[hipaa_eng]

> I feel like the fix there is that the rules for publishing works of the deceased should be different, e.g. it is immediately in the public domain so that there is no (or at least less) financial incentive since the original author has already decided not to profit from it.

sometimes the plan is for the children/successors to benefit from the works. Some do ask for things to be published after they're gone

[lizard]

Yeah, I get it. There's a lot of complexity. I considered including something about "when the author has explicitly said not to release it" which draws up even more complexity in this case because the children argued 'Dad wasn't in the right mind.' So does that make it OK?

But honestly, for my part anyways, I'm not sure any of that matters.

I'm a big fan of creativity. It's probably the most valuable thing people have and it ought to be protected and rewarded.

That's why this is even a dilemma for me because I would be disappointed to see a good creative work lost forever just because they didn't see the value of their own work.

But that's also why I'm against that kind of inheritance. Children, especially those who have the luxury and of good upbringing, should be encouraged to pursue their own creativity and produce their own value, rather than riding on the coattails of their forebears.