The eminent domain argument could be interesting, though I don't think it's ever been applied to intellectual property before - and that's the property at issue here, not the memorial. I can't see a court okeying that, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Yet that doesn't really help in the way you'd like it to because the gov't would still need to pay the author just compensation.

Except you cannot assign somebody else's rights. Period.

Where this analogy breaks down is that ideas are not copyrightable. A work must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. And then it's just the expression that gets a copyright. So even if the business plan were written down, the writing is the only thing copyrighted - not the idea.

"free concert" = profiTTT from tickets

Actually, one of the reasons there are so many reversals for fair use is that fair use is a mixed matter of fact and law, the lower court's holding is open to full review. Compared to the other standards of review, along with the subjective nature of fair use, this will result in more reversals.

You entirely sidestepped my question. Should copyright be used to hold up authors of works people do not determine to be valuable?

As far as Creative Commons licenses go, do you understand that CC has no power without copyright? That the license only works because copyright provides exclusive rights to authors, and it is these rights that the CC licenses out to others? So "moving in that direction" makes no sense.

Should copyright be used to hold people up who cannot make it with the work they produce, despite the value to others of that work being low or none, or at least less than it costs to produce it? Quite frankly, I've never seriously considered this as a possible justification because it's not an efficient use of resources. So, of course, my question for you is why should we encourage that amount of inefficient use of resources? Even current copyright is not perfectly efficient (after all, Disney can probably better use your screenplay than you when they steal it from you), but it's balanced against desert (at least on my view). However, I don't think the Lockean fruits of labor argument works for you. Your position seems more about people deserving to have more fruit, as opposed to deserving whatever fruit people can make.

You act like settlements aren't rational. But they are. Settlements aren't compulsory, after all. And where there's money for settlement, there's money for legal representation.

It increases it from 0 no matter what, not just if you're lucky. You have no recourse for somebody taking your screenplay but for recognizing intellectual property.

What are you trying to say here? The only think I can figure out is so far from reasonable that I won't address it because it's probably just me not understanding what you're trying to convey. Clarify?

There is zero chance of that happening. Thinking so is simply alarmist.

But copyright reduces the risks creators undertake when they author works because, as the post you quoted points out, people could otherwise jump in and take what somebody else created. And then they've expended a lot, received little, and have less incentive to keep creating. His hypo is exactly how copyright law helps them.

You do not need to register your work to get or keep a copyright, however, and that is what the proposed fee would require. Besides, this suggestion violates an international treaty - which may or may not really matter, but it'd come up.

Sorry, my reply sounded too brash. It was late and I misread what you wrote re: the cited treaties, and didn't think to analyze which provisions were implicated.

The Berne Convention won't change. Period. It's a dead-in-the-water treaty. As far as changing TRIPS, it's an executive agreement...so you'll have to focus your convincing arguments.

Except that back then there was no need to worry about copying because it was too difficult to do. Once the printing press was developed, we had to worry about it. The first thing like a copyright statute was in 1709.

That aside, it's not that some people need motivation, but that copyright is intended to optimize the situation.

You said this elsewhere too, and I think I disagree. I don't think reading an assertion of copyright into the flickr statement is the most reasonable interpretation. A limited license for the right of publicity is how I read it. Here's my analysis:

A picture taken, that has no copyright protection, does not need to be published by the author. Nevertheless, the White House decided to publish it. Assuming the White House understands that federal employee works are public domain works (of course they know this - they're not stupid), let's continue reading with the assumption that it is a public domain work. So far so good. The published a public domain work.

One could read a copyright assertion here (like you did), but one can also read a limited, non-exclusive license for the use of Obama's likeness. An infringement claim would never work, and the White House surely knows this, so it makes more sense to read this as a license.

I think they are overstating their position here. You could read this as providing a non-exclusive copyright license (reproduction right) to the subjects, but again, the White House isn't stupid.

Here's some sticky language. No manipulation? Are they saying no derivative works, implying a copyright assertion? Doubtful, because this right belongs to a copyright holder regardless of an assertion of the right. Instead, I would again say it makes more sense to read this together with the following clause which makes it clear that Obama does not want his likeness commercially associated with things he does not approve of. There's room to disagree here, for sure. One response is that the White House is fear mongering, even though they know better. Just not a very smart way to do it.