How long should the copyright protection last?

Question

The poll includes few options, if your length isn't covered close enough, you can write an opinion below..

No copyright

About 5 years after creation

About 10 years after creation

About 20 years after creation

About 40 years after creation

To the death of the author

80 years after the death of the author

Select age and gender to cast your vote:

GirlGuy

Answer 1

Arivor | 92 opinions shared on Entertainment & Arts topic.

Guru

How long should copyright protection last or better worded the term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years.

When it is your work that is copyrighted... it takes an entirely different feel than when considering others work. It's like "Hey, I made that! What the fuck are you doing making money off my stuff!" Simply put, it's theft, and you have a damn good reason to be pissed.

Too many people are like "Well, you should not have put it out for everyone to just grab and use, fool!" That's what those laws are for... but remember the internet has no borders and some other Countries don't care.

ad48hp

8 d
There are some further aspects that might be considered.

There's a difference when someone uses small thumbnail of a Shutterstock image for comerciual purposes, and when someone uses the actual photo, without getting a license for it.
The author in this case put the little thumbnail to the internet without restricitons for viewing, but the actual photo is behind restrictions, so if we shall accept a moral theory that what the author makes public shall stay free-to-use by public, the thumbnail would be public-domain, but the actual photo wouldn't be, unless it would be released by the author without viewing restrictions on another website..

Similarly, there's a difference between selling the actual photo yourself, and selling a video-game you made that uses the actual photo as a texture. In the first case, the original product is sold unmodified, while in the second while it's still unmodified, but used as a part of greater whole, so it's targeting a different market. The audience might have bought the original photo in the first case, but wouldn't do so in the second, as they're paying for a game, not a texture, so the computed loss is different.
Arivor

7 d
There are provisions that are made for in the fair use act that do allow some use of material in certain circumstances. However, your definition about using a picture in a video game as a texture is about as legit as using music in it. You still need permission, and you should expect to pay royalties to whomever holds the copyright for it.
ad48hp

6 d
I meant i think that the violation of the copyright law by using a picture as a texture in a video-game is less serious than directly selling the picture, and that it shall be the criteria for computing the monetary fee that shall be payed back.
Similarly, if someone takes a picture of a video-game, and sells it, it is less serious than selling the actual video-game.

I also believe that the seriousness of using music and texture in video-game depends on the usage. If you listen to audio of a video-game, you might be able to reconstruct the music from it, if there aren't any sounds added, and you get the same copy of music as you would if you download it.
In the case of having visuals and muting audio, texture isn't projected from the same angle and resolution in the game all the time, thus the reconstruction of the original texture might require focus.

Wanting to listen to a song that costs money, but instead listening to it through a game that features is, is a more likely scenario than wanting to buy a photograph, but instead looking at it in a a game, for a consumer.
So while both are infringements, each might have different levels of issue attributed to them.
Show All Show Less
Arivor

6 d
Want to see what happens when you try and use even a small part of something in a like say music compilation you want to post on YouTube? Try and add a bit of Prince's (the artist formerly know as) songs and see what happens... it's actually quite enlightening. You won't get in trouble or anything but your entire video will be muted, and you will be told why.

Answer 2

ad48hp

There are some further aspects that might be considered.

There's a difference when someone uses small thumbnail of a Shutterstock image for comerciual purposes, and when someone uses the actual photo, without getting a license for it.
The author in this case put the little thumbnail to the internet without restricitons for viewing, but the actual photo is behind restrictions, so if we shall accept a moral theory that what the author makes public shall stay free-to-use by public, the thumbnail would be public-domain, but the actual photo wouldn't be, unless it would be released by the author without viewing restrictions on another website..

Similarly, there's a difference between selling the actual photo yourself, and selling a video-game you made that uses the actual photo as a texture. In the first case, the original product is sold unmodified, while in the second while it's still unmodified, but used as a part of greater whole, so it's targeting a different market. The audience might have bought the original photo in the first case, but wouldn't do so in the second, as they're paying for a game, not a texture, so the computed loss is different.

Answer 3

Arivor

There are provisions that are made for in the fair use act that do allow some use of material in certain circumstances. However, your definition about using a picture in a video game as a texture is about as legit as using music in it. You still need permission, and you should expect to pay royalties to whomever holds the copyright for it.

Answer 4

ad48hp

I meant i think that the violation of the copyright law by using a picture as a texture in a video-game is less serious than directly selling the picture, and that it shall be the criteria for computing the monetary fee that shall be payed back.
Similarly, if someone takes a picture of a video-game, and sells it, it is less serious than selling the actual video-game.

I also believe that the seriousness of using music and texture in video-game depends on the usage. If you listen to audio of a video-game, you might be able to reconstruct the music from it, if there aren't any sounds added, and you get the same copy of music as you would if you download it.
In the case of having visuals and muting audio, texture isn't projected from the same angle and resolution in the game all the time, thus the reconstruction of the original texture might require focus.

Wanting to listen to a song that costs money, but instead listening to it through a game that features is, is a more likely scenario than wanting to buy a photograph, but instead looking at it in a a game, for a consumer.
So while both are infringements, each might have different levels of issue attributed to them.

Answer 5

Arivor

Want to see what happens when you try and use even a small part of something in a like say music compilation you want to post on YouTube? Try and add a bit of Prince's (the artist formerly know as) songs and see what happens... it's actually quite enlightening. You won't get in trouble or anything but your entire video will be muted, and you will be told why.