The Berne convention is a problem, but the answer is that the US should withdraw from it; it's garbage, and given that our publishing industries did fine before we signed on in 1989, we clearly don't need it and don't derive any benefit from it.
Had today's copyrights existes when Disney made Pinnochio, they would have had to buy the rights from Grimm's heirs.
Minor nit: Pinnochio was written by Carlo Collodi; it's not one of the Grimms' (and given that the Grimms merely collected stories, rather than writing their own, I'm not sure how successful they'd've been in getting a copyright. Plus there likely would've been nationality issues.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know Swiss law and I'm not commenting on it. I've only ever been talking about the legal aspects of this issue in the US.
No, the dollar figure you're thinking of comes from diversity jurisdiction, eg suing someone in federal court over a matter of state law, where the parties are from different states (the idea being that the federal court will be more neutral). Copyright is a federal matter to begin with, so there is already adequate subject matter jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy.
Try googling for a flow chart on federal jurisdiction; its usually pretty helpful.
I think you'll find that in a copyright suit the plaintiff is allowed to ask for reasonable legal fees and costs. But there is no guarantee that a court will grant it, and no guarantee that the defendant will be able to pay it.
Wait, how do we know that they aren't massing for an attack? In fact, ordinary terrestrial rocks may in fact be fifth columnists! We could be in tremendous danger.
1) Small claims courts do not have jurisdiction over copyright infringement suits in the US; plaintiffs have to go to federal district court.
2) The purpose of section 512 is to give ISPs et al a simple mechanical system to follow whilst protecting them from a lawsuit. YouTube is following the rules in the statute regarding counter-notifications, because that is part of the procedure which shelters them from a lawsuit. You'll want to look at 17 USC 512(g).
The dispute is between the OP and the alleged infringers. YouTube has did what it did in order to stay out of it.
You can certainly make a copyrightable whole out of a creative selection of uncopyrightable elements. But it won't necessarily happen. And I think it's questionable as to whether it happened here. And you haven't addressed the utility argument, which IMO is pretty strong.
Also I think you'll find that the Doctor is neither English, nor Anglo-Saxon, nor for that matter, human.
Oh, and the red cross, like the Olympics, is special and isn't handled unde the normal trademark rules.
No, designs aren't protected except to the extent that they are copyrighted, patented, or trademarked. For example, clothes usually can't be copyrighted, might not be patented, and other than the trademarks sewn on to them (this is why the damn logos are so prominent these days) tend not to be trademarked. Which opens the door to knockoffs that are perfectly legal.
You were looking at counterfeiting, which is basically something that goes beyond mere trademark infringement, in which the counterfeiter deliberately uses others' marks on goods which will inherently (or so it is claimed) cause confusion. I seriously doubt that Apple is counterfeiting as that is defined in the statute (which is what counts here). If it helps, I poked around the PTO's trademark database and the only mark I could find that SBB had registered with them was their corporate logo, which is a sort of SBB CFF FFS thing and certainly not a clock, FFS. Maybe I missed it if it's there, though.
Actually you don't even have to be the first to use the mark for a particular class of goods and services. Abandoned marks can be claimed by rivals (CAPTAIN MARVEL for comic books is a fun example), and different parties can use the same marks in the same classes simultaneously under certain circumstances. Nor do you need to register marks (although it's a very good idea).
But you can't infringe on a mark unless there is a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the marked goods or services among the relevant group of consumers. And if there's no infringement, you can do what you like. (There's also dilution, but that's even less likely in this case in the US, IMO)
So do you think that people in the US who use iOS devices with this clock will think that the clock app was written by the Swiss rail company? Or that Apple owns a bunch of trains in central Europe?
