Art, Fandom and Money
Jan. 19th, 2012 05:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bethanys_hexSnowflake Challenge - Day 5
In your own space, share something non-fannish you are passionate about with your fannish friends. Leave a comment in this post saying you did it. Include a link to your post if you feel comfortable doing so.
Artist's rights.
I know that may sound arrogant and snobbish, given how much of fandom is about art and writing and music, but it is an issue that's very, very important to me.
I read this fantastic post on livejournal, by bookshop, while looking through the Snowflake Challenge, and it got me thinking. Particularly the line which said of a published work "The only difference between this and a 50k Sheldon/Penny fanfic is that: one of these is on my bookshelf & someone got paid for it, one is on my computer & someone did it for love."
That was a great line, and a bitter truth. I love the boundless creativity on the internet. I love to see our culture embrace the sort of fluid storytelling that dates back to oral traditions and move away from this idea that original work is the only type that matters. Since all creative work is remixing to one degree or another. There are many beautiful essays to that effect though, like bookshop's, and I didn't feel the need to make another one. So instead I wanted to talk about the independent artists caught in the middle.
In this long debate about the legitimacy of fanwork, I see volleys flying between publishers and fans. I know that as a fan Copyright can be frustrating, and the cause of much gnashing of teeth. It means that at the behest of authors (cough Anne Rice), our writing is rubbed out and our videos deleted. The creative work that we put time and heart into erased. I cannot ever condone the behavior of Rice or her ilk, but I wanted to point out to fandom that the issue is not simply between them and the evil empire.
Copyright law means a lot to multitudes of artists and writers who don't have big names.
Under current Copyright law, (as far I know) when you create something it automatically belongs to you. Copyright is intended to defend an artist, or author from plagiarism for monetary gain. Here's an example, I met a man in college who'd worked in matte-painting. One day he saw a painting that he'd made on the background of a video game he never worked on. It hadn't been altered, or tweaked or used for inspiration. Someone had stolen the painting and used a direct copy to make the game, which they then made money at. That is the plagiarism Copyright is meant to protect against. Since the profits do not go to the artist who created the work, but the company that is selling it. I imagine the same goes for actors and musicians.
Most of the time, if a work is stolen for profit, the artists can't afford a lawyer to bring the issue to court. The ones who can, and do bring it to court are usually the big boys like Disney. For the independent artist (who works part-time as a teacher, or a bouncer, or a retail clerk) The copyright law is their one flimsy defense to discourage people from stealing their work in the first place.
You are like them. The work that you make for fandom is worth being paid for if you want to charge for it. It is something unique, that required time and skill to make. That it is displayed for free on the net is your choice, and one I admire. But because that one painting of Luke Skywalker is free does not mean that all artwork should likewise be free.
Somehow the wider world has built this idea that because an artist will keep making art regardless of whether they make money at it, that means art is something to be appreciated but not paid for; that it's not worth money. So anyone who isn't a rockstar in the “art world” doesn't make a living at it, even though their skills are just as high as a carpenter, or a nurse.
I have lost count of how many times I have seen “we're a small start-up and can't pay you, but it will be good for your portfolio.” A ploy which is asking for free work. Can you imagine if you tried to pull that on a doctor? “You can fix my broken leg, and while I can't pay you for it, you'll be able to tell others how you fixed my leg and build your reputation.” No, the only reputation that builds is that the doctor is a sap.
So I can understand a bit when artists and writers become possessive of their work. That their attitude sometimes bleeds over to fandom is a shame. I think some people take the line of “never work for free” too far and try to stifle fanwork because they feel that any free work sets a precedent that art and writing are skills that aren't worth money. I do not agree with that, but I can see their point.
It is extremely difficult to find work as an artist. Not because there is a lack of demand, but because there is a lack ethics. While our culture thrives on artwork (from shiny hollywood blockbusters, to fanfiction, to advertisements, to home-knit gloves) it simultaneously has no value for it.
Blaming fandom for this is absurd in my opinion. The only people to blame for such scams are the douche-bag's actually pulling them. One man I know went for an interview with an animation company, looking to make a short film. He spent half a day drawing up an animation test. Later he found out they'd had every candidate who interviewed with them do the same thing and they had nearly the whole animation made for free. Sleeze-oids.
So all this is to say. Yes, fandom is legitimate, but the issue is also complicated. Since we use “original” and "unoriginal” as the definition for what artwork should be paid for and what shouldn't, it then becomes very important to define what is and isn't “original.”
Personally I think that's a silly way to look at it. There is no such thing as original and all creative work is worth money, because it is all made with skill. If the artist wants to give it away for free that is their decision and their right, but if the artist asks for payment that should be respected. How much it is worth is a whole other discussion.
This whole thing touches on intense issues about free speech, fair use, public domain and more, as big studios clash with the public. Big producers like Disney and Time Warner are making the majority of noise about copyright infringements, yet already make a bundle of cash. On some level there has to be an acknowledgment from them, that once you send out a piece of artwork, writing, or music it becomes part of the public language. There is no way around that. People use what they see, (videos, art and media) to talk about the world they inhabit. To restrict that ability is to restrict the right to free speech.
I think a studios guiding principle needs to be make a living, not a killing. In that vein, the copyright protections are absolutely essential for young, start up artists and authors. It is on their behalf that congress should make efforts to protect copyright, not the empire of evil known as the MPAA.
As a parting note, there is something I want to recommend here which is both fannish (in terms of re-mixing) and not. The HITRECORD, which is a project started by Joseph Gordon Levitt. I hope it will be a great step towards narrowing the gap between stars, and starving artists, by ensuring that creative work is valued, whether you're a big name or not.
