If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Apple Praised For Repair Reforms Only Made Possible By New Oregon Law It Tried To Kill
- UK Prosecutors Apologize For Pursuing BS Charges Against A Photographer
- Palworld Creator Loves That Others Are Trying To Clone The Game
- Sextortion Is A Real & Serious Criminal Issue; Blaming Section 230 For It Is Not
- Cops Claim Body Cam Footage Of Wrong Address Raid Would Be 'Dangerous' To Release To General Public
Comments on “Incentivized Creation”
That gave me a chuckle on multiple levels.
This one’s getting sent to a few of my friends for sure 🙂
Vs.
That’s the difference between those who create art out of love for art and those who create art/product for financial reasons.
There have been millions of comments (most within the last week) that have confused the desire to get paid to do what you love with the right to get paid to do what you love.
And once you start claiming that “right,” you’re no longer creating art because you’re an artist. You’re creating product because you’re a businessperson.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with wanting to create a successful business. But successful businesses aren’t normally built on demanding that your customers pay the price that you want. They’ll pay what it’s worth to them.
Art is inherently “worthless.” That’s why you’ve got to do it because you love it, rather than do it because it’s going to feed, clothe and house you (and your family) for the next 70+ years, because in most cases, it won’t.
I work two jobs and write in my spare time because I love to write. I harbor no illusions that writing will ever take the place of my other sources of income. But that doesn’t stop me from doing it. Many others do the same thing in other fields.
But for some reason, the most vocal minority are those that somehow got it into their heads that the road to riches is paved with art. And to make it worse, they keep claiming that without a guaranteed paycheck, art will somehow die out. Art was never about the paycheck. It still isn’t. People will still pursue what they love without hope of getting paid because THEY LOVE DOING IT.
Those of you bitching about a lack of financial protection don’t love what you’re doing. Stop calling it “art” and start calling it “product” if that’s your thought process.
“I’ll never make money making music thanks to pirates.”
Great. Stop making music then. Who needs you? There are thousands and thousands of others willing to keep going despite the long odds.
“If you don’t protect my art against use by others, I have no reason to create anything.”
Fine. Don’t. We won’t miss you.
“HuffPo didn’t pay us for our blogging.”
I’m sorry. I couldn’t hear you over the thousands of writers shouting “Pick me!”
Re: Vs.
This can’t be marked” insightful” enough. This is the bottom line in most arguments surrounding copyright. I started creating my own stories when I was a kid because I realized no one else would tell exactly the stories I wanted to hear. Now I write and release the content for free. I won’t make a dime off my writing and I like it that way. I write for pleasure, not for pay.
How many of the copyright maximalists are unimaginative lawyers with no artistic bone in their body?
Re: Vs.
“I work two jobs and write in my spare time because I love to write. I harbor no illusions that writing will ever take the place of my other sources of income. But that doesn’t stop me from doing it. Many others do the same thing in other fields.”
A-Freaking-Men, brother….
Re: Vs.
I do agree with the your sentiment, but copyright is incentivizing creation and should.
Your argument should be made against *increasing* copyright duration from the original time frame. Or in favor of returning to that time frame.
This is more of an ‘implementation’ issue rather than whether incentivising creation should or should not exist. And I am talking about digital and physical works. Creators still have the ‘right’ to protect their works online.
As Mike says, its just that there’s a better way in the digital world; which is not enforcing copyright when you have the infinite ability of the internet.
Re: Vs.
So, what do you call those that do both – I love what I do (making games, which I do believe is an art), but I also make my living out of it as a small independent game developer ?
I totally agree though, that demanding our commercial ‘rights’ is not the way to go. As Mike has pointed out time and again, obscurity is the biggest problem for a small artist/developer/business.
Re: Re: Vs.
That if you’re making art with the right mindset, you will start looking to provide reasons for potential customers to support you financially rather than demanding that you get a paycheck.
Sometimes that’s as simple as putting out a quality product at a reasonable price. Other times it involves fun promotions (See: TF2 hats) or more risky experiments (See: Humble Indie Bundle). Regardless, somebody making art instead of “product” who would like to make money from it is in the same place with or without the so-called protections provided by copyright, and is better off ignoring them and simply focusing on creating great stuff people would be willing to buy.
I don’t get the cartoon. Can someone explain what “I’ll stop producing the mercenary commercial product lawyers call art” means?
I guess there should be a comma after “commercial”. Even if that’s the case I still don’t get it.
Re: Re:
I don’t get you not getting it.
Can you explain punctuation usage and its applicability in modern culture?
Re: Re: Re:
Why do I feel a Flowers Of Algernon moment coming on?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not enough capital involved?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Love that book/movie – great reference!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
+1!!!
Re: Re:
“mercenary commercial” is descriptive of “the product”. Lawyers are equating this “product” to “art”.
“mercenary commercial” in this case means that “the product” is made only for the purpose of making money.
Most people agree that art’s fundamental purpose is not to make money. Some people do make money from their art, but that shouldn’t be the original goal. (And often enough, commercial “art” is of the same high quality as art that is made out of love).
Get it now?
Re: Re: Re:
*isn’t of the same high quality
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/04/google-sick-of-dealing-with-labels-may-drop-portions-of-music-service.html
Even Google would agree with that since they are “sick of dealing with labels”.
Spot on.
love it
Nina Paley is fabulous.
I LOVE IT!
You know what bugs me most about this so-called-commercial-art, is that some critics value unintentional aspects of design as art, or they value the ‘art’ created by animals.
Art, itself, isn’t just the product or end result. Its the process by which the product was developed. Painstaking detail isn’t enough, either. You must tak into consideration the inspirations as well.
Art is MORE about the artists’ understanding of a situation and the presentation of that understanding in a form that can be appreciated by the target audience, than the actual, tangible product of the presentation.
What I find artistic about ‘commercial art’ is that when a design is inspiring but fits within the insanely strict guidelines set forth by the limitations of technology and the whims of every stakeholder on a project, THEN you have a work of art. But that WORK is usually limited to the creativity that the ‘artist’ was able to generate within those confines.