Why Should Heirs Control How Content Is Used?
from the it's-a-good-question dept
Just a week after the NY Times ran a poorly thought-out opinion piece suggesting that copyright should be infinite, we find in the NY Times a pretty good example of some of the ridiculous situations caused by heirs owning the copyrights to works they had no hand in creating. That ownership subsequently gives the heirs artistic control over new productions and interpretations of the works, allowing them the power to demand changes to derivative works, or even forbid them. A rather successful play in France is being shut down, after the brother of playwright demanded it be stopped because one of the actors wasn't Algerian (for an Algerian character). The article explores this quirk of copyright law, and questions why someone who really has nothing to do with an artistic work should be allowed to make such demands at all. It's one thing to make the claim that heirs deserve compensation, but to then give them artistic control over derivative works of a work they had nothing to do with seems to go against the entire reason of copyright law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Artistic Control
If that is allowed, we might have to throw all of our books, paintings, music, and etc. away. Of course that would also be in the way our screwy judges, lawyers, and legislators would
interpret things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why give heirs anything?
Also, the way copyright laws are made today is just plain silly, the amount of time that has to pass before others can build on the works of an author without permission is way too long. Should be 10 years max, and there should be different rules for different kinds of works. Stallman has some ideas about this that are interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a globalized world
http://www.playnote.net/archives/img/shouko-l.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBLSm iSDFQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In a globalized world
Perhaps a little less time typing and a little more time reading in future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
creative heirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: creative heirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: creative heirs
Now, as a normal working human being, I would have to say "the same as everyone else." Why? Because the written works of anyone should be the property of all. I know, this is not how it works currently. But like mark says in #12, why shouldn't the plumber's heirs have rights to the works of the plumber?
Here's one for you : if I plant a tree, do my heirs have the rights to all the "fruits" of the tree, including increased property values? Can we charge rent for additional shade? I hope you see the absurdity of this. And a tree is probably the most creative work of all, since it constantly changes and produces "stuff" all the time (dead leaves, falling branches, twigs, etc.).
To the heirs of Mr. Bemmelman : kindly go out and get a job. You have your father's name to draw on for contacts. Heck, you can even make derivative works of your father's books. But should you be the only ones to have those rights? Why? What if I can make a better movie/video game/cartoon series? Why should you get the profits? The whole point of patents/copyright/intellectual property is to promote the sciences and useful arts, right? How does one family holding all the rights do that? Please publish a book about how your holding all the cards makes the world a better place. I'm sure you will have lots of readers.
Maybe I'll buy it, instead of ripping it off bit-torrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lawyer, of course, has my permission to use the language for the express purposes of the cease and desist orders only.
He was actually in violation himself when he answered the phone!!
Sad thing is - the above sarcasm makes more sense than some of the other copyrights/patents I've seen lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
publishing heirs
For a time I was the editor of record for Catherine Marshall's books. She had died years before, and her estate was being managed by her second husband Len Lesourd, a good man who was also the editor of the magazine Guideposts. We renewed the licenses to several of her books and republished them at the time the TV show "Christy" made Mashall's book a bestseller again. They other books didn't sell as well, but they had a steady, solid rate of sale, just what we'd hoped.
Then things got weird. Lesourd's children confronted us about the royalty rates we were paying him, accusing us of taking advantage of him in his supposed dotage. They were prepared to have him declared legally incompetent, which he wasn't in my opinion from having dealt with him, so they could get control of the books. If that weren't appalling enough, need I mention that they, being Lesourd's children from his first marriage, had never even met Catherine Marshall? A disgusting crew whose attitude went against everything Marshall and Lesourd stood for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: publishing heirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: publishing heirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: publishing heirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think more, write less, Mike
Any property right must be legally inherited by your heirs, according to your will, in case you die.
It can be your house, your patent or the copyright to the novel you wrote..
If this were not the case you would see a lot of artists and inventors dying in their prime for some unknown cause...
Not to say that heirs can't do this type of thing to you to inherit your property, but this is very rare...
