Some of the posts could be more succinct, but I appreciate someone diving so deep into this complicated morass.

That said, I disagree with you more often than not.

If the “plagiarist” is not profiting significantly financially or otherwise, I feel the greater gain for the world outweighs the often insignificant damage to the artist. No harm done.

To answer your question: the lifetime of the artist. Or even an average lifetime of an artist if the logistics of the prior are too complex.

Some of the posts could be more succinct, but I appreciate someone diving so deep into this complicated morass.

That said, I disagree with you more often than not.

If the “plagiarist” is not profiting significantly financially or otherwise, I feel the greater gain for the world outweighs the often insignificant damage to the artist. No harm done.

To answer your question: the lifetime of the artist. Or even an average lifetime of an artist if the logistics of the prior are too complex.

Eoin

There are a few changes in the historical conception of copyright that should be mentioned (source: Lessig’s Free Culture, pp136-145):

The first is the scope of works covered by copyright. Initially, at least in the US, copyright was an opt-in process. Minimally, a notice had to be affixed. Now, every work is covered under copyright law whether the author knows it is or not.

The second, and more significant, change is the inclusion of “derivative works” within the scope of copyright.

A third important change is technological: on a computer, the simple acts of reading a book or listening to music (“using” a work in the most generic, abstract sense), can be covered by copyright law, where, before the digital age, they weren’t regulated at all. In a strange twist, a copyright license is used by closed-source software vendors to prevent users from reading the material they licensed!

Copyright law hasn't changed drastically in centuries…. mainly just tweaks and new expressions of the same rights.

There are a few changes in the historical conception of copyright that should be mentioned (source: Lessig's Free Culture, pp136-145):

The first is the scope of works covered by copyright. Initially, at least in the US, copyright was an opt-in process. Minimally, a notice had to be affixed. Now, every work is covered under copyright law whether the author knows it is or not.

The second, and more significant, change is the inclusion of "derivative works" within the scope of copyright.

A third important change is technological: on a computer, the simple acts of reading a book or listening to music ("using" a work in the most generic, abstract sense), can be covered by copyright law, where, before the digital age, they weren't regulated at all. In a strange twist, a copyright license is used by closed-source software vendors to prevent users from reading the material they licensed!