[bearsclover]

I'm sure this has been discussed a billion times, but I searched and couldn't find anything specific on this board, so I thought it would make for interesting discussion.

Edited to make it simple: Should art be "free"? Do you feel that you have cheapened yourself because you expect to make money off of your art? How would you feel if someone copied your artwork and published it on the web without your permission? Would it be OK as long as they didn't make any money off of your work? What if they scanned some of your unpublished artwork and published it on the web, and said their reason was because "art wants to be free"?

So, what do you say, as artists? I've certainly heard the non-artists' perspective, I'd love to hear everyone else's perspective, and also am interested if you've heard any similar "interesting" philosophies regarding art as well.
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

[Mon]

Exactly who feels that someone else's art should be free? Names and addresses please, and I'll have someone take care of it
_________________
www.mattiassnygg.com
Blog!

[bearsclover]

Mon, I probably should have explained that. In my zeal to be brief, I left that out.

As you all probably know, some debate exists over the length of copyright, yadda yadda. (A lot of this stems from the file-sharing debate, but I don't feel like getting into that here.)

While most people I've discussed this with (online, usually) feel that copyright should be protected and that artists deserve to be able to make a living, a few "extremists" are totally anti-copyright and want it done away with. They say that artists who work for money are doing it for the wrong reasons. (It should all be about inspiration!, and art should be FREE!)

Oh, and some people say that if if we artists were any good, we'd find rich patrons to fund us and support us. (Any of you see that happening?)

Now, I love art as much as the next person and I "give away" quite a bit of it (and do a lot of it for my own gratification) but the idea that I must give it away galls me. I also like this idea of being compensated for my time. If I'm going to work hard on something just so that someone else can use it, well, dammit, they should pay me.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, I personally don't get this point of view. Wanted to get other artists' perspective on it.
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

[Snakebyte]

Personally, If I am commissioned to a book cover or any cover I expect to get Paid, I am providing a service to someone who is unskilled in the brush. It�s no different than a writer who writes a novel and wishes to be paid for his craft.
Unlike the mu$ic industry who expects to get money each time a song is played, hummed, or thought of, if I got paid for my effort than what happens to that book cover is of little concern because I will be half done with my next masterpiece.

But that�s just me and I�m not skilled enough just yet for cover work so things my change when I am being paid�
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com

[Citizen Cow]

I think the thought of doing art for something other then money is becoming antiquated.
I couldnt even imagine the things that could be produced if art wasnt a commodity that is bought and sold.

[fukifino]

I'm no professional but I'll throw out my 2 pennies anyways.

I agree that the current copyright laws are ridulous and getting more ridiculous every day. But I still there needs to be some sort of copyright.

Frankly, for individuals, I think the copyrights on their work should last the length of their lifetime and no longer. It's YOUR work, so we'll protect YOUR interests in the work until your dead. After that, no transfer, no inheritence, etc...copyright gone. Public domain. I think this is in the best interest for everyone. Could you imagine if the old masters works were still under copyrights??? Just think of the ramifications of that. All those hundreds of art books and sites that allow you to see the works of the old masters without actually going to whatever museum they're at. Allow you to actually try to copy them (try setting up your easle or laptop in the Louvre )

And this pretty much holds true for any individual work.

When you get into work done for hire (ie. the copyright is owned by a corporate entity) then we obviously need some sort of fixed length copyright that gives the entity (who's "lifetime" may obviously span generations) a reasonable amount of time to capitalize on their investment.

Anyways, that's my opinion. If I created a work of art (which includes music/writing/painting/whatever) it's mine. Period. If you want to use it, you can get my permission. If you don't like it, learn how to paint/write/whatever yourself.

[eyewoo]

Art done for free... that's puzzling...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Wren]

Athletes get paid to play sports, why shouldn't artists get paid to draw and paint? Despite this idea that any and everything is art, most of the work people expect payment for (and incidently the same type that people want for free) is the type of art that involves more than random smears on a canvas. Illustration and design require years of practice and education. Education, which i might add, costs a lot of money. Even for those of us who are self taught, there is still an enormous amount of time and effort invested in our craft.

No one thinks twice about having to pay a mechanic, or a plumber or a carpenter. It's also perfectly reasonable to pay for interior decorating and landscaping. People are willing to pay for every concieveable craft, task or service but when it comes to art, some expect it for free. It truly boggles the mind.
_________________

SASart Studios

[Rubber Duck]

its not puzzling at all.. at least not in my opinion ..

BUT one should give the choice to the artist and not to someone else.

most of us here are probably more into applied art as in gaming art, illustration, concept art and so on so the question of creating art for free probably does not make much sense..

but in a fine art context it may well make sense because the output is usually a message or a statement.

[eyewoo]

I was being just a bit sarcastic ...

