Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Thierry Guetta, Shepard Fairey, and Copyright Lawsuits | Main | When A Crowdfunded Project Goes "Off the Rails" »

January 31, 2011

Artists Should Earn Money

Email This Entry

Posted by Alan Wexelblat

Boingboing and Kottke both pointed to a piece on the99percent.com by Francis Ford Coppola. As you'd expect of someone with that long a career he has a lot to say, but for Copyfight purposes let's focus on his discussion of copying, which comes off his response to the question about developing one's own style.

He notes Balzac's happy response to learning that someone had copied Balzac's writing and talks about how people start by stealing (or copying, in the art world) from the masters. Balzac, and Coppola, clearly care more about their legacy than the money they make right now. Coppola finances all his films himself and makes his actual money in the wine business. From this he branches off to talk about how modern our system of directly compensating artists is, and says "who says artists have to make money?"

Now on the one hand I agree with him - our current models are a recent blip on the historical radar. And it's true that creative people can keep their day jobs to pay for doing art that they love. Coppola also points to the patron model but as I mentioned when discussing Interfictions I don't think the model scales very well.

The other problem I have with Coppola's idea of disconnecting cinema - or other arts - from the idea of making money is that the ability to make a living doing one's art has enormous advantages. For one thing, it lures people. We all benefit from there being more art and though there are plenty of creators who will continue to create even when they have no hope of making a living at it there will be excellent creative people of all sorts who will be disappointed, hindered, or actively discouraged from pursuing their art by an inability to make a living at it.

Even if they are not completely turned off, there is a great deal of art that cannot be made part time, after hours, outside a work schedule, or under constant interruption. Much great art comes from the ability of a creator to lock herself away for an extended period of time and really focus on the creative work. Creative work is hard work, too. One of the greatest legacies of President Kennedy was his recognition that arts are worthy of support in the national sphere and the creation of the National Endowment. We live richer lives as a result, though I can't point to hard statistics to back that assertion up.

And likewise, my gut feeling tells me that we cannot simply dismiss the idea of artists making money from their art, no matter how much I respect Coppola and what he has done/is doing.

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Big Thoughts


COMMENTS

1. Jesse on January 31, 2011 7:24 PM writes...

Indeed, and this is a source of frustration for me. Few people on either side of the copyfight would disagree with the premise that artistic work is valuable. So why is there so much support for a system that doesn't pay artists to work as artists, doing the valuable work that only artists can do, but instead encourages them to do the artistic work for free and make their "real money" by distributing copies, which is something any trained monkey with a computer can do?

Permalink to Comment

2. DrWex on February 3, 2011 10:36 AM writes...

I sympathize with your frustration, but I think you may be oversimplifying. The current production and distribution system is not really very good for artists - a musician may get $1 or less on a CD that costs $10-20. So we can't honestly say that distributing copies is the way artists make real money, in general.

I think that for many artists touring and merchandise sales are important factors. But I'm not sure we can support every artist this way, either.

I'm still committed to the principle that artists should get paid for making art. I'm just not sure what the best model is for making that happen.

Permalink to Comment

3. Jesse on February 4, 2011 2:15 PM writes...

Well, my preferred model is one which is surprisingly rarely discussed as an alternative, but it's similar to what's being done on Kickstarter and Sellaband.

The idea is, you set up an exchange where artists and consumers can meet to discuss potential works and contribute money, and then subtract copyright and let the free market do its thing: if artists are unwilling to work for free, the only way to get new art will be to pay an artist to make it. Artistic labor becomes a service, directly funded by the people who will enjoy the finished works (or benefit from their existence in other ways).

One advantage to the artist is that the value of his labor can be discovered before he performs it, so if the market for his work turns out to be small enough that it would be unprofitable, he can choose to do something else instead. Contrast that to the copyright-based business model where he doesn't find that out until he's already done the work and he realizes his product isn't selling.

Permalink to Comment

4. DrWex on February 7, 2011 11:15 AM writes...

That's more or less the patronage model, with a pseudo-marketplace mechanism to help creators and patrons find each other. It's also not clear to me that production of private art conveys the same benefits as production of art for public (paid) consumption.

Permalink to Comment

5. Jesse on February 7, 2011 4:31 PM writes...

Ah, but this would still be the production of art for public consumption. Compare it to projects like Mozilla today: there are a relatively small number of motivated people who contribute (in the form of time or money), and the product is then made available to the public with essentially no restrictions.

The key is to break the connection between funding and access. My understanding is that most implementations of the patronage model don't do that: patrons are paying for some measure of exclusivity, not just for the benefit they gain from the existence of new works.

Permalink to Comment

6. Duncan on February 10, 2011 6:33 AM writes...

If some people wish to buy art for $10,000 or for $1 then its fair enough. Art should be sold on the value that the buyer put onto it moderated by the value the artist puts on it. A happy medium agrees the price. Now all we need to do is create a business model that helps facilitate this discussion.

Permalink to Comment

7. Dan Foresman on February 14, 2011 3:30 AM writes...

If artists can't make money, then neither should their copiers. Personally I think Coppola is a perfect example of someone who has no legitimate position in this topic, a favorite son speaking for the underdog staying under. If he thought no-one should have to pay for his wine either, then, accolades to the man! Meanwhile, until there are as many channels as there are artists, and a yellow pages solution besides Google, well, what can be said? Murder by the Middleman, it's in the non-fiction section.

Permalink to Comment

8. www.tokyo-tube.me on July 15, 2013 8:52 PM writes...

Hi, I do believe this is a great site. I stumbledupon it ;) I may return once
again since i have book marked it. Money and freedom
is the best way to change, may you be rich and continue to
help other people.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Is There an Independent "Right of Performance"?
Did the Director-General of WIPO Steal Employee DNA Samples?
More Evidence People Don't Learn from the Past
Phoenix (music) Supports Free Use
Robo-Papers "Flooding" Academic Conferences
Apple Appeals
Who's Taking All That Money?
Pointing the Troll Finger in the Correct Direction