No; Most Americans don't ride Swiss trains in Switzerland, and aren't familiar enough with the clocks in use there to be confused. (And US courts have previously upheld the blatant copying by US firms of foreign marks not in use in the US) Those clocks likely serve no trademark function here. And are still subject to the trademark utility doctrine stripping away functional elements of the clock from what could potentially be protected. Now it very well might be a different story in Switzerland, but as I said before, I couldn't comment on how things work over there. Trademarks are a use-it-or-lose-it sort of thing, and AFAIK the mark on the clock hasn't been used here.
I can't comment on Swiss copyright, trademark, or patent law. But in the US, I'm not sure that I see the problem.
The clock's visual appearance is almost, if not entirely, uncopyrightable in the US. The only thing about the face and hands that might be creative and original (i.e. not copied from a previous source) would be the proportion of the hour marks to the minute marks, and the circle at the end of the second hand. The color choices, lack of numerals, and overall aesthetic are pretty common among timekeeping devices. The proportion of the marks -- given that they're frequently made distinct from each other -- is also probably not going to be protected standing alone (also n.b. that the proportions are not quite the same -- Apple's minute marks are thinner and taller than the Swiss counterparts).
This basically leaves the circle at the end of the second hand. Not the coloration either, as second hands are commonly red. Honestly, I'd lean toward it being de minimis.
Plus, as a graphic work, only the parts of the clock that do not have utility as a timekeeping device can be copyrighted, per copyright's utility doctrine. A court would have to separate the useful from non-useful elements of the Swiss clock to see what's left that could be copyrighted. Where this is not possible, the inseparable elements are treated as uncopyrightable. For such a starkly utilitarian design, this is going to knock out virtually everything again. The circle might be left -- unless there's some reason that it has to be that shape -- but with so little objectionable copying left, I'd still lean toward de minimis copying.
Apparently the clock was designed in the 1940s, so there would not be any patents left on it, although a design patent is usually what you'd want to protect something like this.
And as for trademarks, well, I doubt that a Swiss railway clock has a strong trademark in the US. Apple might end up having to redo the app for Switzerland or other parts of Europe, but I'd be surprised to learn that there would be any consumer confusion here, and I certainly can't see dilution for lack of fame. Plus trademarks also have a utility doctrine.
Remember: outright copying is not inherently bad. For things in the public domain, it is encouraged. And almost all -- if not, as I suspect, entirely all -- of this clock is in the public domain in the US. Apple will have to decide how they want to handle this elsewhere, and whether it's worth it to have different versions, or license it, or what. But from here in the states, I really don't see anything interesting here.
Why do you think that I'm a "copyright shill?" I don't pretend to like what the law currently is, but I'm not going to ignore the reality we're currently facing either. I feel that only if people know what the law really is will there be enough of a call for reform that we might actually get it. (Also, I was talking about contract and sales law, not copyright)
I will say that I think the underlying idea of copyright is sound; I'm not in favor of abolition on a matter of principle, although I would support it if I felt that there were no better alternative. But I don't think that this is what you meant. I'll bet you haven't seen my posts on what I'd like to see copyright become.
Liberal arts are not intended to be vocational training. Rather, they are meant to educate a person in what he needs to know to be an active citizen (the Latin 'artes liberales' roughly means skills for a free person -- as distinguished from a slave). Arguably, modern colleges may not be doing a good job producing well rounded, thoughtful graduates, but that's no reason to belittle the idea.
Well, this case deals with Canada, and who knows what their laws are all about.
But in the US, anyway, a work cannot be copyrighted unless it is original to the author. If only part of it has originality, then only that part (at best) is copyrightable.
Check out 17 USC 102(a):
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
You may also wish to read the Bridgeman case which is the leading precedent around these parts.
It's actually fairly common to have enforcible contracts where some terms are not evident until after the parties have agreed to enter it. So long as there is an opportunity to exit the agreement after having had a chance to review the additional terms, with the parties being restored to their pre-contract conditions, then it's considered acceptable.
Of course, adhesive contracts is an area of law that is badly in need of strong consumer protection reforms, but good luck with that these days.
