You mentioned the drug companies, but that patent is only 17 years. In 17 years they not only have to recoup the cost of developing the drug, proving it works, and getting it approved, they must pay for the cost of all those they attempted to develop that didn't work which is almost all of them. They never produce a nickel. Once in a while they get a bit lucky. While researching a drug for a potential heart medication they found an interesting side effect. The little blue pill was the result and it was found totally by accident and has been a financial bonanza. It also only has a few more years left on patent.
A longer patent would allow drug companies to spread those cost over longer periods of time. By being able to do that something drastic could happen. Prices could come down and not up. By the way you mentioned asprin, did you know it was made from the willow tree and willow tea is a very old time tested cure?
Now the blue pill is still under patent, but that hasn't stopped others from working and creating new medications to accomplish the same thing. It caused them to look at one solution, and come other with others.
Now who should get the rights to your work if not your family??? To me it isn't a government to give away, unless its creator so decreed that is what was to happen. Now if the family argues over it shame on them. Now I agree that far too many people don't stand up for their rights regardless of where. Like the microstock agencies that will pay you $50 for a national publication and people take it.
A photograph is easy to take, but there is a difference between a photo and a good photo. Yes there are massive amounts of photos available today. Yet I have no doubt that quality will always stand out.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property issues
From: karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 02, 2009 10:45 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ownership, intellectual property, copyright .. patent.
now there's an interesting one.
Pay a fee and for a time you own exclusive rights to make something. for a
period of time, until it expires. Can't see the big companies being happy
about that!
not everything is weighed toward the corporations after all. So now we can
all go buy cheap, generic asprin rather than have some pharmacuetical
company charging like wounded bulls for a bit of pain relief
but why can't they own it forever? they must be sitting there saying 'it
ain't fair!' <pout>
protection offers encouragement for someone to produce, but it also offers
protection to 'society' (that's ALL of us) in making sure competition can
occur after the first bloke off the blocks developed the product and made
himself a few bob.
I dont see that I am automatically entitled to what dead relatives leave
behind .. so you won't find me anyware near the fracas after the funeral,
it not healthy all that biterness and rivalry generated by the greedy
vultures.
not everything is fair, nor will it ever be.
Copyright laws here in Oz tightened up to give photographers and amazing
set of enviable ownership rights. Then for some reason the photographers
en mass did nothing with those rights, fearful that if they excersized
them, the consumer would just go to another photographer who was prepared
to waive those rights!
In time, the government led the charge against those rights as they were
being stung by the cost of aquiring images and graphics, and the companies
chucked in behind them and when the dust settled we found the laws changed
to back where the comissioning customer again owns the images. Great.
So for a few short years we had exactly what photographers dreamed of
and we did nothing with this
funny world we live in
k
