Should Artists charge money for their content?

[Burnouts3s3]

I?ve heard this question before, but I?m unsure how I should feel about it.

Here?s one example. I go to Deviantart a lot. I know this one artist (who shall remain anonymous for the sake of privacy) who drew lots of pretty pictures that lots of people liked. At first, the artist simply posted their art on his/her blog/Deviantart page for free. However, when the artist became popular, they moved their content to a different site and in order to view their content, the artist requested that their fans not only become members of the new website, but also buy a monthly subscription in order to view the content. Not only that, the artist has specifically requested that his/her art not be reposted to various public image sharing sites (aka 4chan, imgur, etc.).

Now, the artist in question does update frequently and the art itself seems to remain consistent, if similar to previous works. The question I want to ask is: was the above artist ?in the right? to start charging his/her fanbase for something they used to do for free?

I understand there are exceptions to this rule, such as commissions. Obviously, a fan is paying you money for a specific drawing and the artist does this service for a small sum. Other times, artist release 'art packs' which contain content that can only be viewed by purchasing it digitally.

But what about items that the artist used to do for free but is now asking money for? Things like Paypal or crowdfunding. Should the artist have a right to profit for their work? Are they sell outs in asking for money? Is this an efficient model?

I also do a little (creative) writing on the side. However, I do so because I enjoy writing and like sharing my opinion. I don?t feel as though I would want to do this as a living, but would like to continue writing on the side while I get a more traditional job (such as working in an office building). But, that?s just me.

What do you think?

 

[Scarim Coral]

Depends on that artist finance issue.

As you already mention, I tend to find those those who do commissions may have fallen on short time or have some bills to pay and need cash quickly which I can understand (being an artist is not a steady job).

Granted the example you given, it's his/her artwork and if he/ she wanted it to be made more exclusive then so be it even if he or she is prepare for the repercussion.

 

[Armadox]

Absolutely.

This is without question, as long as the content that the artist is charging for is their own intellectual property, they are in the right to charge for it's use, license, or outright selling of their content. You did not pay to own their artwork in any way, so until you do you get no right to interfere with their business. And art is a business.

As an artist's content and skills improve there is no reason that they shouldn't get compensated for their skills, even if they was doing it free before. They chose to allow you to sample their artwork, and you don't have the right to demand they continue after they move to monetize their trade.

What you can't charge for is content belonging to other companies, artists, or IP holders.

I.E. I can charge for the comics I make, but can not charge if I made a megaman comic, I do not own megaman.

Though there's weird grey areas when it comes to one offs and commissions, while still illegal they're not usually seen as outright damaging to the copyright holder, and thus usually ignored. I draw a wolverine sketch card and sell it, Marvel usually don't file a cease and desist, but I draw wolverine and print up 400 copies, then we've got a problem.

A guy spends his afternoons changing oil for his neighbors and friends for free opens an autobody shop, do the patrons still demand he do the trade he has mastered for free?

 

[Colour Scientist]

Yes, they should charge money if they choose to.


Producing artwork generally requires a lot of skill, time, supplies, among other things. If your content becomes popular and people want to view it and expect you to produce more, this is obviously going to require more time and money.

It's a job like any other. Sure, it would be nice if everything was available for free but artists need to make a living too.

If you don't think the artist or their work is worth the money, don't pay.

 

[Armadox]

If you don't think the artist or their work is worth the money, don't pay.

You don't want to pay for the artist's work, that is fair. That being said, you should not pirate, or circumvent the artists wishes to view the content anyways. It's either worth seeing or not, and if you want to still see it, you're in the wrong for not giving the artist their due.

 

[Muspelheim]

It's well within their rights. I don't think it's a very good idea, though. You'd have to be exceptionally skilled for it to be worth it. It's like putting the art in a museum and asking for admission, you need to present something worth the cost.

As long as it's their own property, they can charge for it. It's not always very smart, but art and texts aren't worthless, and charging for them isn't wrong.