Yes, while such slavish copying would not result in a copyrightable photograph here in the US, the school and textbook in this case are Canadian, and it is likely that photographs of public domain works in which nothing creative is added by the photographer are copyrightable anyway for some reason.
You do get that, right? A phrase used dozens of times as the title of books, movies, and TV episodes. If it was an original phrase that had never been used before, then his case might have some merit, but it's not, and he's just trolling.
No, that doesn't matter.
Trademarks don't care about originality; you can get protection for your mark even if you copied your mark from somewhere else.
Trademarks don't care about novelty; you can get protection for your mark even if the word or symbol that constitutes the mark already existed prior to your use of it as a mark.
You think that Apple or Nike invented the words they use as marks?
2. IF someone were to trademark the word "salt", it would not apply to the use of salt but the use of the word "salt", for example in a recipe.
No, if there were a SALT mark, it would not apply to the word 'salt' where that word is used to mean an actual salt substance, e.g. common table salt. It would be generic in that context, and anyone could use it. OTOH, if you had a line of clothing called SALT, or SALT-brand brake pads for automobiles or something, that would be fine. If it helps, think of Apple, which has the APPLE mark for computers and consumer electronics, but has no power in the realm of fruit.
4. Such a trademark would not be granted. You have to show that the TM is synonymous with your brand and isn't already a commonly used term.
Again, as with APPLE for computers, you can use commonly used words as valid marks. You just can't use them in the context in which they're already commonly used. APPLE is a generic mark for fruit, and thus unprotectable; but it was arbitrary for computers, and thus quite strong.
3. If such a trademark were ever actually granted, and they did NOT file suit against someone else using it, that would amount to failure to protect the trademark, thus rendering it invalid. So they HAVE to sue (or at least issue cease and desist).
No, a mark holder does not have to file suit or even send off nasty letters when other people use the same thing. That's not required at all. So long as the relevant group of customers are not confused about the commonality of sources of goods and services labeled with the mark, there is no confusion, and no danger to the viability of the mark, and thus no need to take action to defend it lest it be lost.
Ah, well this is a funny confluence of changes in the English language since the late 18th century and the particular wording of the copyrights and patents clause.
Useful arts refer to practical technology. A few traces of this meaning of art, as a skill or practice remain: patents protect state of the art technology, provided that the inventions are novel -- ie totally new, such that there are no prior examples, called prior art -- and nonobvious -- ie that they could not have been conceived of by a knowledgeable but unimaginative inventor, known as a person having ordinary skill in the art. Usefulness refers to the requirement that the invention actually work. Lack of utility is why patents are not issued for perpetual motion machines; they don't do what they're claimed to do.
Science in this case refers more to knowledge generally, and does encompass the fine arts. In fact, in some cases, if an otherwise copyrightable work has a useful function, it will be rendered uncopyrightable, because useful things belong in the realm of patents. Trademarks also have a utility doctrine.
And aside from looking up the historical meanings of the words in the OED, you can also see the division in the structure of the clause, which always goes in copyright-patent order: science and useful arts, authors and inventors, writings and discoveries.
Anyway, I assure you, copyright is meant to promote the progress of science, by which is meant knowledge, and creative works fall easily in that category, without needing to involve applied technology or natural philosophy.
Minor nit: copyright is meant to promote the progress of science; it's patents that are meant to promote the progress of the useful arts. But yes, both are utilitarian systems, and should be reformed to best serve the public interest, rather than the interests of authors and publishers.
Well, you seem to have completely misunderstood my position. Of course authors are not obligated to create anything. But neither is the public, via our servant, the government, obligated to grant them any special privileges, such as copyrights.
If we choose to do so, of course copyrights should be granted in a manner that best serves the public interest. While this may be compatible with the interests of authors as a special class, it is unlikely to promote authorial interests ahead of all others.
