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.
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.
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.
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?