Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8651360" data-attributes="member: 29398">That's what the plus-twenty is for.  There has to be a hard limit somewhere.  One could even extend that to "life of (creator or spouse) plus twenty" to be fair to the spouses; but extending it to cover descendants is too much.Kate Bush is still alive and likely will be for a while yet, so she should be fully benefitting from this renewal of interests in what IMO is an excellent song.And if those people are still alive they should be getting royalties from those uses.  We're not disagreeing on this I don't think.Where we disagree is over what happens after the creator dies.  For example Ronnie James Dio died in 2010; I could get behind keeping his rights going until twenty years after Wendy (his widow) dies or remarries, but that's it.  After that, public domain.And as the songwriting people within the Rolling Stones are (somehow!) still alive they'd be able to sue over that, one would think.This is very interesting; and completely goes against what I was told by some IP lawyers at their GenCon seminar a few years back when I raised the same question. (their presentation was around gaming-related content e.g. adventures and rules; I posed the question as related to music and-or lyrics, which is what I do, and was told then that I couldn't surrender copyright even if I wanted to).</blockquote>