Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Permalink for comment 460312
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-01-05
Why? The 75-year number was to allow an artist to profit from their labours throughout their lifetimes. Again, if that work of art is being actively sought out by new consumers, then it has continuing value, and the artist deserves continued compensation. I agree that there should be some kind of limit, but let's just agree to disagree that 7 years should be it.