Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?

from the free-promotion dept

We've discussed a few times how the whole distinction between "commercial use" and "non-commercial use" can be somewhat arbitrary. Even though many Creative Commons supporters insist that a "non-commercial" license is the way to go, there are some good arguments as to why such a limitation isn't a good idea either.

Long-time Techdirt reader SteelWolf sent in a blog post he recently did on the subject, where he makes the argument that uncompensated commercial use of an artist's work isn't something to worry about. The idea that some company will come along and "profit" from your work without giving you a cent is misguided, because there are all sorts of opportunities for you to take advantage of such a use directly yourself:
A budding musical artist writes and records a song, putting it into the Public Domain/copyleft on his website for his fans to share and enjoy how they wish. Somebody from a major television network finds the song and use it in a new show without even giving credit. The show goes on to become a hit, making the network millions while the musician remains poor. How should he respond?

First of all one has to understand that it is highly unlikely that the show was successful solely because of the inclusion of the song. Commercial success does not suddenly mean money is owed. While it may have been nice to get free money (royalties and the like) from repeated airings of the show, it is not that but the lack of proper attribution that is the real cause for frustration.

Assuming the network will never deign to correct its mistake, I think one of the most important things to do is use the internet connect the song and show back to the artist. If the song really brought that many people to the show, they are likely to start searching for it online. Something like a post on the artist's website will show up clearly in search results, and it gives the artist an opportunity to direct new visitors to free downloads of the song, concert dates, and his other reasons to buy (perhaps tweaked to appeal to fans of the show). It's also a good idea to have a way for people to send donations.

Granted, these things aren't going to make you rich, but then neither are royalties. What it does do is save the artist tons of money in legal costs trying to fight the network, and help build his name as somebody who creates quality music and expand his fanbase -- all despite the network's "oversight" in crediting the person behind the work.
On top of that, we've seen over and over again, that when a company makes use of someone else's work for such uses without properly crediting the artist, it usually doesn't take much for that word to spread, and get more attention drawn to the artist. The artist can put up a blog post, noting that the TV show didn't credit him or her, and that even helps the story spread as well. It's yet another case where social mores work better than not just copyright, but non-commercial Creative Commons license as well.

And, with that, we'll leave the last word to Nina Paley:
non-commercial

Filed Under: commercial use, noncommercial use


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    watson, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:05am

    That’s right, this website is one of the top 12,000 most viewed in FUCKING PAKISTAN.
    Why? Because they are the “English speaking writers” this fucked up company hires. I have also found evidence that suggests they have other writers in India and the Philippines. I know of a couple of companies that offer real English writers and I thought was one of them. Turns out they’re just a bunch of liars.

    The scam is real. They are thieves who could care less about you. Maybe you’ve had a couple decent papers from them. But sleep well knowing that they will take any measure to screw you over.

    That’s enough. Rant’s over. Fuck you,

    Sincerely,
    A VERY PISSED OFF FORMER CUSTOMER

    Reviewed by Sean Evans on March 25,2013 – Rating: 1.0
    Miserable experience.They ripped me off for $600 for a dissertation and refuse to give me my money back.”
    2 THOUGHTS ON
    Taylor on June 4, 2013 at 10:52 PM said:
    You are right. I have been debating with them for at least a month now, trying to get my refunds, it’s because the writer can’t even write shit or follow the prompt. Claimed to be “professional” yeah right. They also claimed that they refunded my money already by just clearing out my balance. However, the email I received from money bookers still saying I was charged on that date. They lied & keep on saying “your refunds should be in 4-6.” i waited & after 2 weeks, still nothing. I keep on checking back even though they closed my inquiry many times. I mean, I only uploaded $55 for the balance, but I didn’t use it. The money isn’t that a big deal, it’s just the writers & their service is poorly done. I cancelled the writer because 1. Passed deadline 2. The paper was off topic, completely vague, lacks development & much more. 3. way different from U.S writing style 4. Busy schedule & I just want to try how this service work. Personally, i definitely to not recommend this service.

    Reply ↓
    admin on June 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM said:
    Thanks for your feedback, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.