Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd
like to see the US make fair
use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter
all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be
tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of
conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision.
If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work
in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
Wasn't copyright originally intended to be blanket 25 years, regardless
of how alive or otherwise the author was?
In Queen Anne's Law of 1710 it was 14 years plus 14 years renewal.
Noah Webster cinvinced congress to allow heirs to renew after 28 years,
but they forgot to include that the copyright holder could renew it
himself. Renewals were an interesting and valuable aspect of US law,
and they imposed strict requirements on who could do the renewing, and
provided a one year window for taking action. If you missed the window,
too bad. One of the more positive aspects of that provision is that it
gave a second chance to an author who originally got a bad deal from his
publisher; the publisher could not exercise the renewal.
Superfically repealing the renewal procedures was to conform with
international standards. Life + 70 is now a part of the US law, even
though that will not have meaningful effects until 2047 when work by
authors who died in 1976 will go into the public domain. Repealing
renewals was a great benefit for holders of big archives, and publishers
who could not identify or track down who really was entitled to renew.
Now they can make big money out of nostalgia.
It is worth pointing out that a companey like Disney might not be as
affected by a use-it-or-lose-it provisions. Over the years they have
been masterful when it comes to recycling old material.
Ec