My estate would probably do the same. (After all, I have a young family to support.)
Either way, it seems to me that the real issue is how long copy protection should last. Many people are saying that the current law has extended copyrights too much. I think that is a conversation worth having.
Maybe the kind of book you write isn’t the sort for which that matters.
Probably not.
In the case of Frost’s poetry, it does. Copyright and patent law as currently instituted impedes rather than promotes progress in the sciences and (useful) arts.
I have heard the argument, but remain unconvinced. I can point to instances where the ready availability of public-domain work appears to hinder creative activity rather than promote it. (Notice how many on-line information sources merely repeat what Wikipedia has, rather than write anything original of their own.)
But let's suppose you are right that copyrights and patents impede progress. Some would argue that we would be better off without any kind of IP protection. Others (including the framers of the Constitution) would argue that such protection is necessary.
Once again, it seems to me that the issue is how long copy protection should last.
I’m glad you’re happy with how your publisher treats you.
So am I.
It’s not just length of copyright, but the bizarrely narrow construction given to fair use. Film a demonstration at which someone sings a song that’s under copyright, and you’ll get DMCA takedown notices if you try to circulate the film, no matter how incidental the song was to the event, or how newsworthy the event was.
There are surreal instances in which copyright infringement has been alleged against online discussions the fair use doctrine because one of the discussants quoted from works to provide examples of fair use.
Author Marc Aronson recently took to the pages of the NY Times to complain about how copyright is massively stifling non-fiction works, due to the difficulty of getting permission:
The hope of nonfiction is to connect readers to something outside the book: the past, a discovery, a social issue. To do this, authors need to draw on pre-existing words and images.
Unless we nonfiction writers are lucky and hit a public-domain mother lode, we have to pay for the right to use just about anything — from a single line of a song to any part of a poem; from the vast archives of the world’s art (now managed by gimlet-eyed venture capitalists) to the historical images that serve as profit centers for museums and academic libraries.
The amount we pay depends on where and how the material is used. In fact, the very first question a rights holder asks is “What are you going to do with my baby?” Which countries do you plan to sell in? What languages? Over what period of time? How large will the image be in your book?
Quoted from here.