A Copyright Controversy

There's been a bit of a controversy going on in the publishing blogosphere and Twitterverse recently about copyright. Former Vox Editor Matthew Yglesias wrote, apparently seriously, that the term of copyright should be limited to thirty years, so that more works could come into the public domain where others could make use of them without having to pay the authors for use of their intellectual property.

They got jumped on, and for good reason. 

In his weekly newsletter, author Andrew Liptak wrote a good summary of what people have been saying about this. 

Currently in the US, the duration for copyright protection is the life of the author, plus 70 years: generally, once an author dies, the clock starts. (There are some exceptions around works written prior to 1978 which weren’t published or which didn’t have their copyrights registered). Other countries have slightly different standards, so it varies from place to place.

Yglesias’s desire to see books published 30 years ago entering the public domain in digital form has a host of problems, because it deprives authors of their creative property within their lifetimes.

Say there’s an author who publishes their debut at the age of 30, and it’s still in print and selling well by the time they’re the age of 60: they’d lose that income stream, which undermines one’s entire lifetime of work. Under that rule, John Scalzi would lose the rights to his book Old Man’s War in 2035 — which isn’t too far from now, and is apparently still a big seller. Orson Scott Card would have lost the copyright for Ender’s Game in 2015 and would lose Xenocide this year. Stephen Baxter’s debut novel Raft would enter the public domain this year. George R.R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones is coming up on the 30 year mark in 2026.

A book might fall out of print in 30 years, but the author can still resell it — there could be new formats, new interest, new markets, etc. As Silvia Moreno-Garcia pointed out, she originally read Ellen Datlow’s anthologies when they came out in hard copy, and again when ebooks became a thing. (Read her entire thread starting here.)

There is, on the other hand, little doubt that current copyright terms are too long and mainly benefit large corporations. I think I agree with author John Scalzi, who proposed a term of life of the author plus 25 years.  

It is true that no one knows how well a book will sell in the long run — but then no one knows how well they will sell in the short run, either. Authors should have the opportunity to benefit from their work whenever (and if ever) it generates income, certainly in their life.

If you were to ask me the ideal copyright length for individuals: Life+25 (or 75 years, whichever is longer). This way I can profit from my work, and so can my spouse if I die before her. My grandkids can work for a living. Corporations: 75 years.

I'd cut the corporation term to 50 years, but Disney will never agree to that.