>Time we fought back?<

No-one would deny that artists are entitled to benefit from their works of art - the question is, should anyone benefit from copyright on those works <i>after</i> the artist's death. This whole question of copyright could be made very simple by saying that the artist holds the copyright on his or her creation until he or she dies, after which freedom to reproduce it becomes unrestricted.

I've argued this before but I actually think it morally obscene, especially for public galleries, libraries and museums, to own the copyright on the nation's works of art when in practice they don't even own the objects themselves - everything in the British Museum for example belongs to the nation <i>not</i> to the Museum. Copyright by public (and private) institutions and individuals is just another way of generating revenue (in other words fleecing the nation on what it already owns) when it should be made freely available for reproduction. That's never going to happen of course - there's too much money at stake.

There is, however, a far more insidious factor to consider; by controlling the reproduction (dissemination) of a work of art (after the artist's death) the 'owners' of those works of art are actually restricting the freedom to share mankind's artistic achievements with the widest possible audience - therein lies the ultimate obscenity.