A reasonable change to copyright law would be to require that copyright holders must retail market their copyrighted product on an annual basis to a certain dollar amount, or else they lose their government protection.
If a copyrighted work, like Mickey Mouse, is retailed for a large amount of money every year, Disney should be able to retain that copyright as long as it makes money. But at the same time, Disney could not *refuse* to market other works, such as Song of the South, because they don’t want to. If they refuse to market the product, they deserve no copyright protection.
This would make available for sale vast libraries of copyrighted works that are not now legally available, though they have been in the past. Either the copyright holder sells them, or stands back and lets someone else sell them.
Unfortunately, while most people would *prefer* that the copyright revert to the creator of the work, in the vast majority of cases, this cannot be, as the creator of the work has sold their rights, or ceded them by contract, to the existing copyright holder.
The RIAA, especially, has for years included a contract clause for artists that they are employees, who have no rights at all for their own works, but this was not enforced. However, a few years ago, they got the US congress to pass a bill saying that the clause was enforceable. This means that the RIAA holds the copyright of the creator of the art, not the artists themselves.
Overall, the effect of this change would not affect first run copyrights, the majority of profit for corporations; it would only affect older works.
The public would see a vast increase in the amount of public domain content. Artists not seen for decades would return to the limelight, newly repackaged. And if the library holders didn’t want to market them, it wouldn’t matter, because somebody probably would.
I think that orphaned software be made public domain too. Any company that refuses to support the product they sold looses the rights to that work.
The problem with your idea is that many items protected by copyright have very limited value or the value may not be apparent for years.
A famous example is the photo of Clinton and Lewinsky. The photographer who took that photo had it in his back catalogue of images, but it was without value until the scandal broke.
As a photographer, I can tell you that this is not uncommon. I have sold images of student athletes who made it in the pros. In one case, I had photos of a political activist who became very high profile and a major magazine came calling.
The real issue is that music, movies, books and photos have different markets. A musician sells millions of copies of a few songs and with few exceptions, most of their money is made in the first few weeks of release.
A photographer sells a few copies of many photos. Often the photos only have value in certain contexts or to certain people.
The other thing that concerns me as a photographer is the misuse of my work. I want to be able to stop people from using the work for commercial purposes without consent — which is critical in situations where the photos were shot for editorial purposes and there are no releases.
I don't think that idea is reasonable at all. The concept of private property means you can use or not use what you own as you see fit. Furthermore, copyright law exists to protect all manner of intellectual property, much of which is not created to be retailed. Corporate logos and sales slogans are two cases in point. The purpose of copyright law is not to force owners to sell what they own.
Your suggestion is most unreasonable due to the risk it introduces in creating and exploiting copyrighted works. What if a copyrighted work only sporadically generates income? What if it takes four years to finally realize income? Such works would immediately revert into the public domain for failing to meet "standards."
Furthermore, copyright holders with more funds available to expend into marketing a particular product would gain an advantage over individuals and small businesses. It's easier to market a copyrighted work when you have millions in the bank and access to bank credit lines and securities markets.
The most reasonable system is that which was originally implemented. Give authors the exclusive and implied rights to exploit their works for a period of not more than fifteen to twenty years in the case of printed works (books) and five to seven years in the case of non-printed works (software, music, movies, and so forth). Obviously, the time limits are adjustable. Protection should be automatic, without registration, though registration makes it easier to prove the copyright ownership in a court of law. And, only specific ideas of expressions should be copyright eligible, not general ideas. Trademarks should receive indefinite legal protection or until the original holder ceases to exist.
I have to disagree with that. If somebody creates something, they can do - - or not do - - whatever they please with their creation. Either way, a third party should not be able to steal and make money from somebody else's creation.