

Artists Should Be Compensated For Their Work - alexkay
http://questioncopyright.org/compensation

======
balding_n_tired
From Trollope's _Autobiography_, courtesy of the Gutenberg project:

I received my (pounds)100, in advance, with profound delight. It was a
positive and most welcome increase to my income, and might probably be
regarded as a first real step on the road to substantial success. I am well
aware that there are many who think that an author in his authorship should
not regard money,--nor a painter, or sculptor, or composer in his art. I do
not know that this unnatural sacrifice is supposed to extend itself further. A
barrister, a clergyman, a doctor, an engineer, and even actors and architects,
may without disgrace follow the bent of human nature, and endeavour to fill
their bellies and clothe their backs, and also those of their wives and
children, as comfortably as they can by the exercise of their abilities and
their crafts. They may be as rationally realistic, as may the butchers and the
bakers; but the artist and the author forget the high glories of their calling
if they condescend to make a money return a first object. They who preach this
doctrine will be much offended by my theory, and by this book of mine, if my
theory and my book come beneath their notice. They require the practice of a
so-called virtue which is contrary to nature, and which, in my eyes, would be
no virtue if it were practised. They are like clergymen who preach sermons
against the love of money, but who know that the love of money is so
distinctive a characteristic of humanity that such sermons are mere platitudes
called for by customary but unintelligent piety. All material progress has
come from man's desire to do the best he can for himself and those about him,
and civilisation and Christianity itself have been made possible by such
progress. Though we do not all of us argue this matter out within our breasts,
we do all feel it; and we know that the more a man earns the more useful he is
to his fellow-men. The most useful lawyers, as a rule, have been those who
have made the greatest incomes,--and it is the same with the doctors. It would
be the same in the Church if they who have the choosing of bishops always
chose the best man. And it has in truth been so too in art and authorship. Did
Titian or Rubens disregard their pecuniary rewards? As far as we know,
Shakespeare worked always for money, giving the best of his intellect to
support his trade as an actor. In our own century what literary names stand
higher than those of Byron, Tennyson, Scott, Dickens, Macaulay, and Carlyle?
And I think I may say that none of those great men neglected the pecuniary
result of their labours. Now and then a man may arise among us who in any
calling, whether it be in law, in physic, in religious teaching, in art, or
literature, may in his professional enthusiasm utterly disregard money. All
will honour his enthusiasm, and if he be wifeless and childless, his disregard
of the great object of men's work will be blameless. But it is a mistake to
suppose that a man is a better man because he despises money. Few do so, and
those few in doing so suffer a defeat. Who does not desire to be hospitable to
his friends, generous to the poor, liberal to all, munificent to his children,
and to be himself free from the casking fear which poverty creates? The
subject will not stand an argument;--and yet authors are told that they should
disregard payment for their work, and be content to devote their unbought
brains to the welfare of the public. Brains that are unbought will never serve
the public much. Take away from English authors their copyrights, and you
would very soon take away from England her authors.

------
ZeroGravitas
Wanders a bit and is fluffy in parts but many good points, particularly:

 _This may be hard to hear, but: many artists who claim they just want to eat
and pay rent are lying (perhaps to themselves). Most artists don't want a
living wage — they want to win the lottery. Suggest to most filmmakers and
musicians that "success" is about $75,000 a year, and they'll turn up their
noses. You call that a jackpot? They're only in it for the millions, baby. If
that means working a day job and remaining obscure, so be it. Millions need to
be poor so that one can be rich; they're willing to do their time being poor,
so that one day they can be rich at the expense of others. Their turn will
come, they think.

I suggest playing a different game entirely, because the lottery is a tax on
people who are bad at math. But those kinds of artists want to play the
lottery more than they want their art to reach people._