The best thing for the public is to grant the bare minimum amount of copyright which entices authors to willingly create the maximum of creative output. Beyond that point, the public suffers from diminishing returns, and eventually can end up with negative returns, in which copyright is so onerous that fewer works are created and published than would have been if there were no copyright at all. (And the quantity of work that would be created and published without copyright is our baseline for measurement, remember)
I don't see anything wrong with offering authors the opportunity to get copyrights so long as it maximizes the satisfaction of the public interest. It still leaves them better off than they would be otherwise. And if that's not good enough, they can fail to be incentivized and can go get a real job doing something else. That's okay. We know in advance, crafting copyright policy, that we can't afford to incentivize everyone to create and publish everything possible, nice as it would be to have it. Some works just come at too high a price.
This is all pretty ordinary. If I offer to pay someone $50 to paint my house, it's not slavery if someone takes me up on it. And so long as there are enough people who will accept at that price and do a good job, why should I offer to pay more?
So tl; dr: authors are not slave workers, and I expect them to work as hard -- if at all -- as they like, in response to whatever amount of incentive is offered to cause them to willingly produce the maximum amount of enjoyment for the public at minimal public expense. Authors might want more of a reward due to their personal greed, but I see no reason to prioritize that ahead of the public, which wants to offer less, due to their collective greed. Same thing on both sides.
Well, I suppose that they're related, but that's not really the reason why copyrights should have a short overall duration.
Copyrights shouldn't last too long because there's no need for them to last long. All you want is the minimal amount and duration of protection that yields the incentive for authors to create and publish the greatest quantity of copyrightable works which they otherwise wouldn't. That is, copyrights should give the public the most bang for their buck. In practice this tends to result in short terms because it usually doesn't take a whole lot to get authors to do what we want. And once they have done what we want, ie created and published original, creative works which otherwise would not be created and published, giving them anything more would be wasteful.
Slashdot Mirror
The Berne convention is a problem, but the answer is that the US should withdraw from it; it's garbage, and given that our publishing industries did fine before we signed on in 1989, we clearly don't need it and don't derive any benefit from it.
Had today's copyrights existes when Disney made Pinnochio, they would have had to buy the rights from Grimm's heirs.
Minor nit: Pinnochio was written by Carlo Collodi; it's not one of the Grimms' (and given that the Grimms merely collected stories, rather than writing their own, I'm not sure how successful they'd've been in getting a copyright. Plus there likely would've been nationality issues.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know Swiss law and I'm not commenting on it. I've only ever been talking about the legal aspects of this issue in the US.
Dilution requires that the mark is famous among the general public in the US. I don't think that's true of a swiss railway clock.
No, the dollar figure you're thinking of comes from diversity jurisdiction, eg suing someone in federal court over a matter of state law, where the parties are from different states (the idea being that the federal court will be more neutral). Copyright is a federal matter to begin with, so there is already adequate subject matter jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy.
Try googling for a flow chart on federal jurisdiction; its usually pretty helpful.
I think you'll find that in a copyright suit the plaintiff is allowed to ask for reasonable legal fees and costs. But there is no guarantee that a court will grant it, and no guarantee that the defendant will be able to pay it.
Boy, you had me scared for a minute there with your talk of bypassing expensive legal fees. Thank goodness it's not true. ;)
Wait, how do we know that they aren't massing for an attack? In fact, ordinary terrestrial rocks may in fact be fifth columnists! We could be in tremendous danger.
I suggest we panic.
1) Small claims courts do not have jurisdiction over copyright infringement suits in the US; plaintiffs have to go to federal district court.
2) The purpose of section 512 is to give ISPs et al a simple mechanical system to follow whilst protecting them from a lawsuit. YouTube is following the rules in the statute regarding counter-notifications, because that is part of the procedure which shelters them from a lawsuit. You'll want to look at 17 USC 512(g).
The dispute is between the OP and the alleged infringers. YouTube has did what it did in order to stay out of it.
