It’s one thing that copyright/IP is such a matter of debate in the creative world, but a whole new layer is added onto that when people say that it only matters for a certain amount of time. You may have read all those articles a few months ago, the same ones telling us about how Mickey Mouse (technically Steamboat Willy) is now up for grabs 95 years after his creation.

There are those who say “as long as it’s popular it shouldn’t be pirated”, those who say “as long as the creator is around”, those who don’t apply a set frame, etc. I’ve even seen people say they wouldn’t dare redistribute paleolithic paintings because it was their spark on the world. What philosophy of statutes of limitation make the most sense to you when it comes to creative work?

  • BarHocker
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Why should the kid get anything from the parents achievements by law?

    • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because it is the duty of parents to support their children, and this is desirable for the purposes of a stable society, and the purpise of law is to protect the stability of society?

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      An independent artist probably isn’t going to have an employer-sponsored retirement account like a 401k or a pension, etc. like many of us with “normal” jobs have, and are counting on to help our spouses, children, or other dependants should we die before them. Allowing them to retain the rights to an artists work for after death seems to me like it would help fill that same kind of role and also provides them a little protection, since not all artists are wildly successful and may not have been able to save much or anything for retirement/funeral expenses, etc. on their own. I don’t think it needs to last their whole life, their kid could potentially live 100 years which seems excessive and against the spirit of allowing things to go into the public domain, but I think seeing them into adulthood is fair.

      Edit: I’m personally contributing to a pension at my job, my wife has never worked there but she still gets to collect that pension after I die, that’s a big part of our collective retirement plans. If we had kids, I’d want to make sure those kids are being provided for out of that pension at least until they’re old enough to live on their own. I think artists would also like to have that kind of safety net for their loved ones after they die.

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because the parents owned it, and it can be passed down like any other property.

      That’s the whole point of the discussion.