I've had similar thoughts about startup culture. Do people want to run some
obscure online business for the rest of their lives and make a decent wage or
do they want to make a big splash and retire at 25? You can make similar
arguments about decisions to work on open source or proprietary systems, do
you want a living wage or a lottery ticket?

~~~
steerpike
Apparently you read a different article because I got the wandering part but I
didn't get the 'many good points' part.

I'm sorry but the section you quoted is utterly fatuous, without any kind of
figures to back it up. I could quite as easily say that the vast number of
painters, poets, authors, actors, musicians and sculptors that I personally
know would be estatic to be earning $75,000 a year (or equivalent depending on
location). Especially since most of them are currently struggling on a
minicule percentage of that amount year after year after year without any
certainty that they will eventually be able to use the skills they've honed to
pay their way in society.

As far as I can tell her entire argument seems to boil down to 'Art is special
and people should give money to artists because it's special'. I'm not
entirely sure how that can be taken as any kind of argument.

Art of any kind is a skill, it takes years of hard work and dedication to hone
that skill. Her intimation that 'Art' is the domain of the muse and
inspiration utterly ignores the enormous amounts of effort every single artist
commits to honing their craft.

This kind of idiotic talk just makes me so damn furious. Segregating artists
as some kind of 'special needs cases' that should rely on the goodwill of
others in order to do normal things like want to raise a family or buy a house
or pay for dinner out is a disgusting suggestion, not worthy of consideration.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Maybe you did read a different article because if I had to sum it up I'd say
"people _shouldn't_ give money to artists because [they|it] are special".

If your friends were buggy whip makers in the age of motor cars you'd tell
them to give it up. If they responded "but buggy whips are my life" then you'd
be well within your right to say suck it up. Just like if someone wanted to
work 2 or 3 days a week to spend more time with their kids, or take 6 month
holidays every year to wander in the Andes. Everybody makes career and life
choices, everybody gets to live with the consequences.

~~~
steerpike
_The best way society can support the Arts is to allow Art to spread, and to
continue to encourage giving money to artists. That seems pretty natural to
most people anyway, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom._

That's her final sentence, I don't know what the take away from that is if it
isn't 'People should give money to artists out of the generosity of their
heart.'

 _Your_ solution on the other hand seems to be that art is outdated and
artists should give it up if they aren't making money from it? Art = Buggy
whips in your argument apparently? Not sure what motor cars are supposed to
equate to but I'm sure most 'artists' would be willing to move towards making
them if you could explain to us what they are in your analogy.

 _Everybody makes career and life choices, everybody gets to live with the
consequences._ This is true, except that in the case of artists it's
incredibly difficult to assume personal responsibility for their own success.
Let's say some struggling writer's day job is a programmer (a not uncommon
situation). If this person dedicates a good amount of time towards
programming, enjoys it and sticks with it, honing their craft day by day then
it's a pretty sure thing that those choices will pay off in the form of a
decent job and comfortable salary.

There is nothing he can do to guarantee that his writing will pay off no
matter what career and life choices he makes.

Now here's my main point: there is no fundamental difference between the
process required to become a good programmer and the process required to
become a good writer. The personal choices, decisions and personal(* ) rewards
required to stick with and become capable at both are almost identical.

Why on earth is this woman trying to maintain that 'Art' is some esoteric
special case that should be treated any differently from so many other
identical processes?

(* ) By 'personal rewards' I mean that the level of self worth and enjoyment
for engaging in any classically 'artistic' process is often exactly the same
as that enjoyed by scientists thinking about new theories, architects thinking
about beautiful design, programmers having a eureka moment with code or any
number of similar experiences across any number of professions.

EDIT: I'll also just take a second to respond to this part of your comment:
_Just like if someone wanted to work 2 or 3 days a week to spend more time
with their kids, or take 6 month holidays every year to wander in the Andes._

The comparison between taking a holiday or spending time with the kids and
engaging in some artistic process - as if 'doing art' is the same as taking a
holiday is exactly what I think this woman is promoting and it's exactly what
I think is so moronic about the article. Being good at _anything_ artistic is
f'ing hard work. Full stop.

~~~
jrwoodruff
The problem with art is as soon as you take money for creating it, before it's
created, it's not yours. The many facets of the graphic design profession, for
instance, is arguably the equivalent of working artists. But the work they
create is work that is agreed upon for a predetermined price.

Same with writing. Textbooks, manuals, reference, PR, maybe even journalism
are all writing professions - a piece written for a predetermined salary.
Work.

What sets work and artistic expression apart is that 'art,' as she's defining
it, is whatever the f __* you want it to be.

That's what you can't 'expect' to get paid buckets for.

