1 Comment

good to read all this, so thanks for putting your thoughts out there. hope your March has daffodils and blue skies. I think that the right to make derivative works should be protected differently from the original rights to publish a written work. Specifically, the economic copyright to publish a novel could last 30 years from 1st publication, but the right over derivative works could last longer, like 75 years from the 1st publication of the original work. I am not fixed on the amount of time, but the idea of separating out intellectual property over the original and derivative works helps to address the unfairness of the inherent monopoly in copyright, while rewarding the sweat and effort of the petite bourgeoisie-cum-precariat that live outside the normal employee-employer relation who occasionally make blockbusting properties.

i think the moral rights should last in perpetuity, so the right of attribution and against misattirubution, & authorial control over the integrity of the original work - these sort of rights - are not negotiable.

The equivalent in building - an architect does not get royalties when the building they designed gets resold. Maybe if their design gets used again, they do, but i doubt it. In sculpture, or painting, the artist does not get paid again when their work is resold. A self-employed plumber or electrician or bricklayer could foreswear their service fee for a royalty reflecting the intellectual property involved in creating part of a building perhaps for every resale for 100 years 1% of the sale price should go to the tradesperson, and their heirs. So i'm not 100% convinced that people who write words shoiuld be considered any differently from those entrepreneurs who lay pipes or carve stone, or paint canvas. anyhow - i am eating some potatoes and chili sauce, having a beer, and its so good that I'm pretty much agree with you about whatever it was we were talking about so, anyhow, hope uou well, all the best :)

Expand full comment