Ethics and Copyrights do they mix?

Rebecca F. Ganz,A Portrait of the Artist's Estate as a Copyright Problem, 41 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 739 (2008). Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol41/iss2/9

               This article was written to explain how the definition of fair use is not current and needs to have some work done on the definition to be able to comply with the copyright laws. The main example or argument in this article is referencing how the heirs or families of the original artists are taking advantage of the system. It specifically speaks about how the grandson and the last living heir of James Joyce was abusing his power to keep his grandfathers work and his sister’s information from people being able to use. He would send threatening letters and demands that they stop using the information. He pushed it far enough that they ended up taking the case to court and Carol Loeb Shloss won the case and Stephen the grandson had to pay her attorney fees. It also addressed the heirs of the Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe fortune and their copyrighted rights. There is currently a rule that say they have the rights for up to 75 years past the death of the original owner. This number changes frequently and has been one of the big debates between estates and the government over their copyright rights.

               The article also addresses all the different rules, regulations, dates and changes that have been made to the copyright laws since its inception in May of 1790. It also goes over how the person that created the art is the owner however, they might not be the same as the owner of the copyright. Showing also the differences between using a copyright, fair use, and a compulsory license was also shown that the person can hold a compulsory license to use the information easier than getting copyright allowances. The estates also argue that once something goes into public domain it can be changed and altered into something of a disrespectful nature. They shared this argument to further the year requirement that the heirs have on the art or artist. This article provides a general overview of copyright issues with artist and their heirs and what it means to have something and to be the owner of the copyright and the owner of the actual piece.

               My thoughts switched sides all the way through the article on some stances I understood and agreed with the family or heirs however, on some of the stances I felt they were being selfish and unkind. This brings about the question of how ethical is it for the heirs and family to fight to keep the rights to everything when their family member created the piece of art, literature or film to please people to begin with. Also, another question that came to mind is who owns the copyright to a movie? I assume it is the company that made the picture such as MGM, Time Warner etc. What is the lead role wants to have a copyright on his part in the movie say Brad Pitt has the leading role and he wants to copyright his portion of the film is that allowed to have more than one copyright on one article? The biggest takeaway I had from this article is that the person whom created the art in the first place may own the item however, they may not own the copyright this was an eye-opening fact for me and helped me understand how copyrighting worked.