So, Mike, if you want us, creative artists and inventors, all killed by the mobsters then go fight for "copyrights and patents expire when the original creator dies" law.
You don't have to worry about yourself though - there is nothing creative in your activity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think more, write less, Mike
You *are* joking right?
If not, the argument that copyright should be inherited to prevent authors and other professions being whacked by the mob, shows you are clearly running out of semi-rational arguments that don't show you up as money grabbing
Attempting to justify the absurd lengths of copyright currently in existence is bad enough but trying to justify the inheritance of the same rights is worse
Why should anyone expect to benefit from the work of a dead relative instead of going out to work for themselves? That's just pure laziness and effectively starts to create a modern day feudal system, with the exception that titles came with responsibilities as well as benefits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think more, write less, Mike
I agree that inheritance of intellectual property is wrong (for the most part) but I feel the need to point out that people already benefit from work of relatives after their death and, with the exception of what the government takes, get their property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think more, write less, Mike
What is keeping people from dying in their prime for some unknown cause? I'm sorry but your point got muddled in your ramblings. And why would they meet an untimely death?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think more, write less, Mike
Of course, they want my patent to expire ASAP, so they don't get sued for patent infringement.
But if they kill me my patent will be inherited by my relatives, so those companies will not gain anything by killing me...
But if the law is passed that patent expires when inventor dies, I will probably not live for much longer. Same with copyrights on some valuable works.
Of course, I am exxagerating a little bit, but not by much... This world is a jungle...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think more, write less, Mike
On a persons death their property is handed over - in this case including the money they made from the book. Copyright is not property it is a legal monopoly, nothing more. Even stating that such a legally sanctioned extra 'right' should be inheritable is surely unconstitutional, as it confers more rights to one citizen than another based purely on birth and parenthood
When I die I hope I will have some savings or property to hand over to my kids, I do not expect my employer to keep giving them paychecks for work I did whilst I was alive - why should an author expect different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think more, write less, Mike
But, ultimately, we the people (to coin a phrase), give the monopoly grants to "encourage the useful arts and sciences." The Constitution allows for such grants but does not require them. The approach was supposed to be a balance, an exchange, but it's now tilting so heavily in the direction of the copyright holders that we, the people who granted the monopoly in the first place, are at risk of being prosecuted for the simplest things (such as your kid shared a single song--something that now carries criminal penalties even if done for non-commercial purposes).
I think actual artists and inventors should be leery of jumping onto the corporate bandwagon. It's not like corporations are going to act in the interest of the creative, they'll try to push them out as well. And if the public ever gets seriously tired of this game, there could be a nasty backlash. One that could result in drastic shortenings of copyrights and patents or even mass public domaining.
We could. There's nothing stopping us--the electorate--except the general goodwill toward the creative. The public believes the creative should be rewarded and, hence, has gone (ignorantly so I'm afraid) along with the creation of "intellectual property". But hack the public off badly enough, they could revolt. And it won't be the corporations who took us down this path who are beaten up on, it'll be the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think more, write less, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing from all of this
Now, in order to produce the play, the theater company would have to get a license. The article doesn't say if the actor requirement was a stipulation of the license. If it was, then no matter how redorkulous the stipulation was, the theater company violated the terms. If, on the other hand, this cheese-eating surrender-monkey playright made some general statement about who could play his characters, it's not the theater company's responsibility to fulfill those wishes (unless otherwise compelled).
Now, this playright's notoriety has grown after death. By stating stupid terms of use, the brother is certainly making sure that the value of the work depreciates. (Who wants to pay rights fees for something when there is a distinct possibility that some idiotic stipulation will shut the production down?)
While I agree that heirs shouldn't get the equivalent of a lottery ticket, I do think that, since the playright died in 1989 (and so young) that the work is still exploitable and the heirs should be entitled to it (just the same as if he monetized the works and left a cash-fat estate behind). However, the tipping point is somewhere between that (where the author died recently — 1989 is still recent to me) and the ability for James Joyce's grandson to be monetizing his grandfather's works.
