Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should copyright die with the creator?
Copyright should die with the creator
Continuing to enforce copyright after the creator's death easily allows for their creation to be used in ways they did not explicitly agree to.
If artworks aren't protected by copyright they can be easier used to develope culture further.
A copyright that dies with the creator is more moral than the current law.
Continuing to enforce copyright after the creator's death could limit the availability of new innovations and interpretations.
Eliminating the concept of Copyright would benefit everyone more than keeping it.
One of copyright's purposes is is to incentivize the creation of new works. Dead people can’t create new works.
The creator's work, just like anyone else's, should benefit his or her family for a period longer than the author's lifetime. After a certain period, it should become humanity's common good. But not before the family is financially rewarded.
In extreme circumstances, such an approach may create an incentive for murder.
A temporary limited copyright is better than a copyright that depends on the creator's lifespan.
Older people might be deterred from creating if their copyright dies when they die.
Creative work should be viewed in the same way as any other asset and it is up to the owner of that asset to determine who it will be made available to upon their death.
Corporations are legal citizens that can own copyrights. They are also immortal. Copyright laws based upon mortality cannot be applied fairly to immortal citizens.
Should copyright be abolished?
Paper books are going to die
Should copyright be reformed to focus on revenue, not copies?