Nope, the kid is fucked. We need public ownership of his father’s work ASAP.
I’m just being silly and taking the counter view to the extreme
Comment on If copyright on a work expired immediately after death, would be that a bad or good idea?
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 months agoMinor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.
The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 7 months ago
bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 7 months ago
This happens all the time to people who don’t receive royalties. Parents die, kids get nothing. End of.
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
You might expand that to “society continuing to allow children to suffer because their parents are unable to care for them is a larger issue than the question of copyright.”
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If we addressed the core issues of people having what they need to live copyright would no longer have a reason for existing.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.
Plus companies wouldn’t be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.
obvs@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
Like I said, all it does is prioritize the desires of the dead over the needs of the living. It’s not justified.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 months ago
So you would rather the publisher make the money instead of giving it to the family of the artist for a short period of time.
What terrible priorities.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I don’t think they said a publisher was involved.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?
wisely@feddit.org 7 months ago
I think they mean it would become public domain and nobody would make money off of it. Books could be downloaded or used for free without a publisher.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 months ago
People make money off of the public domain all the time. A publisher currently publishing a book when an artist dies would have one less expense as they continued to rake in the money.
SaltSong@startrek.website 7 months ago
In this example, the child is living, and has needs.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
Jarix@lemmy.world 7 months ago
This highlights that we are fucked in her shit how we take care of ourselves, kids shouldn’t be made to struggle before if economics of parents.
Neither should adults, but economics based survival is what we have until we all decide why the fuck don’t we just cover the basics of a decent life, no strings at all, waste your life doing what you want or be the best version of yourself, getting us from financial from would just solve so many problems.
Like needing copyright to secure financial gain/benefit.
Especially for creative/cultural works that only have value because other humans went to to share an experience