~~~
GHFigs
And where does the money paid to the author of (say) a textbook come from? Why
is the finished textbook valuable to the publisher?

~~~
jrwoodruff
Mass-production and standardization, in answer to both questions.

While authoring a text book takes skill and practice, it is a process. The
same could be said of a Brittany Spears album. They are carefully crafted to
appeal to a wide audience.

Art serves no one other than the creator. Try to tell Picasso realism is more
popular, or Charles Bukowski that he needs to tone it down. Not gonna happen.
Because they weren't doing it for money, but simply for the pleasure of doing
it - living; satisfying that itch to create something exactly as they wanted
to.

Obviously, sometimes artists happen to strike a chord with society. Their
vision becomes mainstream, their work becomes collectible, lots of money
trades hands. But this didn't happen because an editor said "Bukowski, go
write something these damn hippies will like and I'll pay you $$$"

More often, an artist strikes a chord with a few people. They make a little
money. They keep their day job. Maybe they get a grant.

~~~
GHFigs
Um, that's all well and good, but misses the point of my question. My fault
for being subtle.

Why would a publisher pay an artist to create a work? What does the publisher
need it for? The answer: to sell it. How can the publisher profit from this
arrangement? Without the exclusive right to that work (i.e. copyright), they
can't.

------
sethg
I'm uncomfortable with this essay because the author seems to be buying into
the general idea that there is some bundle of Natural Property Rights that all
humans are entitled to, and the job of a lawmaker is simply to align the
statutes as closely as possible with those rights. The main difference between
her and the pro-copyright lobbyists is that she excludes intellectual property
from the bundle and they want to include it.

~~~
praptak
"[...] the author seems to be buying into the general idea that there is some
bundle of Natural Property Rights that all humans are entitled to [...]"

It is impossible to express opinions about law without (at least implicitly)
assuming some basis for discerning between good and bad law.

Whatever you assume will either look like Natural Rights or Unfounded Personal
Opinion.

~~~
sethg
You can argue that a law achieves a good end (on utilitarian grounds, for
example) without arguing that it ratifies any particular Natural Rights.

------
imgabe
This is one big strawman argument. Copyright doesn't imply that simply
creating Art entitles you to compensation. You can sit at home painting and
copyrighting your Art all day long and never get a penny for it.

 _Not everyone will like a particular work of art. I don't think people who
dislike a work should be obligated to pay for it._

Copyright doesn't do this! I don't like country music. The fact that it's
copyrighted doesn't force me to buy it!

This article hurts my head.

~~~
crux_
I don't think it's a strawman; it's a response to the frequent argument that
artists ought to be compensated for their art via copyright mechanisms... as
she stated in the very first sentence, as a matter of fact. If that argument
was never actually made, well, maybe then it would be a strawman; but it is
made all the time.

The article hurt my head too, by the way, but that is because of the Weird
Capitalization.

I think there's a bit of conflation across several questions going on, both
here and in most discussions on the topic:

* Is an artist entitled to compensation merely for creating art?

* Is an artist entitled to compensation by those who view their art?

* Is an artist entitled to compensation by those who redistribute her art?

~~~
imgabe
She seems to be saying that copyrights are somehow extracting money from
people in exchange for art they don't want and therefore we should do away
with it. This isn't happening. That's why it's a strawman.

------
nickyp
Definitely contains interesting ideas.

But the problem with the lottery ticket mentality is that I think it mostly
stems from the fact that the 'greedy and seedy suits' exert so much control
over other peoples art on top of collecting all/most of the profits (even more
so in the past).

Examples are ample: musicians not owning the actual music (in the past not
even owning the actual recording masters), not able to decide how/when to
(re)release albums, directors/creators of movies not owning 'video rights' and
as such not in charge of how crappy a DVD is put together, comic book
artists/writers not even having control over a character they invented from
scratch...

The only reason you would ever put up with such ...ahem... 'fascism' is that
you get compensated beyond a 'living wage'.

Also: I don't equate control/copyright over your own art/work with being able
to control weather someone can get a hold of your art without paying for it.

That kind of thinking is completely obsolete this day and age and again only
serves one purpose: maximize profits by ripping of (cfr. Nine In Nails album
pricing in certain countries) or pestering consumers (cfr. DRM & unskippable
'do not steal' intros on DVD's you just bought)

Once the control problem goes away, new and equally profitable means of
monetization can and should be created without feeling cheated (cfr. Radiohead
In Rainbows)

We all know how it feels to work a job that has a crappy commute or crappy
hours/people but happily put up with it if you're compensated more than
enough.

When it comes to losing control over your art, only billions are 'more than
enough' it seems ;-)

~~~
alexkay
_new and equally profitable means of monetization can and should be created_

The mean has already been created thousands years ago, it's called
_performing_.

~~~
nickyp
Good point, but unfortunately that only applies to the performing arts.