You can certainly make a copyrightable whole out of a creative selection of uncopyrightable elements. But it won't necessarily happen. And I think it's questionable as to whether it happened here. And you haven't addressed the utility argument, which IMO is pretty strong.
Also I think you'll find that the Doctor is neither English, nor Anglo-Saxon, nor for that matter, human.
Oh, and the red cross, like the Olympics, is special and isn't handled unde the normal trademark rules.
No, designs aren't protected except to the extent that they are copyrighted, patented, or trademarked. For example, clothes usually can't be copyrighted, might not be patented, and other than the trademarks sewn on to them (this is why the damn logos are so prominent these days) tend not to be trademarked. Which opens the door to knockoffs that are perfectly legal.
You were looking at counterfeiting, which is basically something that goes beyond mere trademark infringement, in which the counterfeiter deliberately uses others' marks on goods which will inherently (or so it is claimed) cause confusion. I seriously doubt that Apple is counterfeiting as that is defined in the statute (which is what counts here). If it helps, I poked around the PTO's trademark database and the only mark I could find that SBB had registered with them was their corporate logo, which is a sort of SBB CFF FFS thing and certainly not a clock, FFS. Maybe I missed it if it's there, though.
Actually you don't even have to be the first to use the mark for a particular class of goods and services. Abandoned marks can be claimed by rivals (CAPTAIN MARVEL for comic books is a fun example), and different parties can use the same marks in the same classes simultaneously under certain circumstances. Nor do you need to register marks (although it's a very good idea).
But you can't infringe on a mark unless there is a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the marked goods or services among the relevant group of consumers. And if there's no infringement, you can do what you like. (There's also dilution, but that's even less likely in this case in the US, IMO)
So do you think that people in the US who use iOS devices with this clock will think that the clock app was written by the Swiss rail company? Or that Apple owns a bunch of trains in central Europe?
No; Most Americans don't ride Swiss trains in Switzerland, and aren't familiar enough with the clocks in use there to be confused. (And US courts have previously upheld the blatant copying by US firms of foreign marks not in use in the US) Those clocks likely serve no trademark function here. And are still subject to the trademark utility doctrine stripping away functional elements of the clock from what could potentially be protected. Now it very well might be a different story in Switzerland, but as I said before, I couldn't comment on how things work over there. Trademarks are a use-it-or-lose-it sort of thing, and AFAIK the mark on the clock hasn't been used here.
I can't comment on Swiss copyright, trademark, or patent law. But in the US, I'm not sure that I see the problem.
The clock's visual appearance is almost, if not entirely, uncopyrightable in the US. The only thing about the face and hands that might be creative and original (i.e. not copied from a previous source) would be the proportion of the hour marks to the minute marks, and the circle at the end of the second hand. The color choices, lack of numerals, and overall aesthetic are pretty common among timekeeping devices. The proportion of the marks -- given that they're frequently made distinct from each other -- is also probably not going to be protected standing alone (also n.b. that the proportions are not quite the same -- Apple's minute marks are thinner and taller than the Swiss counterparts).
This basically leaves the circle at the end of the second hand. Not the coloration either, as second hands are commonly red. Honestly, I'd lean toward it being de minimis.
Plus, as a graphic work, only the parts of the clock that do not have utility as a timekeeping device can be copyrighted, per copyright's utility doctrine. A court would have to separate the useful from non-useful elements of the Swiss clock to see what's left that could be copyrighted. Where this is not possible, the inseparable elements are treated as uncopyrightable. For such a starkly utilitarian design, this is going to knock out virtually everything again. The circle might be left -- unless there's some reason that it has to be that shape -- but with so little objectionable copying left, I'd still lean toward de minimis copying.
Apparently the clock was designed in the 1940s, so there would not be any patents left on it, although a design patent is usually what you'd want to protect something like this.
