Even though the advantages of strong copyright protections for individual creators have become increasingly clear in the internet age, I’ve remained sympathetic to arguments that perhaps our copyright periods last too long.

It’s easy to admit that at first glance, 70 years does seem a like a bit of a long time. But whenever I start to think about it further, I start to wonder… Is it really?

Most of us would probably agree that artists should have some commercial control over their work within their lifetimes.

If you write a song at age 18, should BMW be allowed to use it in a TV commercial without your consent, and without payment, when you’re 88? Is it perhaps, right for a creative copyright term to last as long as the creator does herself? I think so.

From here, we might naturally start to wonder about the next generation. After all, one of the biggest reasons people aim high within their own lifetimes is to leave a better future for their children, and to create works that might outlive themselves, and prove valuable to future generations. To keep these worthy incentives going, does it not make sense to allow copyright terms to extend into the lives of the artists heirs if they so choose?

If you write a song at age 18, should BMW be able to snatch it up for one of their advertisements, without your consent and without payment, because you happen to die tragically at age 28 or 38? Should it suddenly become fair game for any record label or online distributor to capitalize on your work without paying royalties to your grieving family? What if the enduring value of your hard work is something that your family had been planning on to help support them for the long term?

So, how long should copyright terms be, exactly? I don’t know. Any concrete legal decision is likely to be somewhat arbitrary in the end. But they must be based on principles in order to be just.

It seems reasonable to demand that creative copyright should last for at least the lifetime of the creator. This would allow us to prevent any unwanted and non-consensual commercial exploitation of living artists. It also seems reasonable to demand that copyright protections last for at least some portion of the life of the creator’s immediate heirs. And it seems expedient that there should be some minimum length for the term.

The details of course, we can quibble over. But I think that these are basic principles we should all be able to agree on. They are principles worth fighting for.

Of course, there are caveats and concerns and finer points to be raised: Should we require rightsholders to start renewing their copyrights after a certain time period in order to retain commercial control over them? Or would that kind of requirement merely be an unfair disadvantage to smaller and less organized rightsholders?

Should active companies have to give up their control over trademark characters like Mickey Mouse, The Cat In The Hat or Buzz Lightyear after a certain period, or should we finally say once and for all that they should be allowed to keep their branded characters their own indefinitely, so long as they keep on using them?

It’s an important issue to raise, because so many anti-IP activists will contend that copyright is “only so long because Disney is greedy.” I’m not convinced. (No, Disney doesn’t pay me anything to say this, and I have never worked for them, nor do I aspire to.) I am merely committed to thinking these questions through as far as they will go: Wouldn’t continued commercial control over old characters simply inspire the rest of us to create new ones? Isn’t that half the point of copyright to begin with?

From what I remember, the existence of Marvel and DC trademarks were of no threat to the creation of a truly seminal and innovative graphic novel like The Watchmen. Don’t arrangements like this merely incentivize companies to invest in new creators and new creative works, perhaps even hoping that they might strike upon a new creation that endures?

Recently, I read a blog post from a Duke University professor who laments that “Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2053“, for works such as On The Road, From Russia With Love, Funny Face, Atlas Shrugged and The Cat In The Hat to enter the public domain. But he never seems to fully explain to my satisfaction: Wait for what?

I am currently able to access any of these titles cheaply through an online bookstore, legal streaming or rental service, or for free via my local public library. So I’m just not sure what I’m missing.



Although I’m sympathetic to concerns over the availability of “orphan works”, I am also fearful of that term being misused to strip initially unsuccessful creators of their rights. I am also curious to hear the reasoning behind why companies shouldn’t be allowed to keep trademarks on long-term brand characters like Mickey Mouse or The Cat In The Hat.

On what principle would we come to that decision? How does this practice actually cause harm? And, have we fully thought through the potentially greater harm that might come from ending it?

At first I can sympathize with calls to weaken some aspects of copyright. But when I think it through, I increasingly begin to see the benefits of IP protections, and the shortsightedness of stripping creators of their rights, and investors of their incentives.