Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Patently absurd? Nonsense. Let me spell it out one logical link at a time...
|
A "lottery" implies that an individual hits the jackpot based purely on luck.
There are many characterizations you can apply to copyright, but a "lottery" is not one of them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
For every picture used by National Geographic, they take (on average) around 1000 pictures. So the photographer, has 998 images, which are not commercially viable. Does he/she need copyright protection on those images?
|
Yes.
Many photographers do what is called "stock photography," where they shoot a ton of images at their own expense and submit it to an agency. The agency catalogs them and tries to license or sell them to ad agencies, art directors, marketers and the like.
A successful image can produce revenue for years, or take years before anyone needs it. As such, the photographer will have thousands of images on file at the stock agency that continue to earn varied amounts of income -- and no idea which images will be profitable at what time.
By the way, it looks like Nat Geo has its own stock agency. Go to nationalgeographicstock.com and enter "1053432" in the Quick Explore search, and it will pull up a photo that is well over 20 years old and possibly commercially viable. And if your brother isn't earning anything from Nat Geo's stock agency, maybe he ought to do some work and get on them about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
They're under the absolute control of their creator, and nobody has access to them to copy unless the creator lets them. Nobody will copy them, because nobody can - they don't have access! Only if the picture(s) are distributed is there any need for copyright protection.
|
That's a bit optimistic, in an era of thoroughly digitized images. E.g. a photographer will lose a ton of control once they turn over the image; same for any "work for hire."
Plus, what many working photographers -- albeit not necessarily photojournalists -- will tell you is that they get ripped off all the time. In some cases it is that a client uses an image beyond the agreement, e.g. they license the image for use in a regional campaign, and start using it internationally. In other cases, art directors may just grab an image off the Internet and use it without bothering to contact the photographer, let alone pay for it. This is why photographers are especially sensitive to loopholes generated by an orphan works law -- because their copyright could get infringed, and the infringer could pay a small fee to a clearinghouse to mitigate legal damages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
And that's where the lottery ticket comes in. You want to profit as close to forever you can get away with on a copyright creation, at absolutely no cost. There is no other economic activity like that in humanity.
|
You can't resell the exact same vegetable for 20 years non-stop. I.e. in this respect, it doesn't make sense to treat intellectual property exactly like real property.
And in most cases, yes someone does have to keep doing work to keep a work of IP commercially viable. E.g. a 30 year old book needs to be printed, or converted into an ebook; the author may also need to hawk his or her wares to keep sales up. A stock agency needs to keep slides on file (in the past) or digitize the slides (recent past) or host digital images on servers, and of course publish its catalog for client use -- not to mention manage accounts, collect payments, distribute royalties.... A big backlist title also needs some effort put into it, albeit nowhere near as much as a new blockbuster. I don't think it is all that common for a 30+ year old book to suddenly gain stellar sales with zero effort.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
You want a free "lottery ticket" that maybe someday something you created will be worth something. If it doesn't, it cost you nothing. If it does, whee, you make money. I say that's wrong. You want to buy a "lottery ticket", pay for it.
|
It's not a "lottery" when you actually did the work.
Nor is a profit from a bit of chance limited to intellectual property. To wit:
What if I run a vineyard, and 1992 turns out to be a great year for a type of wine that I made and stored? Perhaps I could have sold a bottle for $100 then, and now the stored bottle goes for $1000. I haven't done any work here, other than store it in a wine cellar. Is this "wrong?" Or is it acceptable because it's a physical object?
Or, let's say I purchase a Picasso in 1970 for $15,000 and it is now worth $15,000,000 -- far beyond any inflationary price changes. I, as the owner, did nothing except either hang it on my wall or store it securely; I certainly didn't pour $10 million of work into it. Is this also "wrong?" Should we halt all fine art sales right now?
Or, I purchase a stock today at $10/share, and sell it tomorrow at $15/share. I literally did nothing to increase the value of the stock. In many ways, this is much more a form of gambling than any copyright. Is this now "wrong," even if it is my own money I'm putting on the line?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
Every other creator does. You're not special. Patents pay. Trademarks pay. So should copyright.
|
And, as I pointed out earlier, if you actually want to protect the work, it's the rights holder who actually needs to put resources on the line to do so. The State rarely enforces copyrights unless it involves the production and sale of counterfeit physical goods.
Also, as I pointed out, copyright also protects a great deal of non-commercial work.
Sorry, but a "lottery" is a bad metaphor that does not reflect the reality of the situation.