And as for trademarks, well, I doubt that a Swiss railway clock has a strong trademark in the US. Apple might end up having to redo the app for Switzerland or other parts of Europe, but I'd be surprised to learn that there would be any consumer confusion here, and I certainly can't see dilution for lack of fame. Plus trademarks also have a utility doctrine.
Remember: outright copying is not inherently bad. For things in the public domain, it is encouraged. And almost all -- if not, as I suspect, entirely all -- of this clock is in the public domain in the US. Apple will have to decide how they want to handle this elsewhere, and whether it's worth it to have different versions, or license it, or what. But from here in the states, I really don't see anything interesting here.
Why do you think that I'm a "copyright shill?" I don't pretend to like what the law currently is, but I'm not going to ignore the reality we're currently facing either. I feel that only if people know what the law really is will there be enough of a call for reform that we might actually get it. (Also, I was talking about contract and sales law, not copyright)
I will say that I think the underlying idea of copyright is sound; I'm not in favor of abolition on a matter of principle, although I would support it if I felt that there were no better alternative. But I don't think that this is what you meant. I'll bet you haven't seen my posts on what I'd like to see copyright become.
Liberal arts are not intended to be vocational training. Rather, they are meant to educate a person in what he needs to know to be an active citizen (the Latin 'artes liberales' roughly means skills for a free person -- as distinguished from a slave). Arguably, modern colleges may not be doing a good job producing well rounded, thoughtful graduates, but that's no reason to belittle the idea.
Well, this case deals with Canada, and who knows what their laws are all about.
But in the US, anyway, a work cannot be copyrighted unless it is original to the author. If only part of it has originality, then only that part (at best) is copyrightable.
Check out 17 USC 102(a):
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
You may also wish to read the Bridgeman case which is the leading precedent around these parts.
It's actually fairly common to have enforcible contracts where some terms are not evident until after the parties have agreed to enter it. So long as there is an opportunity to exit the agreement after having had a chance to review the additional terms, with the parties being restored to their pre-contract conditions, then it's considered acceptable.
Of course, adhesive contracts is an area of law that is badly in need of strong consumer protection reforms, but good luck with that these days.
Yes, while such slavish copying would not result in a copyrightable photograph here in the US, the school and textbook in this case are Canadian, and it is likely that photographs of public domain works in which nothing creative is added by the photographer are copyrightable anyway for some reason.
The title of an individual work cannot be protected, but the title of a series can be. Apparently, that's what he's got.
You do get that, right? A phrase used dozens of times as the title of books, movies, and TV episodes. If it was an original phrase that had never been used before, then his case might have some merit, but it's not, and he's just trolling.
No, that doesn't matter.
Trademarks don't care about originality; you can get protection for your mark even if you copied your mark from somewhere else.
Trademarks don't care about novelty; you can get protection for your mark even if the word or symbol that constitutes the mark already existed prior to your use of it as a mark.
You think that Apple or Nike invented the words they use as marks?
2. IF someone were to trademark the word "salt", it would not apply to the use of salt but the use of the word "salt", for example in a recipe.
No, if there were a SALT mark, it would not apply to the word 'salt' where that word is used to mean an actual salt substance, e.g. common table salt. It would be generic in that context, and anyone could use it. OTOH, if you had a line of clothing called SALT, or SALT-brand brake pads for automobiles or something, that would be fine. If it helps, think of Apple, which has the APPLE mark for computers and consumer electronics, but has no power in the realm of fruit.
4. Such a trademark would not be granted. You have to show that the TM is synonymous with your brand and isn't already a commonly used term.
Again, as with APPLE for computers, you can use commonly used words as valid marks. You just can't use them in the context in which they're already commonly used. APPLE is a generic mark for fruit, and thus unprotectable; but it was arbitrary for computers, and thus quite strong.
3. If such a trademark were ever actually granted, and they did NOT file suit against someone else using it, that would amount to failure to protect the trademark, thus rendering it invalid. So they HAVE to sue (or at least issue cease and desist).
