Legally, sure. Ownership of the property would be passed on like any other asset.




httpx//copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

Joe,

Piracy itself isn't justified, simply because of the implications of the word. I know it's kinda splitting hairs, but I think piracy may be too harsh a word in some contexts.

In your question, you ask that when a person published their work in a book and has the intention to live off the profits made from that book, when they die, do you have the obligation to continue to pay those royalties?

So do I (the buyer of the book) have the obligation to pay royalties to a dead person who can no longer profit from the book?

Like ddancom said, sure. Books, records, artworks, architectural plans, menus, music, videos, product packaging, and computer software are all copyrightable. Because of the copyright act of 1976, anything copyrighted is protected for the life of the author plus 70 years. This is so that the beneficiaries of his estate (like his wife and his kids) have a means of support for his/her work among other things such as obligations to publishers and what not. The catch is that the Copy right act of 1976 applies to everything following the inclusion of the act. So pre 1976 materials fall into a different category, even if they are copyrighted. But it does not even end there. You can, under the Copy Right extension act of 1998extend the period for a few decades.

So as the buyer, I am obliged to still pay royalties to a dead person who can no longer profit from the book.

Do I agree with this? Yes and no. In one respect, if I worked my entire life on a work and counted on that to support my family and my family's family, I would expect that my work be protected. I think anyone would agree with this. But in another respect, the extension of copyrights for written works is ridiculous. For example, I am doing research for a possible dissertation on English Constitutional History using the accounts of Taswell Langmead. This guy did a comprehensive study from the pre Norman conquest up until the beginning of the Victorian era. The book was published in 1840's, yet I am still not able to freely source the material. The book English Constitutional HistoryDdancom,

Property law is much different than copyright law, because many things have to do with intangible assets. It would be great if it worked like that though, and in some cases it does work like that. Look at J.R.R. Tolkien. He sold the movie rights of his books for some small little amount because he thought the books could never be translated into movies. Wrong move. But what is interesting about Tolkien is he holds quite a bit more hold over his works than other writers because he invested such large amounts of time into the academic aspects of his books.