Jo

Whether Derivative Works Are Worthy of Further Incentivization at the Original Artist's Expense

Statement: To spur art, copyright durations ought to be drastically shorter than they are under current law.

One objection to the statement: Reducing financial incentive to create art is not conducive to the creation of art, particularly given how hard it already is to make money as an artist.

Another objection to the statement: This would incentivize derivative art, when what we really want is (closer to) wholly original art.

A common reason for agreeing with the statement: It's crazy that when something is published, you will not live to see it fall out of copyright.

Why I agree with the statement: Given the extreme ease of copyright infringement with modern technology, we're essentially relying on the honour system anyway, so plaintiffs and the NEA would be better off directing their resources towards gratuitously funding artists and encouraging fans to do so, while shortening copyright durations would financially incentivize derivative artists.

Why I disagree with the first objection to the statement: Although it's true that the precise number of posthumous decades have been a but-for cause of the creation of some art, the (much greater in amount) derivative art that those decades precluded would be preferable.

Why I disagree with the second objection to the statement: We will still have some wholly original art, and original art isn't inherently better than derivative art; I would hate to live in a world without Ulysses, but so too would I hate to live in a world without West Side Story.