Electronic Frontier Foundation: A new front has opened in publishers' global war on the public domain. Lawmakers of Argentina's ruling party are proposing a vast extension of copyright terms on photography—from 20 years after publication to 70 years after the photographer's death. That means that the term of restriction of photographic works would be extended by an average 120 years.
2 comments:
I mean, after all, a picture is worth a thousand words, right? Looking at the current years surrounding copyright on photos, it makes a whole lot of sense to extend the copyright, especially when you consider the form in which we use the specified media. In this day and age, we can share photos in the blink of an eye. Storage is the same way. With modern technology, you could store media for decades upon decades. With the amount of backup in the collective world systems, it's possible for people to store photos for extended amounts of time. And because copyright is critical to maintain the integrity of the work, it makes perfect sense to extend it. If this passes and museums put their archives online, that has the potential to revolutionize how we consume art. Overall, I am a huge supporter of this movement, even if it means paying more for photos. Artists deserve the money, no matter when you’re using their art for commercial purposes.
120 years is a long time. Too long, I might add. I completely understand the need for copyright, but at what point must we let go our desire for profit in favor of societal benefit? This proposal is especially egregious since its approval will warrant removal of extant photos from the internet. Websites affected will be mostly those of non-profit and educational organizations. The sole benefit from this copyright extension will be an increase in profit for artists and (mostly) publishing agencies. However, the public will lose access to a number of educational and culturally significant works. I believe that different types of works should have different lengths during which they are held under copyright. Photographs fall in the lower range due to their capturing of something already existing. Of course, composing a photograph takes skill, but a photographer makes decisions on how to capture reality (usually), rather than something devised. An author of a novel, in comparison, must craft an entire story – plot, characters, setting and all. While I appreciate the need for copyright, we must be careful that our greed does not limit our ability to share with society great works of art.
Post a Comment