Copyright Monstrosity

The monster of copyright.
This image, of course, from Wikimedia Commons.

Is calling copyright a monstrosity a little too much? Well, yes. But I don't think anyone will disagree with me that the system is monstrous. I'm an editor, as I've mentioned before, and I've had to deal with copyright in varying levels of depth in different jobs.

Let me introduce you to my not-so-little friend, the Cornell copyright cheat sheet.

I can't tell you how many times I've referenced this PDF. I don't expect you to read all of it. Please don't read all of it. But you can get the gist of it. You can see why I love the year 1923--public domain and nothing you can do about it! Don't some of the terms seem excessive, though? I'm trying to think of a reasonable purpose for having a copyright extend 70 years past the death of the author (not even just when it was published), but I can't.

Also, it's just too complicated for any non-expert to work through. Do people really expect others to know that works published from July 1, 1909 to 1978 in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands (if it was published in a language other than English and without subsequent republication with copyright notice) should be treated as unpublished works until such date as US-compliant publication occurred? It's laughable.

Now, a lot of what I deal with is print or at least something for official publication, and a lot of people seem more concerned with being able to share things on the Internet non-commercially without being tracked down and sued. I think both points are fair, and I have one main suggestion for simplification.

If you are using something non-commercially and it doesn't affect the market for the copyrighted work, it should be fair use. I know that that is part of fair use, but there are other stipulations. Personal example: If I am wanting to use an image in the design of a non-profit, non-sold-at-all, student-project magazine, I think in most instances I should be able to without paying a royalty. In my particular case, it will in no way affect a market for the photograph or photographer.

Of course, there are a lot of other areas that need to be simplified, but that's my first thought and whack at it. We need to not make the common people into victims who are in charge of defending their innocence in violating laws made too complicated for most of them to understand.