3 ms·

As a photographer, do I have to make every photograph that I've ever sold available to anyone to buy forever more? Can I refuse to sell a print to someone? I

by shagie 2mo ago

As a photographer, do I have to make every photograph that I've ever sold available to anyone to buy forever more? Can I refuse to sell a print to someone? I wasn't famous when I sold one for $20 back in the 90s... if I became famous, would I still need to sell that at $20 (inflation adjusted)? What happens to limited editions of print runs? Can I not make a run of 200 prints anymore because the 201st will be something that someone could request? Does a musician have to license any song they made to anyone who asks? Can they refuse to license a song to some organization they disagree with and not have it fall into the orphan works category? --- Amending copyright to the way you describe requires a renegotiation of the TRIPS agreement ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement ) with all the nations of the WTO (or withdrawing from the WTO).

avidiax 2mo ago
Under my proposal, if someone wants to make prints of one of your old photographs, you are getting ~$20, which is ~$20 more than you are getting now. So it doesn't seem like a damage to you. If you get famous and now you could sell a print for $2,000... how is this helping society since the work has already been produced, so no new incentive is necessary? I suppose the rule could make reference to a rival good, i.e. the 22nd and 23rd editions of the calculus textbook. It should not be reasonable for the publisher to make the 22nd edition only available for $1,000, and the 23rd edition for $250. But that definition would invite many lawsuits and chilling litigation in general. A clear definition based on the historic price is much simpler. You can still number your limited runs, and your limited runs still have increased numismatic value over some other reproduction. I don't envision licensing of performance rights in this system, just recordings or reproductions. Is this a reduction of the rights granted by copyright? Yes, intentionally so. It is stripping copyright holders of the right not to copy, against the interests of society in granting that copyright in the first place.
- stbede 2mo ago
  In the hypothetical, when he becomes famous, someone making prints for $20 is $1,980 less than what he would be getting now so the damage is $1,980 per print. Both the purchasers of the print and the photographer are part of society. Under your proposal, some purchasers will spends $20 on a print that they would of have been willing to spend more than $2000 for, so the purchaser gained at least $1980 of excess value while the photographer gains $20. In your view, how is a purchaser of art gaining $1980 of value helping society?

by shagie 2mo ago

avidiax 2mo ago

Under my proposal, if someone wants to make prints of one of your old photographs, you are getting ~$20, which is ~$20 more than you are getting now. So it doesn't seem like a damage to you. If you get famous and now you could sell a print for $2,000... how is this helping society since the work has already been produced, so no new incentive is necessary? I suppose the rule could make reference to a rival good, i.e. the 22nd and 23rd editions of the calculus textbook. It should not be reasonable for the publisher to make the 22nd edition only available for $1,000, and the 23rd edition for $250. But that definition would invite many lawsuits and chilling litigation in general. A clear definition based on the historic price is much simpler. You can still number your limited runs, and your limited runs still have increased numismatic value over some other reproduction. I don't envision licensing of performance rights in this system, just recordings or reproductions. Is this a reduction of the rights granted by copyright? Yes, intentionally so. It is stripping copyright holders of the right not to copy, against the interests of society in granting that copyright in the first place.

stbede 2mo ago
In the hypothetical, when he becomes famous, someone making prints for $20 is $1,980 less than what he would be getting now so the damage is $1,980 per print. Both the purchasers of the print and the photographer are part of society. Under your proposal, some purchasers will spends $20 on a print that they would of have been willing to spend more than $2000 for, so the purchaser gained at least $1980 of excess value while the photographer gains $20. In your view, how is a purchaser of art gaining $1980 of value helping society?