zlacker

My biggest critique of copyright is that is unnecessarily collapses financial reward & creative control. It also pegs both as starting at creation - which is not a particularly meaningful point for either problem.

IMO I would rather a structure that:

- Guarantees creators (and their descendants) some number of years of financial benefit / veto (30 seems fine!) - i.e. pay me what I want or you can't use this creative work.

- Separately grant creators the ability to veto "official" projects that use their creative output in their lifetimes.

IMO, it seems like there's a productive "middle ground" between total control and anything goes. After the 30 year benefit expired, you couldn't sue for damages - just costs & to stop use.

>>aeturn+(OP)
I've heard of a structure in France that's translated as "moral rights" of a work. I met a guy who was the moral rights holder for a deceased author and had the right to veto large and small elements of the representation of the characters, but received no royalties from the works.

>>aeturn+(OP)
> After the 30 year benefit expired, you couldn't sue for damages - just costs & to stop use.

That's the same thing.

No one can use my stuff..........(unless you pay me royalties).

>>pauldd+ep
Look - it's absolutely not the same thing. The point is to allow non-profit-seeking uses first. To push off the free-for-all of commercialization until after an interstitial period.

You can certainly pay the rights holder to use their property! Still! You could do it even without copyright I suppose. However, I think a space where it costs time and money for the rights holder to try to stop use and they won't get paid for it is super useful.

Consider this in the case of software as well - you get ~30 years of benefit from your work, but you can refuse to allow companies to incorporate it into their products as long as you live. Whichever companies you want! You can also not do that.