I haven't put too much attention toward copyright lately, being distracted by other things, like ARL and AAHSL statistics, but this post On Kirby, Marvel, Copyright and Moral Claims: Scattered Thoughts (from Stephen Frug at Attempts, via Alas! A Blog) reminded me of why it's a fascinating topic.
It starts with the fact that the descendants of Jack Kirby, a famous figure in comics, have expressed interest in ownership of the copyright to some of the superheroes he helped create while working for Marvel Comics, and sets out a lot of interesting thoughts about copyright in general.
I especially like this point:
The moral case for creators’ rights is both essential and irrelevant to the Kirby-copyright issue.
It’s irrelevant because neither party has a very good moral (as opposed to legal) claim. On one side we have Kirby’s biological heirs; on the other, the corporate descendants of the companies he worked for. Neither set of people had much to do with the effort or talent put into these characters; they are fighting for an inheritance, and like any fight for inheritance they are fighting for things they may have title to but don’t in any moral sense particularly deserve.
But it’s essential because it was only because of the (perceived) moral rights of creators that copyright was extended in the first place.
Copyright is of course about morality--protecting the right of a creator to control/benefit from use of the creation, because that's fair--but indeed, to what extent does this still apply once the creator is no longer in the picture?
Does it make moral sense--is it fair--that intellectual property should still be property once the intellect is gone?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment