Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

Steve writes:

> The artist would need to charge prohibitively
> large sums of money to the first customer as
> nearly all the work is performed for the first
> customer.

Many artists do that already.  The subsequent royalties are gravy.

For example, architectures cover all their expenses and realize a profit with
the revenue obtained from their clients.  They don't need royalties for any
representation of their work thereafter.  And, in fact, in the U.S. at least,
they are not entitled to copyright protection for that reason and in those
contexts (i.e., taking pictures of their buildings is not infringement),
although some other countries still persist in granting it to them.

> Subsequent customers only need a very small
> amount of work. The only way this system can work
> is if large companies are sold the control of the
> product. They would have too much power and would
> exploit both the artist and the end customer.

But that's how it works already.  Large companies take the copyrights of
individual musicians and film artists and profit from them in perpetuity
(almost).  Software companies do the same.  The royalties aren't even going to
the artists, they are going to the companies that shafted the artists.

> The royalty system works because each party can
> limit their risk and is ultimately financially
> better off.

It works because very powerful interests profit from it immensely and lobby to
maintain and strengthen it as much as possible.

> The artist can sell a product much cheaper and
> hence find customers much easier.

Many artists can recover all their costs, and then some, on the very first sale.
An artist who sells a day's work for $200 doesn't need any additional income
from royalties.  And if he were a bricklayer, he wouldn't receive any.