No, a mark holder does not have to file suit or even send off nasty letters when other people use the same thing. That's not required at all. So long as the relevant group of customers are not confused about the commonality of sources of goods and services labeled with the mark, there is no confusion, and no danger to the viability of the mark, and thus no need to take action to defend it lest it be lost.
Ah, well this is a funny confluence of changes in the English language since the late 18th century and the particular wording of the copyrights and patents clause.
Useful arts refer to practical technology. A few traces of this meaning of art, as a skill or practice remain: patents protect state of the art technology, provided that the inventions are novel -- ie totally new, such that there are no prior examples, called prior art -- and nonobvious -- ie that they could not have been conceived of by a knowledgeable but unimaginative inventor, known as a person having ordinary skill in the art. Usefulness refers to the requirement that the invention actually work. Lack of utility is why patents are not issued for perpetual motion machines; they don't do what they're claimed to do.
Science in this case refers more to knowledge generally, and does encompass the fine arts. In fact, in some cases, if an otherwise copyrightable work has a useful function, it will be rendered uncopyrightable, because useful things belong in the realm of patents. Trademarks also have a utility doctrine.
And aside from looking up the historical meanings of the words in the OED, you can also see the division in the structure of the clause, which always goes in copyright-patent order: science and useful arts, authors and inventors, writings and discoveries.
Anyway, I assure you, copyright is meant to promote the progress of science, by which is meant knowledge, and creative works fall easily in that category, without needing to involve applied technology or natural philosophy.
Minor nit: copyright is meant to promote the progress of science; it's patents that are meant to promote the progress of the useful arts. But yes, both are utilitarian systems, and should be reformed to best serve the public interest, rather than the interests of authors and publishers.
Well, you seem to have completely misunderstood my position. Of course authors are not obligated to create anything. But neither is the public, via our servant, the government, obligated to grant them any special privileges, such as copyrights.
If we choose to do so, of course copyrights should be granted in a manner that best serves the public interest. While this may be compatible with the interests of authors as a special class, it is unlikely to promote authorial interests ahead of all others.
The best thing for the public is to grant the bare minimum amount of copyright which entices authors to willingly create the maximum of creative output. Beyond that point, the public suffers from diminishing returns, and eventually can end up with negative returns, in which copyright is so onerous that fewer works are created and published than would have been if there were no copyright at all. (And the quantity of work that would be created and published without copyright is our baseline for measurement, remember)
I don't see anything wrong with offering authors the opportunity to get copyrights so long as it maximizes the satisfaction of the public interest. It still leaves them better off than they would be otherwise. And if that's not good enough, they can fail to be incentivized and can go get a real job doing something else. That's okay. We know in advance, crafting copyright policy, that we can't afford to incentivize everyone to create and publish everything possible, nice as it would be to have it. Some works just come at too high a price.
This is all pretty ordinary. If I offer to pay someone $50 to paint my house, it's not slavery if someone takes me up on it. And so long as there are enough people who will accept at that price and do a good job, why should I offer to pay more?
So tl; dr: authors are not slave workers, and I expect them to work as hard -- if at all -- as they like, in response to whatever amount of incentive is offered to cause them to willingly produce the maximum amount of enjoyment for the public at minimal public expense. Authors might want more of a reward due to their personal greed, but I see no reason to prioritize that ahead of the public, which wants to offer less, due to their collective greed. Same thing on both sides.
Well, I suppose that they're related, but that's not really the reason why copyrights should have a short overall duration.
Copyrights shouldn't last too long because there's no need for them to last long. All you want is the minimal amount and duration of protection that yields the incentive for authors to create and publish the greatest quantity of copyrightable works which they otherwise wouldn't. That is, copyrights should give the public the most bang for their buck. In practice this tends to result in short terms because it usually doesn't take a whole lot to get authors to do what we want. And once they have done what we want, ie created and published original, creative works which otherwise would not be created and published, giving them anything more would be wasteful.