a perennial favorite topic of debate. sound off in the replies.

  • reverendz@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was created to protect individual artists commercial rights. But at this point, it’s rent-seeking. Corporations who own copyrighted works long after the death of an artist/writer/musician and the sale of the asset by the heirs benefits nobody but the mega-corps who have the power to brutally enforce them.

    Society does not benefit by this.

    Surely there has to be a better way to encourage and reward creative people. In truth, how many truly prosper by their works? A handful. It’s much more common to create something in service of a corporation, who then immediately owns the rights to it.

    • vldnl@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If only artists could hold copyrights to their works, this wouldn’t be an issue.

      Corporations are usually not the ones who create art, they just hire people who do. If Disney spends an astronomical amount on money on hiring artists and producing a work, there should be a separate set of laws that protects them from someone sweeping in and stealing the franchise or the product. It shouldn’t be down to copyright-laws, because Disney isn’t an artist.

      Copyright also grants the right to opt out of the commercialization of your work. Even if you really like a painting I have done, you should not have the right to demand that I or someone else sell prints of it. If I instead want to just keep it on my Instagram profile, in my attic or hanging on the walls of a gallery, I should be free to do so.

      If you make something public people have the right to look at it and to get inspired by it, but I don’t think it’s unfair to ask that the artist retains the commercial rights to it.