Well in my case I work in IT so the chance of anything I work on still being in operation in my grandchildren's time is negligable. On the other hand the organisation I work for lobnies for improved retriement provisison. The changes to legislation that they campaign for benefits eveyone. We don't expect all those who so benefit to pay into a fund to be distibuted to our children and grandchildren. My father built flood defences. I don't expect money from everyone on a tidal plain each time there's a particularly high tide. My Grandfather was a guard at the british museum. I don't expect a fee to be paid to me each time someone enjoys one of the exhibits there.
I can understand your train of thought. My grandfather was a construction laborer, my grandmother worked for 65 years in a laundry, my mother was a maid so the only thing they could pass onto me personally was the hopes of a college education.
Having obtained that education, I credit their difficult experiences and their lifelong determination (as well as my veteran's benefits) for my education. They left me the dreams of "something better" which certainly has no monetary value, however I am always reminded of their sacrifices and their hopes.
And yet some artists are mega rich. Likewise most sportsmen aren't swimming in money. Only those who reach the top of their field. Perhaps it seems unfair to you that artist who arn't as recognised in their lifetime don't make as much money as those who are apprently better. Not to me. When they die they stop producing. Supply is resticted and by the laws of supply and demand thier work become more valuable. I see this. Nonetheless I don't see death as a positive career move. Perhaps, to boot, their works are cited as an influence on subsequent artists thus increasing interest and therefore demand. This however can happen at any time whether dead or alive.
Certainly some artists are "mega-rich," but that's not the norm, especially in the field of "fine art." It's a shame that you see people in general as worthwhile only when they are alive and "producing." The value in gold is in its rarity. You can't blame the artists for the fact that their death is often the "career move" that gives value to their art. That is the function of businessmen who want to capitalize on something they see as having value and knowing that nothing like it will ever be produced again.
As sea levels rise my father's flood defences are increasing in value. What's the difference?
Did your father engineer the flood defenses or merely work as a laborer to build them? It makes a difference as any official documents pertaining to said flood defenses will show. If he was the engineer, there are documents what will give him credit for his work that no other engineer can lay claim to - and that is for the life of the flood defenses (not merely 70 years beyond his death).
The difference between land and art is simple. If the developer wants to build on my land then I no longer have the land. I can't sell it again to another developer. If a film producer wants to develop my novel into a screenplay then I still have my novel and if another developer want to tadapt it for the stage then I can sell it again. If a readers wants to read it I can still sell it over and over to them. If one of those readers or developers doesn't pay me I still have my novel and can still sell it again and again. I am not in anyway harmed by their copyright infringement. You can talk about lost revenue but that's not money I earned and was then taken away from me - it's money that I never earned that the current law says I'm entitled to. The copyright infringement is clearly legally wrong but it is harder to see how it is morally wrong as I'm not really harmed by it.
I think that's where you most mistaken, especially with regards to fine art (a painting or sculpture). Certainly a piece of literature can be sold for various rights (most magazine articles fall into this category as well as poetry and novels). First publication rights can be sold, as can first book rights (in the case of a novel), but a traditional visual artist doesn't have that luxury. When he sells his painting it is usually outright and for a onetime fee. The only thing he retains (via copyright law) is the right to have that particular work attributed to him. Sometimes he is given a royalty fee when the art is reproduced in print, but it's negligible compared to the original price. Keep in mind that most fine art is rarely reproduced in a manner that will bring a steady flow of finances for the artist.
If bought the land then no. However if I leased it from the public then at the end of the lease period I'd be expected to vacate.
There is the difference then, no? The artist essentially "buys" the land (or creates the art) that you want him to give up rights to. It is his property and his creation that you believe others who had nothing to do with its creation should be allowed to share. Creative, original and unique works of art aren't "leased" and copyright laws protect the artist from charlatans claiming the work is theirs. As for the monetary gains from a work of art, it's often the businessmen (or collector) who own the artwork that will scream, "copyright infringement" when the work is duplicated without permission.
Imagine if I bred a superior grain and in order to reward me the public chose to give me a 50 year lease on some land to produce this grain.
But, you could, as a botanist creating a new hybrid, plant (pun intended) your name on that grain and sell it to a distribution company, couldn't you? The company would "own" the right to produce that grain, but you'd retain the right to call it your creation. Whatever royalties you could glean from the company that bought the original seeds or plant would be between you and the company you sold it to. Do you feel it would be ethical for that company to claim they created that grain only ten years after you first allowed them to mass-produce it?
If instead of relinquishing my 50 year lease I and a group of other influential 50 year lease holders lobbied parliament to increase the duration of such leases to 70 years then surely that would be wrong.
Again, I don't know exactly what is going on regarding copyright law in the UK, but as an artist, I feel that my family has a right to whatever royalties they can get for roughly 70 years after my death.
and put it on a t-shirt or ash tray and tried to sell them at the market, or to a coffee shop, The Man might have a legit right to prevent me from making a profit on the image of the Needle. As it is part of the skyline, a general wide-angle shot of the city would I guess be kosher.