Components of a Copyright document

Components of a Copyright document

Name

Institution

A copyright document grants the exclusive right of publishing and selling musical or literary work by any individual in a given country. Copyrights differ in lengths with respect to the existing jurisdictions. The difference in lengths of copyrights is affected by factors such as work type and the publication status (published/published). It could also be affected by whether published by a given individual or perhaps a corporation. Copyrights periods can be adjusted by legislation if such legislations allow such provision (Henley, 2001). In other cases, copyright terms curtailing from their current lengths is evident. This has been done without any appeal to the probably increased enthusiasm in engaging the movements of creating new works by the authors or creator whose copyright would run out.

Some creative works and publication have lengthy copyright terms with the default copyright time of an author being set as the author’s lifespan with an additional period of fifty to seventy years. This is the case in most parts of the world. In countries such as the US and the UK, a copyright term for any existing works is fixed after publication. It is then bound to expire after a set period, usually at the end of the fixed calendar year. While jurisdictions have been strict on copyright terms, some authors/creators have been demanding for the extension of their copyright terms in order to create more works. This has been difficult since curtailing for such terms exists in most countries. This could even start with the public like a case of Mark Helprin (Lang, 2009).

The law covering copyrights is seen as unjust by some individuals (Lessig, 2009). Lessig (2009) says that there has to be something that is fundamentally unjust as far as the copyright law is concerned. The law is said to protect individuals’ ordinary properties for an unlimited period. This is however not provided for whenever it comes to copyright protection terms (Lessig, 2009). It is after the expiry time of such works that the public can manipulate it in their own way with limited control by the author or creator. The root to this is a major demoralizing factor to many authors and aspiring artists. If at all their work could be protected by the law just like any other ordinary property, things could be better for them.

While most author want their publications to remain under their control forever, their dreams seem to be infeasible. The infeasibility in achieving such unlimited protection however seems to be unfair in the real world especially after considering all difficulties an author or artist has to go through before creating substance in their piece of work. Unlike any other property such as houses, cars and businesses, author’s work may not be covered for protect for an equal period despite hardships like paying of taxes and creativity (Helprin, 2007). It is argued in the same that copyright terms should be protected like any other property or businesses in the real world circumstances. Copyrights according to Helprin (2007) should not be subjected to confiscation but forever be protected by the government and the law. Like any person’s wealth and possession, copyrights need allowance of flowing from a given generation to the proceeding generations.

In some cases, some work creators feel unprotected at all. The US law provides no copyright protection for useful work. This is evident in the fashion industry whereby it protects logos, brand name, fashion houses and fabric print but fail to protect the fashion itself (Eguchi, 2012). This case could appear consoling sentiment to the people advocating for an unlimited time for their copyright terms. The mystery to many creators is where the great profits from their piece of creations goes to.

It is even unclear to the original authors who benefit much from their work even during the copyright protected period (Henley, 2001). According to Henley, many authors know they created great works but no one knows where the profits have gone. The best is the case of classical music performances (Henley, 2001). He also provides an example of house decorated by Maurice Ravel who had inherited it. He later used to perform most of his classical music from 1928. His creations have been unprotected no more as evident in its use by Torvill and Dean in their gold medal performance for the Winter olimpics in 1984. Other people have used his work such as Moore and Derek (Henley, 2001). This looks unfair for such creative thinker. This is not all since most of the greatest classical music fielms were performed in the same artistic house.

There is a major problem with the extention of copyright terms.The law has not provided for this. People on the other hand would at any time be waiting for an oportunity to invest on other people’s ideas and creativity. This is seen in what happened when Mark Helprin tried to call for extension of his copyright term. The idea of curtailing his extension request was countered with angry comments from internet users. Most of the commenting individuals banded in unison with an aim of abolishing copyrights (Lang, 2009). This would give them the right to distribute software and music with no cost, an absolute loss and harm to the creator whose copyright term has not elapsed. It follows that the public would always receive the extension of such rights with grievances.

References

Eguchi, A. (2012, September 12 ). Curtailing Copycat Couture: The Merits of the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act and a Licensing Scheme for the Fashion Industry . Retrieved on October 15, 2012, from The Legal Workshop: HYPERLINK “http://legalworkshop.org/2012/09/12/curtailing-copycat-couture-the-merits-of-the-” http://legalworkshop.org/2012/09/12/curtailing-copycat-couture-the-merits-of-the-innovative-design-protection-and-piracy-prevention-act-and-a-licensing-scheme-for-the-fashion-industry

Helprin, M. (2007, May 20). A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Its Copyright? Retrieved on October 15, 2012, from Opinion: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20helprin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20helprin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Henley, J. (2001, April 25 ). Poor Ravel. Retrieved on October 15, 2012, from The Guardian: HYPERLINK “http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/apr/25/arts.highereducation” http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/apr/25/arts.highereducation

Lang, J. S. (2009, October 17). Fine Writing, Wise Analysis . Retrieved on October 15, 2012, from Digital Barbarism: HYPERLINK “http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061733113?ie=UTF8&tag=vglnkc7244-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0061733113” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061733113?ie=UTF8&tag=vglnkc7244-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0061733113

Lessig, L. (2009, May 20). The Solipsist and the Internet (a Review of Helprin’s Digital Barbarism). Retrieved on October 15, 2012, from media: HYPERLINK “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-solipsist-and-the-int_b_206021.html” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-solipsist-and-the-int_b_206021.html