Creative Commons - different look at copyrights

[Ron van den Boogaard]

In this day and age it is really hard to hold on to copyrights (as the music industry is finding out). A rethink of the whole concept might be needed.
The legal dept of Stanford came up with the Creative Commons licensing. Very roughly limiting copyright to only certain aspects: e.g. you may copy my art, redistribute it under the same license, modify it, anything as long as it does not constitute commercial use.
They have a number of variations. And are trying to make the legal texts legal in almost every country.

I think it is a great idea, which is much more in line with modern times.

[timelady]

Why should someone be able to distribute YOUR work without your consent or you earning a wage based on that work? That doesn't make sense to me. Why would anyone want to make a copy without it being for commercial use? Making a copy for yourself IS commercial use - you are avoiding purchasing the original, and thus denying the artist fair wages for their work. Excepting education use of course which is already covered by current copyright laws.

If this happens the artist earns NOTHING from the distribution of their work. Don't we earn near enough to nothing already?

All from teh point of view of a non-famous, full-time, living artist.
Tina.

[Ron van den Boogaard]

Originally posted by timelady
Why should someone be able to distribute YOUR work without your consent or you earning a wage based on that work? That doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps because someone likes to make a print of it and send it to a friend, perhaps think that it is a nice basis for another piece of art, etc.
Why would anyone want to make a copy without it being for commercial use? Making a copy for yourself IS commercial use - you are avoiding purchasing the original, and thus denying the artist fair wages for their work. Excepting education use of course which is already covered by current copyright laws.

If this happens the artist earns NOTHING from the distribution of their work. Don't we earn near enough to nothing already?

All from teh point of view of a non-famous, full-time, living artist.
Tina.

Fact of the matter is that copyrights don't work anymore, so the Creative commons really provide a way to make copyrights more up to date. I forgot the webaddress btw www.creativecommons.org (http://www.creativecommons.org) so you can see for yourself what their thinking is and what the various licenses mean. Copying something from the web and making a print, to my mind hardly constitutes commercial use. There is no comparison with a real painting. Commercial use would be having postcards printed and selling those at a profit (and not have my permission)

[CarlyHardy]

If someone wants to use an image privately, it would be much nicer for them to make a request to the artist....than for them to have free license to use an image as they choose...for friends and family.

Yes, copyright is difficult to control on the web....if anyone thinks otherwise, check out some of the threads in the internet strategies forum, but should the artist have to abide by a 'common use' for their work? I don't think so.

Thanks for sharing this with all of us!
carly

[timelady]

Because they like it and want to send it to a friend?

--then buy the artwork or a limited edition print!
Otherwise it's stealing my work. And that's from an artist who doesn't mind people downloading my images and looking at them onscreen. I have had purchases from buyers who needed to think about it and look at the work for a while first. Printing it and giving it to someone else as a piece of art is different, if it's intended to be used to hang or frame on the wall. Again, for reference is different and that's already covered under current copyright laws as educational use.

Because it might make a nice basis for another artwork?
--Fine. That's already covered under educational use in my opinion. If the work is a copy or derivative of my work, then again that is stealing. We put a lot of time, energy, research and investment into our artwork. Another artist just using all of that for free is unfair. So they make tons of profit (since all they're paying for is their materials) while we who make the original investment make far less? And of course we only profit once, they can make as many copies as they want? Again, the current laws are fine.

Please explain how this is fair or desired? I'd really like to know why you want to give your artwork away. Do you make a living with your work? (or aim to?) I only say that because in my experience hobbyists have been far happier to give their work away in ways I haven't been able to because I can't afford to give it away. (ie. local events, charity auctions, publishing for fundraising, art as gifts to friends and family)

I agree that current copyright laws are hard to enforce. But so are many laws, that doesn't necessarily mean the laws should be scrapped. It's the enforcement that isn't working, not the laws themselves. I can't see it getting any better because of the international scope of the law, but I'd rather at least have the right to pursue criminals than have it taken away.

Tina.

