[lbo-talk] Writer's Strike

[BklynMagus]

> Why should a cabinet maker have to physically build 
cabinets his entire life to derive an income stream 
but if I take a photograph that image should generate 
a perpetual income stream for me? Is photography so much 
harder or more important than cabinetry?

I do not think this is the correct way to understand the 
issue.

When my plays are produced by others, they generate a revenue 
stream.  Why shouldn't I be entitled to a portion of it?

If my work is re-produced/re-tranmitted/re-purposed in new 
media that generate new income streams, why should I, the 
originator of the work, be left out of the process?

Don't I as a worker become aliented from the product of my 
labor when other people can make use of my work to generate 
income streams for themselves and not share any proceeds 
with me?

I have often argued that when an artist's work is up for auction, 
they should receive a portion of the proceeeds from the sale since 
it is the product of their work that generates the revenue stream. 
If Sotheby's can get a commission, why not the artist who started 
the process in the first place with her work?

Brian