Music Copyright

Going through UMKC’s copyright tutorials I was exposed to some interesting perspectives on a highly debated topic.

In 1998, The Walt Disney Corporation was the major influencer in pushing to extend the copyright protection laws at the time. Moving the the time work is under copyright from “Life + 50 yrs” to “Life + 70 yrs”. This was mainly done to protect their copyright on Mickey Mouse, which was near copyright expiration.

With such a long copyright protection are there still pieces of music you can copy? Sure! Copyright is given to any product that can be reasonably considered “Fixed in a tangible medium of expression” Meaning you can technically copy the improv piano solo performed at a jazz bar last week, SO LONG AS IT WASN’T BEING RECORDED! Obviously, you can copy music published before 1924, as its copyright has expired.

So is it fair? Personally, I think it should be shortened. copyright lasting as long as the creators life is completely reasonable. However, going past that too far, say 50 -70 years, seems to me to only be a “cash grab” by those left in possession of the copyright. This overly long copyright protection prevents new creations of art, music, and literature to expand upon previous works that may have inspired the artist. The history of western music is heavily based in building on the old and borrowing ideas from the previous generation of composers. With an overly protective copyright system, like the one we have, the potential for new exciting music diminishes.