[Ron van den Boogaard]

Well, anyway, personally I think the idea is so nice that everything on my website and the soon to be released cd-rom is under a Creative Commons license.
I rather see that someone prints my work and send it to a friend than that I feel I am such a micer and so cheap that I want money for everything I do. I just want the bucks for the original or commercial use.
It feels like it is more in step with modern times.

[timelady]

Are you making a living from fine art alone? Or trying to?

I guess that's where I'm coming from. Seeing as I scrape together my pennies for rent each month I hardly see it as greedy or miserly to want a meager income from the work I've put in. (I don't do 'commercial use' as I'm only a painter and don't do illustration.) Obviously my main concern with this idea is the part about distribution - IF they are talking about making reproductions of the artwork to be used for the same purpose as an original. To hang on a wall.

I applaud you for deciding to make your work freeware as it were, if you are in the financial position to do so. I do wonder how will this affect the value of the original work in the present and future? That's another issue of course as ideally our work should appreciate in value for a collector if we're doing things right. :) (in the long term) What effect will loads of free, authorised prints circulating have on the originals?

Important point: this site not talking about new copyright laws but simply licenses. Completely different argument in my opinion. For many things I can see how this version of a 'license' is useful. In fact, I'd go so far as to point out that you've always been able to license your work with any or all of the stipulations the Creative Commons allows you to. This is still normal copyright law but simply giving license for certain uses. They are exactly the kinds of legal riders you see in freeware and shareware agreements.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm all for supporting projects of public benefit (like the one in your article about the legal audio files), and small makers of shareware and freeware. I just don't understand the value of this applied to fine art. In fact no where in the examples or license descriptions on this site does it give an example of fine art (painting, original printmaking, scupture, etc.) with respect to the licenses. That I can find anyway. I *can* understand the value of it for photographs or digital images of fine art - they could be used as web graphics and illustrations for articles, etc giving you wider exposure.

Tina.

[Ron van den Boogaard]

Are you making a living from fine art alone? Or trying to?

Well, trying to, but there asre periods I can actually live of it, but not always yet.

I don't really think that any digitally redistribution will have any negative affect on my income or on the future value. However the last point is up to speculation and I can't really tell how that will develop.
I tend to think that in effect a limited copyright might turn out to be a marketing tool, rather than robbing me of income. A picture on the web has actually so little to do with the original (unfortenately) as sizes are so different and colour representation, strokes, etc. are not really well represented, the digital image comes into it's own. Perhaps with all the modern technology one could be able to print a decent postcard sized reproduction of it, but that's about as far as it goes.

And I think/hope the wider exposure is in fact the biggest benefit of this, be it on the web or as prints or whatever creative solutions people come up with.

[arlene]

Originally posted by Ron van den Boogaard
Well, anyway, personally I think the idea is so nice that everything on my website and the soon to be released cd-rom is under a Creative Commons license.
I rather see that someone prints my work and send it to a friend than that I feel I am such a micer and so cheap that I want money for everything I do. I just want the bucks for the original or commercial use.
It feels like it is more in step with modern times.

Obviously you don't make your living from your art. If your only income was from your art, I bet you'd feel differently!

and tell me when you go to your paying job, do you do it to be nice?

what absolute hogwash!!!!

[Lady Rando]

Originally posted by arlene

what absolute hogwash!!!!

I agree, just another way to rip of an artist. Thanks but no thanks.

[Ron van den Boogaard]

Well, actually I do live of it full time and I don't have a paying job, so that doesn't enter into it.

In a broader sense I found that giving away art, actually is a good way to attract more attention and it does boost sales.
And on top of everything else remains that purely for practical reasons, how are you ever gonna inforce copyrights on a case at the other end of the world. Just for the sher practicality of that a limited copyright makes sense.

And even so, if you would get some copyright from some digital picture off the web, you'd be talking a few bucks which is nothing compared to the price of the original, so it is not even worth while bothering.

But I have just put all this on my site, I will keep you guys posted on any (negative or positive) effects it has.

[arlene]

Originally posted by Ron van den Boogaard
In a broader sense I found that giving away art, actually is a good way to attract more attention and it does boost sales.

never has from me...they just want more freebies.