Link to the HITRECORD
In your own space, share something non-fannish you are passionate about with your fannish friends. Leave a comment in this post saying you did it. Include a link to your post if you feel comfortable doing so.
Artist's rights.
I know that may sound arrogant and snobbish, given how much of fandom is about art and writing and music, but it is an issue that's very, very important to me.
I read this fantastic post on livejournal, by bookshop, while looking through the Snowflake Challenge, and it got me thinking. Particularly the line which said of a published work "The only difference between this and a 50k Sheldon/Penny fanfic is that: one of these is on my bookshelf & someone got paid for it, one is on my computer & someone did it for love."
That was a great line, and a bitter truth. I love the boundless creativity on the internet. I love to see our culture embrace the sort of fluid storytelling that dates back to oral traditions and move away from this idea that original work is the only type that matters. Since all creative work is remixing to one degree or another. There are many beautiful essays to that effect though, like bookshop's, and I didn't feel the need to make another one. So instead I wanted to talk about the independent artists caught in the middle.
In this long debate about the legitimacy of fanwork, I see volleys flying between publishers and fans. I know that as a fan Copyright can be frustrating, and the cause of much gnashing of teeth. It means that at the behest of authors (cough Anne Rice), our writing is rubbed out and our videos deleted. The creative work that we put time and heart into erased. I cannot ever condone the behavior of Rice or her ilk, but I wanted to point out to fandom that the issue is not simply between them and the evil empire.
Copyright law means a lot to multitudes of artists and writers who don't have big names.
Under current Copyright law, (as far I know) when you create something it automatically belongs to you. Copyright is intended to defend an artist, or author from plagiarism for monetary gain. Here's an example, I met a man in college who'd worked in matte-painting. One day he saw a painting that he'd made on the background of a video game he never worked on. It hadn't been altered, or tweaked or used for inspiration. Someone had stolen the painting and used a direct copy to make the game, which they then made money at. That is the plagiarism Copyright is meant to protect against. Since the profits do not go to the artist who created the work, but the company that is selling it. I imagine the same goes for actors and musicians.
Most of the time, if a work is stolen for profit, the artists can't afford a lawyer to bring the issue to court. The ones who can, and do bring it to court are usually the big boys like Disney. For the independent artist (who works part-time as a teacher, or a bouncer, or a retail clerk) The copyright law is their one flimsy defense to discourage people from stealing their work in the first place.
You are like them. The work that you make for fandom is worth being paid for if you want to charge for it. It is something unique, that required time and skill to make. That it is displayed for free on the net is your choice, and one I admire. But because that one painting of Luke Skywalker is free does not mean that all artwork should likewise be free.
Somehow the wider world has built this idea that because an artist will keep making art regardless of whether they make money at it, that means art is something to be appreciated but not paid for; that it's not worth money. So anyone who isn't a rockstar in the “art world” doesn't make a living at it, even though their skills are just as high as a carpenter, or a nurse.
I have lost count of how many times I have seen “we're a small start-up and can't pay you, but it will be good for your portfolio.” A ploy which is asking for free work. Can you imagine if you tried to pull that on a doctor? “You can fix my broken leg, and while I can't pay you for it, you'll be able to tell others how you fixed my leg and build your reputation.” No, the only reputation that builds is that the doctor is a sap.
So I can understand a bit when artists and writers become possessive of their work. That their attitude sometimes bleeds over to fandom is a shame. I think some people take the line of “never work for free” too far and try to stifle fanwork because they feel that any free work sets a precedent that art and writing are skills that aren't worth money. I do not agree with that, but I can see their point.
It is extremely difficult to find work as an artist. Not because there is a lack of demand, but because there is a lack ethics. While our culture thrives on artwork (from shiny hollywood blockbusters, to fanfiction, to advertisements, to home-knit gloves) it simultaneously has no value for it.
Blaming fandom for this is absurd in my opinion. The only people to blame for such scams are the douche-bag's actually pulling them. One man I know went for an interview with an animation company, looking to make a short film. He spent half a day drawing up an animation test. Later he found out they'd had every candidate who interviewed with them do the same thing and they had nearly the whole animation made for free. Sleeze-oids.
So all this is to say. Yes, fandom is legitimate, but the issue is also complicated. Since we use “original” and "unoriginal” as the definition for what artwork should be paid for and what shouldn't, it then becomes very important to define what is and isn't “original.”
Personally I think that's a silly way to look at it. There is no such thing as original and all creative work is worth money, because it is all made with skill. If the artist wants to give it away for free that is their decision and their right, but if the artist asks for payment that should be respected. How much it is worth is a whole other discussion.
This whole thing touches on intense issues about free speech, fair use, public domain and more, as big studios clash with the public. Big producers like Disney and Time Warner are making the majority of noise about copyright infringements, yet already make a bundle of cash. On some level there has to be an acknowledgment from them, that once you send out a piece of artwork, writing, or music it becomes part of the public language. There is no way around that. People use what they see, (videos, art and media) to talk about the world they inhabit. To restrict that ability is to restrict the right to free speech.
I think a studios guiding principle needs to be make a living, not a killing. In that vein, the copyright protections are absolutely essential for young, start up artists and authors. It is on their behalf that congress should make efforts to protect copyright, not the empire of evil known as the MPAA.
As a parting note, there is something I want to recommend here which is both fannish (in terms of re-mixing) and not. The HITRECORD, which is a project started by Joseph Gordon Levitt. I hope it will be a great step towards narrowing the gap between stars, and starving artists, by ensuring that creative work is valued, whether you're a big name or not.
Link to the HITRECORD
