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?
I feel like this could create some pretty toxic incentives.
Like, imagine if the moment a person dies all of their works immediately go into the public domain… What’s to stop a company like Disney from just straight-up assassinating people who create promising IPs? They paid 4 billion dollars for Star Wars — but why not just have George Lucas murdered for a fraction of the price?
This would imply I’d have thought out every scenario in my head before making this comment, so let me do some thinking for you, the copyright hold would have the right to transfer that copyright to another person, but if op dies the copyright is transfered to the public domain. Disney would buy it sooner not later. And if something’s in the public domain it wouldn’t matter since Disney literally started existence by adapting public domain works. The main benefit of buying it sooner instead of killing them is that it would ensure the exclusive rights to profit from the IP. (4 billion quid is for a matured idea, not a draft script that hasn’t sold anything). (There’s also the risk that the immature IP isn’t worth anything even after murdering the op, also the obv papertrail of, op dies -> Disney releases movie faster than everyone else. And then the market saturation if the IP is matured).