Florida Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016: WE LOVE PUBLIC DOMAIN DAY!← Back to ContentsView Latest Issue13 January 2016 Adolf Hitler: The Old Residency in Munich (1914). Emily Carr: Autumn in France (1911).
Discuss this story
Then we have copyright protection. I understand that the authors have every right to live off their works. But why does somebody that did nothing to make those works exist have a right to earn money from them? It is true that some heir promote the diffusion of the works of which they own a copyright, But even when it is not the case they are still entitled to that money, for something they didn’t do.
I recall a book by Enrique Jardiel Poncela. Excluding the title, the phrase that is written with the biggest typeset is a mention about his heirs being the owners of the copyright. Jardiel Poncela died in 1952. We are still paying to the heirs, who added nothing to the creative process. Anne Frank sadly died before she could publish her book; her father did a great effort to publish it. Due to this effort I find fair that he earn money from it. But what did Otto Heinrich Frank’s heirs did that entitles them to make money out of somebody else’s book, and in this case out of somebody else’s suffering?
I don’t care what laws and lawyers say about the legality of such a profit, I know it is not fair.
B25es (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]