If it was the day after they died, mightn’t that have an unintended consequence of making it more likely that copyright holders would start “falling out of windows” just when it’s convenient for producers and AI crooks to snaffle up their content, royalty-free?
Comment on AI Didn't Break Copyright Law, It Just Exposed How Broken It Already Was
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoYou probably should’ve because yeah, the way AI companies are testing creative works is disgusting and downright wrong, but copyright law has very much been broken ever since the Internet because a thing. It’s just silly to treat works published on the internet the same way you treat books, paintings and DVDs.
Tweet@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 1 day ago
Isn’t that how inheritance works?
Tweet@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Well yeah, it is currently. But not if the work becomes PD when you die, as OP is suggesting.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
… murder is also illegal?
P1nkman@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Not for certain people.
Tweet@feddit.uk 1 day ago
So you’re an author and the only thing between a billion dollar studio and a royalty-free production of your work (that you have no creative input into) is your own death. And you’d feel fine and safe with that because “murder is illegal”?
It’s hard to get away unnoticed with producing a work that infringes copyright, since they tend to have to be released to the public, and from a known source. Getting away with murder is a cinch in comparison.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Why tie it to death, why not plain 5 years?