Many 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.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Monday, June 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am by Patrick Ross and is filed under copyright opponents, creators, licensing, market forces. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.