And on top of everything else remains that purely for practical reasons, how are you ever gonna inforce copyrights on a case at the other end of the world. Just for the sher practicality of that a limited copyright makes sense.

a good crook can get into a bank and rob it, so does that justify handing them the keys to the bank?

your logic escapes me...

And even so, if you would get some copyright from some digital picture off the web, you'd be talking a few bucks which is nothing compared to the price of the original, so it is not even worth while bothering.

a few bucks mulitplied by hundred's or thousands of prints adds up to quite a lot. also as an artist doing (what i hope is) high quality paintings, the last thing I want is to see my art on someone's mug or tee shirt.

[paintergirl]

Originally posted by Ron van den Boogaard


And I think/hope the wider exposure is in fact the biggest benefit of this, be it on the web or as prints or whatever creative solutions people come up with.

You would hope but no, that is not neccessarily true...
My first year painting I did portrait series of the 45 lighthouses of the west coast in a miniature format, sizes 2x3, 4x6 etc...A man walked up to me at an arts festival and wanted to buy my table out directly...I asked why, and after much hedging on his part and some discussion, I found out he worked for a cruise line based in California and wanted to make 'decals' from my works and sell them to tourists...(Guess who would NOT have gotten a cut of the action living all the way up on Vancouver Island!;) ) It is only because he raised my suspiscions wanting to buy my contents outright that I was able to get this little bit of truth from him. He would have taken my images and mass produced them for an eternity ...when it was all I could do to get by paying a few bills and buy more paint...being as I am an 'originals' artist, this would have been devastating to me to have someone else pirate and mass produce my images..

Nope... look at the serious 'cons' first Ron before you go this route...in an idealistic world, this sort of thing would bring more business but I have my sincere doubts...

If they can get the milk for free, why buy the cow ;)

[J. D. Hillberry]

Originally posted by Ron van den Boogaard
If you would get some copyright from some digital picture off the web, you'd be talking a few bucks which is nothing compared to the price of the original, so it is not even worth while bothering.


Fact of the matter is that copyrights don't work anymore.

I disagree with both statements. While my original pieces sell for thousands of dollars, I have made much more by keeping tight control of my copyrights and licensing my images for specific uses. By controlling the use of each image, I am insured that I get credit (which translates to advertising) for everything I do.

The Creative Commons license agreement states that it's goal is "to free copying and to free transformation of works of art". I may not want my name associated with a "transformed" (a dirivitave of my original intent) and I may not want my work associated with certain things. Not all exposure is good exposure. Here is an example what happened to me:

I have done several images that depict elderly hands with young children's hands. At an art show, several ladys walked up and said "Oh look. These are the drawings that were used at Mrs. Johnsons funeral." After inquiring about the specifics, I found out that several of my pieces were copied by a printing company and sold to a funeral home. They were used on the cover of the "bio" about deceased and were handed out to everyone that attended the funeral. Even though these ladies liked the images, they were not interested in purchasing my reproductions of them because it reminded them of the funeral of their deceased friend. The same probably goes for everyone that attended the funeral. The printing company and the funeral home both made money by using my work. I didn't make a dime, and ended up loosing quite of few potential customers for those particular images. The current copyright laws helped put a stop to this. This may have been covered under a creative commons license because it would be considered commercial use, but not if family members of the deceased were the ones that decided to copy and distribute my images at the funeral.


I also sell reproductions of my work to individuals that find me on the internet. (5 - 10 sales a week) If someone's sees my work and want's to share it with someone they can email them a link to my site with a push of a button. They can enjoy my work for free on the internet. If they want to make it a tangible gift to someone, they can purchase it. Either way, I am insured credit and compensation for my hard work.

While I think that the current copyright laws could stand to be tweaked a bit, I think the Creative commons idea would be a mistake for visual artists.

J. D.

[MyCatBites]

Very nicely put J.D.

It is so difficult for the majority of artists to make a living with their art; this will only make it more difficult.

[Ron van den Boogaard]

Wel, I guess there are two things here.
My license just allows everything exept making oney of i without my permission,

two. i think I much more beleive I have to be in the creative corner department where things like Flow and giving away are a natural state of mind. Sorry to have posted here