Re: SV: Knight and Public Domain

[David Krentz <ddkrentz@charter.net>]

"No one wants to rip off his heirs but profiting from
something you didn't help create 70 plus years after
the death of he who did create it is ridiculously
excessive. Ten years would be reasonable. "

  Whoa, I don't know where to begin with that one.  That is how  
artists make money.  That is our bank account and our savings.  That  
is our STOCK in the future.
Thats like saying someone who bought stock in a company ten years ago  
for the betterment of his family should be payed out and left to  
reinvest. It is hard enough trying to make money as an artist to have  
that to deal with.
I'd be lucky to have something that earns money for 10 weeks  
regardless of 10 years.  Hell, its a battle to own the very artwork  
you created out of a lifetime of learning.  I own almost NOTHING of  
what I've produced and rarely will anyone ever see it....and I need to  
pay the taxes on it.  Knight is our Getty, and his family should reap  
the benifits and be proud to be part of that heritage for a long  
time.  Why do we work if its not for the betterment of our family's.

David Krentz
On May 15, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Andrew Simpson wrote:

>