Additional author rights

Latest post in my blog on popular science:
Additional author rights
http://populscience.blogspot.com/2021/03/additional-author-rights.html

Regards,

I’m a little torn on this. Although the issue is distinct, strictly speaking, from that of copyright, it’s still related, in that it deals with what control an author will have over his work, and for how long. It also overlaps, in that for the duration of copyright, the holder of the copyright has the right/authority to preserve the work’s integrity. The US Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to deal with this, giving Congress the power

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

With respect to inventors, the “limited time” actually is limited–patent duration is 20 years or so. But for authors, not so much. While copyright terms began at under 30 years in the late 18th Century, they can now exceed 100 years, which I believe fails the purpose of copyright.

Similarly, I’m skeptical about the granting the heirs or other representatives of a long-dead author the authority to govern the “integrity” of his work. First, of course, there’s the not-insignificant chance that they’ll feel the need to change the work to adapt to modern norms–not a concern I would have taken seriously even a decade ago, but today it seems entirely plausible. But second, insofar as it denies the ability of a modern author to adapt or modify a work in the public domain, far from “promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts,” it impedes that progress. If a work’s integrity were strictly controlled, could West Side Story have been made? Or any of the countless adaptations of Hamlet?

On the other hand, while I don’t have a problem with an author adapting or modifying a previous work, I do have a problem with trying to pass it off as the original. If you want to rid The Merchant of Venice of its allegedly anti-Semitic elements, go ahead, but don’t try to pass off your version as Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.

But second, insofar as it denies the ability of a modern author to adapt or modify a work in the public domain, far from “promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts,” it impedes that progress. If a work’s integrity were strictly controlled, could West Side Story have been made? Or any of the countless adaptations of Hamlet?

I agree with you. The right of an author to the integrity of the work shouldn’t extend to new versions of the works made by other authors. Otherwise, Hamlet and “Romeo & Juliet” would never have been written by Shakespeare.

On the other hand, while I don’t have a problem with an author adapting or modifying a previous work, I do have a problem with trying to pass it off as the original. If you want to rid The Merchant of Venice of its allegedly anti-Semitic elements, go ahead, but don’t try to pass off your version as Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.

Exactly!

Regards,