The biggest change happend in the 80s, when USA signed the Bern convention on copyright.

Note btw that said convention was called to merge two systems of copyright. The English, and the "continental" (French).

The English system was basically what the US system copied back in the day. It was mainly focused on the economic aspect and thus had a "short" duration.

The French concept on the other hand, "rights of the author", was more focused on the reputation of the author, and thus had a long time frame (life of author+x years). It was about giving the author the ability to say "no you can't use my creation in your political campaign".

Frankly, if i am to speculate, i would claim that USA stayed out of these conventions as long as it was importer rather than exporter.

> It was about giving the author the ability to say "no you can't use my creation in your political campaign".

Which is why the modern US system is extreme nonsense. Political speech is protected under the First Amendment and that kind of use is basically the purpose of fair use, but we still have century+ copyright terms.

Free Speech only protects you from the government, not other people and corporations and colleges, etc. Internet companies can ban you or shut down your account or censor you if they don't like your speech.

Try posting opinions that go against what the majority believe and see what happens.

It is more than just copyright. I remember some politicians tried to use songs for their campaigns to have the artists complain because they didn't support the politician.

> Free Speech only protects you from the government, not other people and corporations and colleges, etc. Internet companies can ban you or shut down your account or censor you if they don't like your speech.

"Internet companies" can't ban you from the internet, only from their own sites. You can make your own site and they have nothing to say about what you put on it. They can't control what you say, only where you say it. Which isn't nothing, but it's definitely a different thing than copyright, where they can control what you can say regardless of where you say it.

> I remember some politicians tried to use songs for their campaigns to have the artists complain because they didn't support the politician.

But that kind of sorts itself out by itself then, doesn't it? If you use an artist's work you're giving them the stage. If they hate you, they're going to step out onto that stage and denounce you with everybody watching. If stupid politicians want to self-immolate like that then let them and there will be fewer stupid politicians.