“Modern copyright practices spur artists to unmoor our work from what has inspired us,” says writer Tony Woodlief in a Wall Street Journal commentary. “Art”along with many artists supposedly protected by these laws – is arguably poorer for it.”

Woodlief was inspired to write the piece after trying to secure rights for brief snippets of poetry and song he wanted to use as epigraphs at the start of each chapter in his memoir. It turned into a frustrating experience:

When I asked to use a single line by songwriter Joe Henry, for example, his record label’s parent company demanded $150 for every 7,500 copies of my book. Assuming I sell enough books to earn back my modest advance, this amounts to roughly 1.5% of my earnings, all for quoting eight words from one of Mr. Henry’s songs.

I love Joe Henry, but the price was too high. I replaced him with Shakespeare, whose work (depending on which edition you use) is in the public domain. Mr. Henry’s record label may differ, but it’s not clear that his interests – or theirs – are being served here. Were they concerned that readers might have their thirst for Mr. Henry’s music sated by that single lyric? Isn’t it more likely that his lyric would have enticed customers who otherwise wouldn’t have heard of him?

In short, he says, “many publishers pursue illusory short-term profit at the expense of both profit and art. By demanding fees that most people won’t pay, they forsake free advertising for the artists they claim to protect. If restaurants behaved that way, not only would they deny you the right to take home leftovers to your dog, they’d try to charge you for smelling their food when you pass by.”