The problem with your idea is that many items protected by copyright have very limited value or the value may not be apparent for years.
A famous example is the photo of Clinton and Lewinsky. The photographer who took that photo had it in his back catalogue of images, but it was without value until the scandal broke.
As a photographer, I can tell you that this is not uncommon. I have sold images of student athletes who made it in the pros. In one case, I had photos of a political activist who became very high profile and a major magazine came calling.
The real issue is that music, movies, books and photos have different markets. A musician sells millions of copies of a few songs and with few exceptions, most of their money is made in the first few weeks of release.
A photographer sells a few copies of many photos. Often the photos only have value in certain contexts or to certain people.
The other thing that concerns me as a photographer is the misuse of my work. I want to be able to stop people from using the work for commercial purposes without consent — which is critical in situations where the photos were shot for editorial purposes and there are no releases.
But that was taken into account. A photographer who has not sold his work does not need a copyright until he sells his work. It remains proprietary precisely because it has not be released.
In the case of your example, if his Clinton-Lewinsky photo was just sitting idle, no need for a copyright. But if he had already introduced it to the market, but then it had sat idle for over a year, it would become public domain unless he re-introduced it for sale. It would be his choice when copyright began and ended. He would just not show his pictures in a reproduceable medium if he thought they had value. Nothing would stop him from exhibiting them, however.
Requiring some kind of definite action at reasonable intervals to re-confirm a copyright would address the abandonware problem.