you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn't the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?

It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn't be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist's family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.

The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    This highlights that we are fucked in the head how we take care of ourselves, kids shouldn't be made to struggle becsause of the economics of parents. Neither should adults. Neither should retirees.

    Neither should adults, but economics based survival is what we have until we all decide why the fuck don't we just cover the basics of a decent life, no strings at all, waste your life doing what you want or be the best version of yourself, getting us from financial from would just solve so many problems.

    Like needing copyright to secure financial gain/benefit.

    Especially for creative/cultural works that only have value because other humans went to to share an experience

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This happens all the time to people who don't receive royalties. Parents die, kids get nothing. End of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You might expand that to “society continuing to allow children to suffer because their parents are unable to care for them is a larger issue than the question of copyright.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid at the time and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.

    Plus companies wouldn't be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?

    Like I said, all it does is prioritize the desires of the dead over the needs of the living. It's not justified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So you would rather the publisher make the money instead of giving it to the family of the artist for a short period of time.

    What terrible priorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I do think they said a publisher was involved.

    But what about when they are not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Hmm, I think there may have been some confusion on my part here. I’m fine with copyright directly serving individual authors and their families.

    I’m not into how that is expanded and abused by corporations.

    But I’m also not into the idea that my creative work could be taken and used in ways I don’t want it to be to undercut me and destroy my ability to subsist off of my labor. I so I think copyright has a place in society.

  • source
  • parent