Re: this proposal:
Right to publish the actual work: 30 years
Right to license derivative work: Life or until primary publication rights end.
Do I correctly understand that you want to give authors the right to control other peoples' work (derivative works) for potentially decades longer than they can control their own? I'm not sure I see the principled justification for that...
For what it's worth, the first two Golden Age books feature some of the best world-building I've seen in quite some time. These books have sensawunda to burn.
As for the rest... well, as Chad Orzel once said about another series, it would be a real shame if those two books were followed up by a third, in which hive-mind intellects on a planetary scale are made to bow to the superior wisdom of Ayn Rand. It's a good thing that didn't happen.
As a sidelight, it happens that Cory Doctorow's day job involves, among other things, attempting to lobby WIPO on behalf of small fry. The corporate interests are reportedly displeased.
At any rate, between their efforts, and the efforts of governments like Brazil which are arguing for some measure of restraint, things are no longer worsening as fast as they used to be. You could call that "progress" -- but that's a term I'd rather reserve for actual improvement in the status quo...
In response to Jane Yolen's:
But but but. . .did you miss the post about my children being very much a part of working the farm? My daughter writes children's books with me, is my assistant, writes books and stories and poems on her own. My middle son writes novels with me, is a musician, writes novels and short fiction and poetry on his own. My youngest is a photographer and does picture books with me. Also sells photos, works as a photographer on contract to a major resort.
IANAL, but it may be that if your children are already collaborating on some of your work, you might be able to make them joint copyright holders in at least the works they've collaborated on with you -- making them already part owners of the family farm (if we're going to stick with that increasingly barren analogy), without any need for special arrangements for inheritance.
For what it's worth, I know of at least one such arrangement under British law being tested in the courts. After the Beatles broke up, Paul McCartney was still under contract to Northern Songs. But his Wings material was credited to Paul and Linda McCartney. So, while half the royalties went to Northern Songs, as per the contract, the other half went to Linda free and clear. Sir Lew Grade, then owner of Northern Songs, sued, claiming the arrangement was a sham to get out of the contract -- and lost, as the court ruled, in effect, that Paul had the right to collaborate with whoever he liked.
(By the way, it feels a bit weird to cut in on this particular discussion pseudonymously, but when I've actually met people here, I wound up introducing myself by the pseudonym because it was the only name I had that had any particular meaning for them. So, to say a bit more about, at least, where I'm coming from -- I'm actually not personally involved in publishing in any way, particularly not as a published author. The closest thing I have to a dog in this fight is that I was, at one point, a major contributor to a prominent open source project -- details available on private request).
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 5 |
Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Charles Dodgson:
Show all comments by Charles Dodgson.