Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

I am okay with public information being free to use commercially, with a huge disclaimer though.

Wherever copyright is applicable, the public should retain it, that's what public domain is for. Any derived works, commercial or otherwise should also be in the public domain.

If you fight for "public access" so that you can make your own stuff locked behind a copyright, then you are the hypocrite here.

There's nothing to "retain" once copyright is over (aside from moral rights, which are forever... which I guess becomes questionable after the death of the author ? But moral rights are not transferrable anyway).

Instead for calling to basically blow up the whole legal framework around derivative works, maybe we should focus on bringing copyright terms back to more sane durations (like the original 14 years, renewable once) ?

I like the idea of having copyrights renewable indefinitely, but with the holders having to pay exponentially larger sums.

That seems to benefit large corporations at the expense of smaller artists. Either you focus on making money or some large corporation will swoop in the second you can't and exploit your work for their own profit.

Presumably, once the copyright is allowed to expire, it can't be sold and then reinstated.

I'm okay with large corporations pouring their money at the government to keep copyrights for useless things alive, even if it means we can't legally copy useless things for a bit longer.