One example where this does work is the publication of Robert's Rules of Order. The original work has lapsed into the public domain. The PD works have been exploited by others to create their own "Robert's Rules." However, a foundation has reworked the original several times so that a modern non-PD version exists. While many others are monetizing the PD version, business entities wind up purchasing the foundation's version of the work. At least in this instance, the heirs have done their own work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sins of the fathers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
digs against the French
Do you know the playwright? Why do you feel it's necessary to use a term denigrating all French people? Do you know any French people or are you just a robot repeating what you hear on talk radio? Do you refer to blacks, Jews, and the Chinese in a similar fashion?
And P.S. And before you use some similarly denigrating term to describe me, I'm not a lefty, but a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. You might revise your notions about the French, considering use of that term is probably based on the fact that they didn't go into Iraq. That's looking like kind of a smart decision about now, n'est-ce pas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: digs against the French
Hello, My Uncle Willie was writing this when he died from an aneurysm. As Willie's only heir please make out the royalty check to Groundskeeper Larry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: digs against the French
It refers as far as I am aware to the French's seemingly quick surrender to the Germans in both World Wars (the second one was considered the worse as they effectivly renaged on an agreement with the allies who were fighting with them at the time and in considerable increased peril)
American politicians have started to use it to refer to the Iraq II as well, and I agree with you that this is perhaps a bit unfortunate given how the whole affair played and is playing out
Just so you know ;0)
PS I think its funny and no I don't give a shit about political correctness ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mark, creative heirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt idiots
WTF are you talking about ?
Copyright is PROPERTY: it can be sold and bought.
It is perishable property however, like a limited term lease on land.
Same with patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oxy and other morons
No it is not. It is a limited, exclusive RIGHT, at least according to the US Constitution.
Please stop talking rubbish. If it were property there would be no need for copyright laws. If it is "Leased" how can it be "property"?
This is why there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property" - it is LOANED, not OWNED.
The true and original purpose purpose of copyright laws is to protect the public domain and shared culture from the "it's-mine-forever" corporate mentality.
Somewhere along the way, we forgot this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple answer to a simple question
Because most people want their children to inherit their possessions. To the extent IP exists in law, people will generally want their children to inherit their IP also. You can hypothesize greed as the reason, but the true motivator is familial love.
Note, I'm telling you why people want it, not whether it is right from a social standpoint.
The inheritors should innovate in their own ways to make money, not live on the work of others.
Do you object to the inheritance of real property and financial assets? One might reasonably infer you do from your statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple answer to a simple question
Fact is the real property; the money, houses bought, etc etc *are* transferred at death
The point here is copyright is NOT property despite people coining the phrase "Intellectual Property" which commonly includes copyright
You even seem to acknowledge this yourself with the line Do you object to the inheritance of REAL property and financial assets - this implies that you already think copyright is not real property, why therefore should it be treated as such
Why should the offspring of so-called "creative" people receive more rights than others? And more importantly how will this benefit society which grants those rights?
As far as I am aware the Tolkien brothers did not inherit any copyright from their dad, but this has not stopped the family producing the odd book expanding on JR's ideas - books to which the writers now DO own copyright, and are welcome to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this thread is sadly hilarious
"Hey, Guido, Paulie, do the whole family while you're there, - that patent is MINE."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As has already been said...
Also, the thought behind copyright law is not to control for the sake of your heirs, but control in order to avoid being used by players bigger and stronger than you in the initial stages of a new invention, or patented idea, being exploited. After this first time the copyright becomes a factor stifling growth and a secondary stage of innovation instead of something protecting the inventor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is already forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright is already forever
So does that mean patents need to be extended or copyright needs to be shortened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright vs. patent
You just need to add that a life-saving drug takes about 5-10 years to develop, test and get approved.
The difference in treating copyrights and patents is inexpicable to me, cause both concepts originate from the same Clause in the US Constitution...
But this is a subject of a serious discussion, certainly not for techdirt readership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Really Now?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]