[shagie]

As a photographer, why should I be forced to sell prints of the photographs that are hanging in a restaurant?

If the limitations on copyright weren't present, why wouldn't the restaurant make copies of the photograph that I took that they have hanging on the wall and sell it at the front door without reimbursing me in any way?

[snohobro]

I don’t think copyright shouldn’t exist at all, I think the general consensus in this topic has been that the length of copyright protection is longer than is considered reasonable.

You don’t have to sell the prints if you don’t want to. But if someone else does fulfill that market demand by selling or giving away your photographs after those photographs have entered into public domain, that’s a win for all those who wished to enjoy your art. Without having to visit that particular restaurant. The length of time to get to public domain is the issue at hand.

I want you to make money on your photography. It’s a good incentive to keep doing that scope of work and more art in the world is a win for humanity. But if you haven’t been able to recuperate losses and make profit on a particular photo after 70 years, I don’t think it’s going to happen for ya.

[shagie]

If I understand this correctly, your assertion is that me selling you a print 14 years ago (or 28) would now give you (or anyone) permission to put that on T-shirts and sell them despite that I'm still making prints of that photograph and selling it?

Aside on this is that it disincentivizes me to display anything that I don't want to sell and think I can make money on during the copyright protected period.

I have hundreds of photographs... the idea that I'd need to pay some amount to re-register them (individually?) extend their copyright protection is likewise absurd. (Compare : do you pay to re-register the copyright on each file in an open source repository ... because each file has a different copyright on it ... or the entire collection? But what is a logical collection of photographs?)

I have photographs that have made more money in the past 5 years than they have in the 30 years prior.

Moving things to the public domain faster than the artists who created the material would likely make them less likely to produce, publish, or sell things that would enter the public domain before they could benefit from them would result in the material becoming a patronage based system or the material never being created at all.

I do not want all artwork to be locked behind a patronage system. e.g. "Here's my patreon - all members at the $20 level get a high quality digital image each week." That would be bad for art as a whole... you'd never see it at an art festival or in a gallery or a restaurant wall.

I realize this is becoming more and more popular... but I don't think it is good. Shorter copyright terms would make this even more prevalent because of the difficulties being able to make money as an artist off the material. The long tail of a photographer's library is very much a thing and part of one's livelihood. Cutting off that tail prematurely doesn't put more material into the public domain - it results in less material being created.

[snohobro]

Your response has shifted the discussion to a different topic and doesn’t really address my original point. I was explicitly calling out situations in which an owner refuses to make their product available by any legal means and they can legally prevent anyone else from making it available if they so choose for the remainder of its copyright lifespan, which could very well terminate after I die.

As a human with limited lifespan, that sucks.

In your scenario, as an artist you are still actively selling and making money on your art. That’s great, and maybe there should be exceptions in copyright for late bloomers who found their popular stride way later in their career with their earlier art. Regardless, you’re selling it and now I can buy it, awesome. This solves my problem.

However if I saw a photo of yours, from say 35 years ago in a restaurant you did as a commission, and you don’t want to sell me that print (totally fair) but also you don’t want anyone else to sell the print to make money off your 35 year old work, then I’m kinda hosed. I’ve got no options. I just have to travel to that restaurant, hopefully still open and they kept the photo on the wall, or just use my good ole noggin to remember what it looked like.

Just feels fundamentally broken, ya know?

I’m sure you could argue “well it’s my art and I’m allowed to determine its availability.” Now we’re into morals and what’s good for humanity. I will say art is in my subjective opinion good for humanity. Keeping it locked away is bad.

I don’t recommend a binary all or nothing approach to copyright protections, I just think at a certain point it’s for the betterment of the people now, not for the individual.

I appreciate your healthy challenging to my ideals.