This is a fine point of view if the commons are willing to give him comfortable living accommodations, good food, relaxing holidays, camera equipment and trips around the world to take these photographs.
They could definitely do that. The government could choose to hire him as a nature photographer, give him a very nice salary and release the photographs into the public domain. Or we could pay him per work to do it.
But we don't do that. We don't want to pay taxes to let him fly around the world and photograph things for the good of the commons. If society is not willing to accommodate him, why would he be willing to sacrifice himself to accommodate society?
I don't think you understood zeidrich's point in this case :) There's no tragedy of the commons for copyrights because the commons doesn't get reduced by usage. Tragedy of the commons as I understand it applies to things like air, which is free, but which people can deplete. (Externalizing pollution costs.)
Things like research can end up belonging to the commons but there's no tragedy of the commons argument about it. Instead your parent in this case I think was just pointing out that this is stuff that wouldn't exist at all if it weren't commmercially protected.
While you are technically correct that tragedy of the commons only applies to nonexcludable-rival public goods, your pedantry has helped nobody in this comment thread learn more. There's a time for it, and most pedants fail to see when it is actually important to correct definitions.
Not according to the article I linked, which even has a four-paragraph section called "metaphoric meaning" that does not extend to that meaning; nor do any of the examples in the long list of examples under the section "modern commons" show such a meaning.
The term "tragedy of the commons" simply refers to a different concept. It's just not what it means. It means common resources become less useful over time.
This is not a statement about investment; it's just that the effect that is described is quite specific. You don't have to use an incorrect term to describe what you're talking about.
> But we don't do that. We don't want to pay taxes to let him fly around the world and photograph things for the good of the commons.
I want that. Many people want that. And my tax dollars do do this already. Provincial and federal governments actively fund the development of news, education, and artistic media in many jurisdictions.
I wonder if we could have some kind of system that both incentivizes him to create in the first place, by granting him a temporary monopoly on the commercial rights, and yet ensures that his work will eventually become part of the public domain?
It could center around the "right to copy". Hmmm, what could we call it?
They could definitely do that. The government could choose to hire him as a nature photographer, give him a very nice salary and release the photographs into the public domain. Or we could pay him per work to do it.
But we don't do that. We don't want to pay taxes to let him fly around the world and photograph things for the good of the commons. If society is not willing to accommodate him, why would he be willing to sacrifice himself to accommodate society?