just like anyone else can declare in their will their intentions for their personal property. If the artist doesn't provide instructions, then I'm actually fine with it going to the public immediately upon their passing.
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts. This is something I have thought about often as it is personally relevant to me 🙂
You’ve given me a lot to chew on here. I’ll give some more thought to this and reflect on both your points in greater depth in next week’s post. Most of my strong opinions are loosely held. I am willing to concede that I may not be right. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I absolutely agree about poor lecturing, I have thought the same!
I will present an alternative perspective though to the 70 year after death expiration for copyright concept:
I actually wish that works had to be released by the artists wishes or family/estate.
This is for two reasons, first artists often don't have retirement plans or nest eggs. The residual income that can be generated from successful work can be a way of passing on an inheritance to their children and grandchildren, etc. This seems very similar to traditional methods of saving revenue gained from labor over years to pass on to future generations.
Secondly, and this is more philosophical, when an individual's creative works are automatically "given to the public" it implies society's "right" to the labor and work of another individual, which doesn't rest well with me. Instead, I think that the artist should need to explicitly request how their work is handled after their death (including intellectual rights), just like anyone else can declare in their will their intentions for their personal property. If the artist doesn't provide instructions, then I'm actually fine with it going to the public immediately upon their passing.
I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts. This is something I have thought about often as it is personally relevant to me 🙂
You’ve given me a lot to chew on here. I’ll give some more thought to this and reflect on both your points in greater depth in next week’s post. Most of my strong opinions are loosely held. I am willing to concede that I may not be right. I appreciate your thoughtful response.