3 ms·
As a photographer, I do not want to lose the ability to be the sole seller of the photographs that I create in 5 or 10 (or 20) years. That I don't sell many no
by shagie 4y ago
As a photographer, I do not want to lose the ability to be the sole seller of the photographs that I create in 5 or 10 (or 20) years.
That I don't sell many nor is it my declared profession doesn't change how I should be compensated for the photographs that I sell.
The Library of Congress only applies to the United States and has little sway on any of the rest of the signatories of the Berne Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention and the TRIPS agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement
The changing the term of protection provided by the Berne Convention or TRIPS would mean that the United States would be leaving those treaty... which has quite a few implications for how other countries would treat copyrighted works within the US.
> TRIPS requires member states to provide strong protection for intellectual property rights. For example, under TRIPS:
> Copyright terms must extend at least 50 years, unless based on the life of the author. (Art. 12 and 14)[8]
> Copyright must be granted automatically, and not based upon any "formality", such as registrations, as specified in the Berne Convention. (Art. 9)
- pitaj 4y agoI don't believe anyone has a right to a monopoly on information, even if they created it. I don't believe in the validity of intellectual property in general. Even 5, 10, or 20 years is a compromise. The Library of Congress is just an example, I'm sure some international agreement could be made for an independent entity. As for the Berne Convention or TRIPS, I wasn't just talking about the US. The international copyright laws should also be reformed.
- shagie 4y agoHere's a photograph I created nearly 20 years ago - https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Burney-Falls-1-H-4310517 https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Burney-Falls-1-H-43105... Why shouldn't I be the only one with the right to sell that image? The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery."
- pitaj 4y ago> Why shouldn't I be the only one with the right to sell that image? The real question is why should you? Copyright is not a natural right (if it was, it wouldn't require enforcement actions on people who never interacted with the original copy). It's a privilege meant to provide an incentive for artists (the effectiveness of which is questionable, even without taking into consideration the negative side-effects). > The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery." And that is entirely within your rights. But once your photo is disseminated into the public sphere, it's information that you no longer have control over.