No. I suspect that idea is to protect the rights of the descendants in terms of
intellectual property - to recognise that copyright forms part of the estate
and that the beneficiaries have a right to enjoy that for a substantial period,
just as they would with other forms of wealth.
One example that sticks in my mind for some reason is that the copyright on
Gilbert and Sullivan operas expired in my lifetime - it had been held by the
D'Oyly Carte Company - and I remember the sudden rash of productions, movies
and reinterpretations that followed. This happened a long time after their
deaths and after any original transfer of that copyright to the opera company.
When I did my Honours thesis, I was writing on a poet who died in the early
1970's and who had not published a poem for over twenty years before that. I
was limited in my ability to copy material written by him in the 1930's and
that material is still covered by copyright and will be for some time yet.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium:
revised edition -
http://blur.by/19Hb8or
The TLR Compendium
http://blur.by/1eDpqN7
On 10/04/2014, at 10:07 PM, Ian Nichols wrote:
> Surely, what determines the length of the copyright period is how long the
> creator lives or lived after the image was created, not whether they are
> alive or dead right now?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|