If you were astute, you would have noticed I held up the British copyright law the Founders surely had in mind when they drafted the Constitution, the Law of Queen Anne (which claim I think I can easily validate since the first copyright law passed under the Constitution was an imitation of it), as a model of a good copyright law -- 14 years, extendible by another 14 at the request of the author, not the author's estate (which didn't create anything), not the author's publisher, just the author -- a return to those terms hardly results in CHAOS. There wasn't cultural CHAOS in the colonial times when the Law of Queen Anne was the copyright law governing what became these United States, nor through the Federal era when American copyright law had like terms.
I'm mystified by your claim that being able to trace the provenance of art is somehow dependent upon copyright. We know who painted the Mona Lisa, who wrote The Canterbury Tales, who composed "The Lady Russell's Pavan", who wrote the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos, even though da Vinci, Chaucer, Dowland and St. Romanos the Melodist painted, wrote, composed, and wrote, respectively, before there were any statutes analogous to copyright. Albrecht Durer made a very good living selling prints which he had no way of copyrighting, since there was no such thing (and we know which are his prints, the absence of copyright law in the times and places where he worked notwithstanding). He even provides an example of defending his brand in the absence of copyright law, because he successfully sued a copyist for fraud for passing off his prints as being by Durer.
Do reply to what's actually being said.
Yes, we know who the painters were, however most made little money until after they died. For example...Van Gogh wasn’t even famous until after he died, and his brother THEO s wife held a showing of his work, and now his paintings sell for millions.
Van Gogh was a starving artist, who had mental issues and could have used some money. Did he really commit suicide in that field? Well now they don’t know for sure....
This is not the era of Impressionists, who had the benefit of the Paris Salon, and some like the American Impressionist Mary Cassatt (not always included in their ranks 1844-1926) was from a well to do family in Pittsburg. The Artists had the Paris Salon, which was a major factor in exposure and their later success. Many came from wealthy families and benefactors.
No, there wasn’t chaos in colonial times because people were more sophisticated, civil, and decent. And you could make a contract with a handshake....now they all lie, steal, and plagiarize just to get in politics or make money off someone else’s creation or ingenuity.
The new conglomerates steal royalties of authors like on Amazon. And then put their headquarters in Luxenburg and don’t pay their taxes, so suing them is an international issue and too expensive. I don’t know her, but Vaughn has proof of her losses on her website, as do many others.
Royalties and pricing was what the Hatchett vs Amazon dispute was really about. Artists are interested in creating and not having to defend their work from the lazy people, who have no real ideas.
There are plenty of multiple manufacturing companies of what were once magnificent pieces of art, pottery, or writings...no longer of any real value after being changed several times. Oh the original is of value, but the interest wanes the more you see it....or read it in other forms.
Copyright keeps the majority of people honest, there will always be the copycats in a lesser form. Distortion ruins creation.
Once a new piece has flooded the market and becomes ‘mundane multiples’ with no character left.... it is no longer ‘unique’. I like originals in art, clothes, furniture, and books.
The only reason people want ‘no copyright law’ is because free stuff is their due...it’s the entitlement mentality of our age. Those people ruin everything they get their hands on because creativity cannot live in minds that are filthy, greedy and lazy.
More important to some are increases in perversity and immorality. We create something innocent and the disgusting change it into something we no longer want our name attached to, so if there is no recourse like copyright law to sue, and get it removed from the market...the artist is forever associated with its creation over the distortion. For Christian works that expressed a God ordained purpose, this distorting is blasphemy.
Patents/copyrights that are technology or social have been under attack as everyone wants a place to start...however the original idea has the right to exist in it’s own inspired form. Altered ideas that were copyrighted and stolen....
Facebook is a good example, because Zuckerburg was not the one with the idea, he stole it, while working for those guys and cut them out of it. Those twins were busy with sports and commitments. He has made not millions but billions on someone else’s project in college. I can’t think of a better reason to copyright, or patent an idea, product, or creation than that one.
GREED is a national past time in America now. I believe the loss of real creation talent would be the consequence of ending copyright or patent laws.