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:

Filed Under: commercial use, noncommercial use

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Textynn, 2 Oct 2010 @ 7:27pm

    free use.

    I used to have an artistic rubber stamp business. These are rubber stamps that have artwork for hobbyists to make cards , etc with. The seller , obviously, has to allow users a limited copyright to make cards or whatever. Most artistic rubber stamp businesses have an official policy about the use of their images. They usually require that work done with their images can be sold up to 500 or some arbitrary number like that.

    When publishing rubber stamp art, artists list all the rubber stamps by image with company name somewhere in the text. It may sound a little funny to do this but this is the way it is done.

    One thing that can happen if an artist does not protect themselves when it comes to free images is someone can claim the image after a while and then turn around and forbid the actual artist to use the work. You have to be heavily protected which free art usually is not. If a wealthy company wants to steal your work and you're not protected, it's gone. period.

    Another problem is if someone's work is believed to be the property of another and the artist tries to sell something of theirs that is similar, potential buyers wonder if the artist really owns the work or worry that it looks too much like something owned by "they think" someone else, etc.

    The user should always give credit for free art and the artist should always stipulate that credit is required for use,as well as, the work is not available to be sold by others outside of small numbers at what I would call a "Craft Level". Selling an artist's work at the national or international level would obviously be prohibited under this stipulation.

    Many stamp artists also stipulate that their images cannot be altered and also their copyright mark must remain. If you are going to pay to copyright your work, you might as well retain control of it. Otherwise, someone else will.

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
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

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