I don't think I'd agree with this short a term, but the last line especially sounds pretty problematic. What about artists who make their money based off of subscriptions?Vendor-Lazarus said:7 Years.
Half of the original copyright length. Which makes sense in today's faster world with constantly shifting trends.
The idea is to incentivize creative ideas, not lock it down to be held by mega-corporations.
7 years should be more than enough to reap the majority of reasonable income.
However, all copying for private use and without profit should be permissible.
Copyright law is important because of the stranglehold movie and game corporations have over IP rights. It gets pretty creatively suffocating sometimes.gaijinkaiju said:I don't really follow (or care all that much tbh) about copyright law, but i'm assuming we're talking about how long till something becomes free to the public to use and distribute without approval of/ payment to, the original creator/s?
Hard to say in that case, but I do know the moment something becomes abandonware it should automatically lose copyright status. same goes for games (especially older games e.g nes, n64 etc) since they're not being sold or even supported by the original creator.
They are still required to remain creative. If an artist hasn't made anything new in 7 years, then why should that person be able to rest on laurels? Not that they would have many subscribers remaining after such a long period.Arnox said:I don't think I'd agree with this short a term, but the last line especially sounds pretty problematic. What about artists who make their money based off of subscriptions?Vendor-Lazarus said:7 Years.
Half of the original copyright length. Which makes sense in today's faster world with constantly shifting trends.
The idea is to incentivize creative ideas, not lock it down to be held by mega-corporations.
7 years should be more than enough to reap the majority of reasonable income.
However, all copying for private use and without profit should be permissible.
I'm still kinda confused what you mean. I mean, if all copying for private use is permissible, what is stopping piracy? Unless you're saying, you can copy it all you want but you can't actually distribute it to others. At least until copyright runs out.Vendor-Lazarus said:They are still required to remain creative. If an artist hasn't made anything new in 7 years, then why should that person be able to rest on laurels? Not that they would have many subscribers remaining after such a long period.Arnox said:I don't think I'd agree with this short a term, but the last line especially sounds pretty problematic. What about artists who make their money based off of subscriptions?
Good artists will make good art. Scammers won't. Canon is a thing...as is memes.