Also, I'd like to point out that the message or statement with most contemporary fine art is often just a vision of interest or beauty... not necessarily a "message" or "statement" in any deep or political sense... but in any case, accepting money for it... even a lot of money for it it in no way degradates it's artistic value. If that value is there before a price is applied, then it will be there as well after a price is applied.
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Socar MYLES]

Art has always been done for money--artists have to eat, too. Anyone who thinks we don't have the same rent and grocery bills as everyone else is living in a dream world. The great masters all painted for money--all those lovely pictures of kings, military officers, landowners' holdings, et cetera, certainly weren't done for nothing. The art on the insides of churches wasn't done out of religious fervour, either--again, that work was commissioned and paid for.

In a modern context, I certainly wouldn't want to charge per view for my artwork, but I think copyright is a very good thing, because it prevents everyone and his dog from setting up business selling bulk prints of better quality and cheaper price than the individual artists could do.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[bearsclover]

Wow, thanks for all the thoughtful responses, guys!

I sometimes get sick hearing the perspective of non-artists, a few who have suggested that maybe we should get "real" jobs and stop charging for our art, or expecting a copyright on our art. This "get a real job and stop whining about your artwork being stolen" is a common attitude that I've heard directed at artists.

Regarding the copyright laws: I would think that Life of the Artist would be OK in most instances, however, there are always going to be the situations where I think it would be grossly unfair to cut it off at death. If, for instance, the spouse of an artist helps put them through art school, the artist then makes some fabulous work that everyone wants, then dies. The spouse (who supported the artist for so long while he or she did the artwork) is now left high and dry, because the artist is dead and the copyright is ended. I think that would be wrong. There are a lot of instances where having the copyright end at the death of the artist would seem impractical or unfair. (What publisher, for instance, is going to pay an older author an advance on a novel if they know that the author could kick off at any time, and the book that they are paying the author for could be put into public domain?)

There are always going to be things like that happening, so I think Life+ a certain amount of years is better. Or perhaps, some easy way for worthy heirs (or publishers) to apply for and get an extension on the copyright. (And I mean easy way�not mired in paperwork and uncertainty.)

Anyway, that's my take on it. I do appreciate all the comments here and certainly look forward to more!
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

[fukifino]

Hmm...I see your point about the death thing, bearsclover. But here's a (poor) analogy. If I put someone through law school, then they die...who's going to reimburse me for all that money? Just because you supported them through school doesn't really mean you should be entitled to any copyrights after their death. Yes, you should most definately be able to be willed the original pieces of art. And if those pieces are unreleased, you'd probably make a pretty penny on it.

I don't mean to be cold, but unnatural death sucks but it's sort of like "tough shit." :/

As for the artist working for a publisher...that pretty much falls under the work for hire thing. If the writer dies, the publisher still owns the copyrights if there's a contract. (Note, I'm making this up, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it really does work.) If the publisher was funding him without a contract and in good faith, well, that's their loss.

I know it sounds like I'm being an ass, but laws are written for the lowest common demonenator 99% of the time. And it always seems those LCD laws end up screwing more deserving people than they help, and end up helping more people than deserve it.

Again, just my opinion.

*edit*

One more point I forgot to mention...if the aforementioned spouse was actually a collaborater on the art in question, then obviously it's a jointly held copyright and (s)he obviously still retains it until death again.

[bearsclover]

[fukifino]

Hmm, yeah, when it comes to actual pieces of art I guess I'm torn. Not that we're making any laws here, but how's this for an interesting idea (ok, thinking about it, it needs a lot of work, but here it is anyways):

Copyright for a piece of art (only talking visual art here) is held by the person who holds the original. That person can choose to release works based on the copyright however he/she wants as long as they hold the original. They can transfer the original (via sale/gift/inheritence) to another, but any previously doled out rights remain.

So, obviously a painter can sell rights to publish a piece while he's alive. He could then transfer the original to his heirs who would then be able to do as they see fit with the piece. If they wanted to retain exclusive rights, they could do nothing with the piece but they couldn't stop the previously entitled publisher from using the piece as governed by the original contract. If they decided to release the rights to the piece to the public domain, any future holders of the original would have right to revoke it.

Hmm..but how does this apply to digital media?? (Or to a typewritten manuscript...) Ack, too many questions! I suppose rather than the rights following the original piece as with a traditional work of art, they would be the actual thing being transferred in the case of digital media? Hmm, I guess this idea needs work.

My brain hurts now.

[gekitsu]

what should be wrong about art and charging money for it?

if i do a piece on commission, there's no question about all that. demand and service. basic economy laws.
basically, i am acting as a hired wrist, lending the skills i acquired (plus a bit of material) to the cause of someone else. for that, i am to be paid.
it was like that all the time.
let me quote bouguereau: "i lose 20 franc everytime i pee"

for sellling personal art, thats something different.
personal art was done out of my ideas, my impulse etcetera, and is more "art" in a modern arty sense of the word than an illustration on comission is.
but then, i had reasons to paint it and if someone is willing to pay me enough to make me forget my grief about having to part with that particular piece of work, it's fine, isn't it?

[eyewoo]

"...it's fine, isn't it?" Sure is!
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Light]

.. sorry wrong forum.