Even though it does not seem to cover stock images at this time, it is a move in the right direction.

https://www.cp24.com/entertainment-news/artists-to-cash-in-when-work-is-resold-with-update-of-copyright-laws-1.6016896

Quote from: Orchidpoet on August 07, 2022, 08:53

Even though it does not seem to cover stock images at this time

How could it possibly ever cover stock images? I don't know of any stock agencies that sells licences that would even allow customers to resell the images they have licensed.

Correct: A work must be in physical form to be protected by copyright. Someone must pay for the rights to reproduce or use a licensed photo. RF has some of the weakest and crappiest regulations for re-use and protection for what we license on Microstock.

But? When I buy a painting or work of art, in a physical form, don't I own it? Now someone is going to somehow track every sale and see if there's a profit, then track down the artist and give them a percentage? I know I only own the work of art, not the copyright to the art, that ruling was enhanced and changed when, Congress enacted Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA)

How about this, an artist sells an image for $100,000 and then his work goes out of style and the buyer, takes it to auction and only gets $50,000 does the artist pay back a portion of that loss?

The link says: "Under reforms of copyright law, being drafted..." which means it's not a law, just something that's being proposed. Wait and see?

Is a stock photo a work of art or commodity? Many are very artistic but the majority are utilitarian.  It will be interesting to follow development and I suspect photos will need to have a digital signature to be under such legislation with a grandfather clause for printed work produced in past years. Count on stock agencies to lobby government to exclude work they sell.

If I understand the object needs to be a physical work of art. So digital will not be included. And then the license terms for Stock are pretty open ended, except, yes we retain rights.

Artists will MIGHT get  "resale right" in Canada would be a more accurate Subject. This is only proposed changes.

Seems terribly complicated to be able to write and enforce how it's going to be done.

As far as Grandfather Clauses, copyright changes usually go back to a predetermined date. Such as, is the object protected in the first place. That means those will be included. Something that wasn't protected and was added later, will be from the date it was included into copyright protection. So yes, it could be (should be) retroactive.

USA, and yes I know the obvious it's Canada, but for example, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. The duration of copyright in Canada was 50 years after the death of the author. But just was changed to life plus 70. So older art, will be 50 and new works will be 70. Old works = 1972. USA if it matters, because the date is changing and there are old websites without the newest date on them, Before 1927 is in the public domain due to copyright expiration.

What is art?  Seriously, is a craft project "art"? A table, a frame, a custom car? Pottery, macro may, or a wood carving. Just to suggest a few.

Easy is something like a painting, a photo print, a statue, and what would be traditional art forms.

This isn't as easy as saying, yeah, artists will get a percentage of future profits for their past works, when someone else sells them again. I think it's a terrible tangled mass. And no I don't believe it's going to include digital art, but I'm not writing the laws. 

Well, some stock artists are also selling prints and through galleries.

Countries including UK and France, have already implemented "resale rights" https://www.cp24.com/entertainment-news/artists-to-cash-in-when-work-is-resold-with-update-of-copyright-laws-1.6016896

Yes a print is a physical item. A digital image might not be included. How would a stock photo be credited to us when resold, after going through the agency and then resellers and also partners. Sounds might complicated and virtually impossible to track and account for accurately.

In the article: "It says at least 90 countries, including the United Kingdom and France, already have resale rights for artists," also correct, I'd like to read the laws and how they are actually applied and enforced?

The copyright law changes in favor of physical artwork because artist organizations are lobbing and advocating for the changes.

If stock artists always accept whatever pittance without doing anything about it, the status quo will always be the same.

Given the number of stock artists in the world, it is sad that we are so weak. The basic problem is that there is no leaders among us.

No leverage or power either. But a critical part of the "art" resale is it's a physical item, which digital stock is a non-tangible item. Same reason we have so many problems defending against theft.

You can form a Union, or whatever you want to call it, but if you have no way to force agencies to negotiate, there's nothing. You would need the Union and then need to strike and then have that strike cost the agencies money.

Marx and Engels believe that it is fundamentally unfair that workers do not own the means of production. They argue that the means of production is only made useful by workers� labor�yet all the benefits of that work are accumulated by the bourgeoisie. Communist Manifesto

In another way: Ultimately the power of unions derives from the willingness of the workers to stand up to management and to support each other in resistance to management. The highest form of power comes when workers are able to shut down the workplace in an action such as a strike, and thus close off profits to the employer.

The obvious problem for stock is, getting everyone to join and work together, even a majority would be difficult. The economic problem is, how do the artists close off profits and force the agencies to negotiate a better wage? If you can figure that out, you have a winner.

You can't make a demand unless you can create a situation where the agencies are going to lose money, because the artists have some power over the supply of the product.

I just bought a rare old vinyl recording and paid 100X over the original price. Do I send the money to the record company or the musicians? Or do I report the seller to make sure he pays the artists for their old work.

The copyright law changes in favor of physical artwork because artist organizations are lobbing and advocating for the changes.

If stock artists always accept whatever pittance without doing anything about it, the status quo will always be the same.

Given the number of stock artists in the world, it is sad that we are so weak. The basic problem is that there is no leaders among us.

Stock Coalition, how did that go? This is not about leaders it's about power over the agencies. What will you do to demand better pay that would force them to pay more?