And even then the issue of control comes to play. I know for a fact that if
you want to play a certain big festival in my country you have to agree that
t-shirts can only be bought at the designated stand, for a price that's higher
than the price you decide and they take a cut of the profits.

Again, maximising profits by ripping of customers beyond your control...

Anyway, I wouldn't mind paying for a 3 hour live performance of Apocalypse Now
(but only with the original actors, director and in the original location ;-)

~~~
Radix
These festivals shouldn't be run by media business people, they should be run
by musician business people. If there are too many people taking cuts then
things will cost too much.

------
diN0bot
> "If I decide to sit behind a desk, take calls, devise flawed business plans,
> and lie, do I DESERVE to be compensated like a bank CEO....If I sing and
> prance around on stage, am I entitled to $110 million a year? It's the same
> work Madonna does, and that's what she makes."

Theoretically, what if you are exactly as good as a bank CEO? What if you sing
and dance and compose exactly like Madonna?

Then do you deserve to be paid after the fact?

When an artist happens to make a piece of art that someone puts value on,
what's wrong with the artist receiving money? Especially if the "buyer" were
going to pay someone else instead (a shrewd middle man). Perhaps this money is
supposed to be thought of as a donation?

Still, people want to own art. When an artist randomly makes art and then goes
to a market to sell them, is that more like a comission? What about all the
farmers and other folks at a market selling wares that weren't pre-
comissioned? It's a natural exchange, though. Or maybe I'm brainwashed by
culture.

Finally, why not just say that "Artists should be compensated for good
artwork"? Who cares if it is art or work or whatever. People should pay where
they see value and do their best to pay smartly; eg, pay the artist so they
produce more and are rewarded, and don't pay, eg the record labels more than
their fair share (damn extortionists!). Technology seems to be helping in this
area.

Sometimes work doesn't have a lot of value for other people. That's ok, too.
It doesn't matter whether it is art or serious. Honestly, my best projects are
those that merge the serious and artistic, but that's a whole other story and
cultural perspective.

ps - this reminded me of KickStarter <http://kickstarter.com>

------
cousin_it
I found the article pretty much correct. After all mathematicians survive just
fine without copyrighting their theorems, which are just as beautiful and
divinely inspired (if you choose to think in those terms) and much more
beneficial to society.

~~~
gaius
That's not a good analogy. Mathematicians are employed a) by universities, so
their compensation is their salary (+ tenure) or b) by investment banks, so
their compensation is their salary (+ bonus). There're no freelance
mathematicians selling directly to the general public.

~~~
cousin_it
Sorry, but I don't understand how your comment constitutes an objection to my
comment - it's more like sideways. Universities don't receive copyrights on
theorems either. This proves that copyright isn't a necessary condition for
the creation of publicly beneficial intellectual property. Society can create
mechanisms to compensate creators by other means: make a university-like
institution for musicians, and you'll be OK.

~~~
gaius
It sounds like you're advocating musicians being salaried employees of record
labels.

~~~
cousin_it
Sorry again, but I can't parse your comments at all. If we abolish copyright,
do you think record labels will continue to exist in their present form?

------
diN0bot
it's interesting to watch Nina Paley's interviews on YouTube. For example, on
credit:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyH3UvfjGag&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyH3UvfjGag&feature=related)

Incidentally, I started watching these interviews because when I got to the
end of Sita Sings the Blues, I was a little miffed to see the following note
_while the credits flashed_ : "it took me a long time to make, so please tell
me what you think."

I thought the use of "I" was a little jarring, though possibly reasonable.
Nonetheless, it gave me pause. I don't expect "fairness" [see interviews] to
be possible until everyone uses "we" fairly.

------
unalone
I'm not sure what I think about the article, _but_ : If you haven't seen
Haley's movie Sita Sings The Blues, you are missing out on one of the coolest
and funniest movies of 2008, and it's available for free
downloading/torrenting.

------
jasongullickson
In a culture where the financial value of work trumps all other methods of
measurement there will be no "rational" way to support all forms of art.

For something like this to work in a sustainable way, the means of managing
liquid value need to evolve.

Some say that the difference between your "work" and your "job" is that you
would do the former if you were paid for it or not, keep this in mind.

------
tptacek
What on earth is this person's point?

Are artists entitled to compensation for creating art? Of course not.

Are consumers entitled to access to any given artist's art? Of course not.

Where does that leave us? Same needle, same thread.

