This question was the only one that stumped me much for the same reason outlined above given that the implication seems weak based on the actual wording of the phrase. As far as I know, if I take the wording at face value, they are comparing the rights of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserves to the cumulative rights of any presently living individual. It feels like there is a difference between an implied comparative and an assumed one, because this feels like more of a logical leap than others where the comparison is implied. Please let me know if someone views this differently!