I mean, it sounds nice on the surface, but it's basically saying that artists get money long after they've put in the work (and get paid again and again, potentially), while the guy who fixes potholes or invents a new way to fuel cars gets his salary, maybe a bonus, and a pat on the head, to be forgotten.
If the artist gets a cut of every painting resale, why not the company who produced the paints? Why not the oil company (or walnut/linseed farmer, I guess) that provided the medium for the oil? We all know why: Because everything would be too expensive if we priced it that way.
I don't see that analogy, John. This is applicable only to Art, wherein a specific effort by a specific person adds a value to the canvas and the oil and frame that varies with both the quality of that effort and the value that society places on the result over time. The person who "invested" in a page of Jean-Claude's Valerian strip in 1975 did nothing to increase the value of that page. And it can easily be argued that Jean-Claude's continual effort and the quality of that effort and the popularity that he engendered DID contribute to the value of the 1975 effort. So when M. Collector decides to sell at a profit, there is a case to be made (and French Society makes said case) that a portion of the ROI for M. Collector is due to the Artist who made it possible.
But somehow, we can idolize an artist and demand such payments without every thinking of demanding it for ourselves, and certainly turning a blind eye to everyone who enabled the art.
It's a little more subtle than that, I think. There is a value that societies place upon Art that is not given to making bricks or waxing automobiles or drilling for oil. Whatever "it" is that an Artist adds to a work of Art, the value of "it" varies with the talent and popularity of the Artist and with time and scarcity. "It" is more than a product or a service, where the normal market forces hold sway. Someone may be able to make a better brick and charge more for it, but there is usually the material and ability available for someone else to produce additional bricks. With Art, it's a done deal. There aren't going to be more Steve Ditko Spider-Man #33 covers. Can you really deny that the seller today of that piece of art doesn't have some moral debt to Mr. Ditko to share a portion of his windfall with Steve? Said seller hadn't contributed anything other than the preservation of it, and Marvel hadn't either.
I'm not saying that Ditko can demand such recompense, but I maintain that a society that can make a rule that awards him such is pretty enlightened.
I think it's well past time I walk away from this topic. It seems I'm more angering people (not you, Jim) than engaging in conversation, and that's a waste of everybody's time.
I understand your position, and basically reject the current copyright laws as patently unfair and quite contrary to the intent of the framers of our laws. They are a manifestation of the manipulations of Corporate America. If the original intent of a 28 (or even the 56) year limit were enforced, the Shuster, Kirby, and Simon cases would be moot. Public Domain would be all the richer and faceless corporate ownership of Artistic Creations would be severely limited.
Much of these extension laws stem from Disney's efforts to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain. And where would Walt Disney be without such Public Domain material as Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, Snow White, Cinderella, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, The Jungle Book, Swiss Family Robinson, etc. etc. etc.?
We exist in a hypocritical world run by lawyers, but there are a few bright spots of respect still around. I think that the French acknowledgement of an Artist's contribution to the value of his own work is a laudable one.
In NO way have you angered me, so I hope you will consider a continuation of our conversation.
Peace, Jim (|:{>