Artists, Compensation and Business Models
Monday, June 15th, 2009 by Patrick RossMany artists producing works of economic value wish to be paid. Many businesses profiting from others’ creativity would rather not have to pay for that creativity. These are no-brainers that often are overlooked or underplayed in our modern copyright debate.
Today’s Exhibit A is a story in The New York Times about Google reaching out to visual artists to develop “skins” for their web site but having no intention of paying these established visual artists for their work.
Let’s remember the two truisms in the opening paragraph. The scenario laid out in the NYT story is quite predictable. Here copyright will prevail — those visual artists who believe they should be compensated for their work will decline the invitation, and those who value the promotional aspect of the offer will embrace it.
Note that in this scenario, the creator is given the option. Google, fortunately, has not appropriated a creator’s visual work and then after posting offered to pay for it. Nor has it taken the YouTube model of enabling non-rightsholders to upload someone else’s visual work and then wait for the rightsholder to send a DMCA notice to have it removed.
So Point One is that the system works when a rightsholder is given the option of deciding to work without monetary compensation.
Point Two is that Google is pursuing the best interests of their shareholders here. Do I think they should pay visual artists for their work? Of course, just like I think Arianna Huffington should pay reporters for their work. But if Google can get away with getting adequate illustrations for free, and Ms. Huffington can get away with attracting readers with the product of reporters willing to work for free, then more power to them.
We often like to anthropomorphize corporations, applying them moral attributes when they are by definition amoral. You should have heard my rant Thursday when I opened a letter from my daughter’s mobile phone provider and saw they are trying to weasel their way out of paying us a rebate on her new phone. Let’s just say I was not communicating with the reasoned tone I call for repeatedly on this blog.
I am not ready to defend the mobile phone company’s behavior, but I am ready to acknowledge that it is the company’s best interest, and the best interest of its shareholders, to pay as few rebates as possible.
Many rightsholders and their defenders — and I have been guilty of this — seek to demonize Google, as its entire business model is based on making money off of others’ creativity while paying as little as possible for it. And frankly Google could be said to ask for it, with its oft-voiced claims of pursuing actions not for their own best interests but for the interest of society and even competitors (!) and its do-no-evil motto (although I’ve read that the famous slogan developed rather informally within the corporation, as opposed to some master PR plan).
So the key to Point Two is recognizing that corporations and their trade associations are amoral, rather than immoral. A company seeking to profit from others’ creativity will seek to spend as little as possible in that pursuit. A company entrusted with rights from creators will naturally try to maximize those rights. To do otherwise in either business model is a disservice to the creator and to shareholders.
So I won’t rail against Google for refusing to offer compensation to graphic artists it recruits for its “skins.” And I hope those who disagree with copyright will extend the same courtesy to rightsholders seeking profit from creativity, in the manner they choose to pursue it.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“its entire business model is based on making money off of others’ creativity while paying as little as possible for it”
I challenge you to explain why this statement does not apply to the big four record labels. Or any book publisher.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:51 am
[...] Read more here: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Bl&… [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 7:54 am
John, it’s safe to assume you have never signed a publishing or recording contract!
You are right in the abstract, in the way any economic venture seeks to maximize capital while minimizing expenses, but entirely wrong in your understanding of rights.
A contract is an agreement freely entered into by both the creator (author or musician) and the distributor (publisher or label). They become partners in a joint endeavor to profit from the author or musician’s creativity. Rights are transferred, shifted for a certain period or under certain terms, or withheld. In other words, both are rightsholders, far different from what you are implying. An author or musician can self-publish, but he or she may also prefer the publisher or record label to handle marketing and distribution, provide creative input (editing, etc.) and lend the published work credibility.
I write often here of business models where the creator’s work is appropriated first, and then the appropriator says they’re willing to enter negotiations as to payment later if pressured. I am not familiar with record labels or publishers producing a creator’s work without permission first or a contract.
Actually, I can think of one book publisher who has developed a business model where he produces books without seeking permission of authors or their estates and doesn’t pay them anything — Eric Eldred.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Patrick, what you consistently ignore on your blog is the concentration of the copyright gatekeeper industries. Just a handful of corporations - your major donors, i would hazard to guess - essentially control film distribution in the US. The same companies fund and control the ratings board that determines where films can be shown. There are more book publishers, but it’s not a stretch to say that just a few - again, your major donors - control most of worldwide distribution. Music used to be the same way but is becoming less so thanks to the very technologies you regularly call for banning or regulating on behalf of the gatekeeper oligopolies. When just a handful of companies control distribution, they also control the terms of those contracts you mention.
Yes, I’m sure you can list plenty of exceptions to the concentration of the “copyright industries”. The important thing is that many of those exceptions were enabled by the very technologies and businesses you criticize. Many bands have been “discovered” on YouTube or MySpace and been successful, after failing to get a contract from the Big Four labels.
And yes, I know you’ll point to antitrust law as the solution. But the existence of antitrust law doesn’t mean we can make copyright policy without considering competition and market concentration issues.
An absence of copyright law would certainly allow “making money off of others’ creativity” by free-riders, but ever-stronger, ever-longer copyright law allows oligopolies, rather than “pirates,” to do the same thing. That’s why we need balance.