Commissions of property that isn't yours? A different story. It's perfectly fine to charge for making the work to specification. But since it's not your IP, display it for free or not at all.

(According to my very underinformed opinion.)

 

[Colour Scientist]

If you don't think the artist or their work is worth the money, don't pay.

You don't want to pay for the artist's work, that is fair. That being said, you should not pirate, or circumvent the artists wishes to view the content anyways. It's either worth seeing or not, and if you want to still see it, you're in the wrong for not giving the artist their due.

That wasn't what I was getting at.

I get that this is a sore issue for you though.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I'm finding this hard to wrap my head around. Of course the artist has a right to profit from their work, and is indeed justified in doing so. Fans maintain the right not to pay. Why would anyone think they are entitled to view an artist's content?

 

[Asclepion]

A capitalist system offers no means of support for the common good beyond capital. This is why Wikipedia has to beg for donations to keep itself running. This is why Youtube- a service used and enjoyed by millions of people every day - can only survive by running ads that everyone hates. And why your artist is forced to limit access to his work for the sake of capital instead of allowing it to be experienced by as many people as possible for maximum enjoyment.

Capitalism depends on scarcity to survive and cannot exist without it. Where none exists, it must prop itself up with artificial scarcity.

 

[Vault101]

Yes

We live in a world where we consider our media something we should have for free...the music industry's being hit the worst

And while there are many shades to this argument for different kinds ( and markets) for "art" it all cones down to the fact that we live in a world where people need money...no matter how much we can wax poetic about freedom if information blah blah blah

OR compare it to the past where there were different systems (but it wasn't commercial until-)...but the past was the past and weather it was via patronidge or the renisance that commercial aspect was always there

It's ALWAYS been hard to make a living off the arts...most people don't and the Internet had affected that fir better or worse

But people are still entitled to put monetary value on their work and people who complain should volunteer to so their jobs for free

snip?

you COULD however ask is it worth it? because most of the time its not "should I put my work out for free or not" but more "how much can I get away with"

more often than not youre better off having it freely accessible to build a following...

 

[senordesol]

I'm not sure why this would vex you for even a moment.

Let's say I'm an amateur artist with a day job.

I post my work for free, and slowly develop a following of fans.

As I continue to post, it becomes apparent that there is a high demand for my work, and I could actually now make a living as a professional artist (and chuck my day job) were I to only charge for my work.

Not only do I get to do what I love every day forever, but I'm able to give my fans more of what they want; only asking for modest compensation in return.

What is the problem with that, exactly?

 

[Erttheking]

Depends on the circumstances.

That's the thing about this world, you can very rarely say always yes or always no to hypothetical situations.

 

[Armadox]

If you don't think the artist or their work is worth the money, don't pay.

You don't want to pay for the artist's work, that is fair. That being said, you should not pirate, or circumvent the artists wishes to view the content anyways. It's either worth seeing or not, and if you want to still see it, you're in the wrong for not giving the artist their due.

That wasn't what I was getting at.

I get that this is a sore issue for you though.

I wasn't implying you did this, and would not assume anything of you, Colour Scientist. It's just that every time I hear this question brought up, I tend to get the "they want money for it now, so I'll just view it here instead". That mentality, that you don't think it's worth paying for, but still think enough of it to steal it anyways both baffles and angers me. It's either worth it to pay for it, or not for you.

Eh, I get to see this from the other side of the fence, so it's hard for this question to not annoy me on some level. I've watched a lot of artists with real talent get brow beaten by their own fans til it's not worth them to continue to try to provide for them. Art is one of the hardest jobs to be in right now, because the better you seem to get at it the more of your work seems to get stolen, distributed without your knowledge, or even used for others to profit from.

An example, Chiara Bautista is an amazing artist. She works hard to create unique surreal images and watercolor works, but recently she wrote this on her Facebook.

" Ok, I usually just post images and that's it, but I need to say this:
I DO NOT have an instagram or pinterest account, I don't have an online store, I am not selling my illustrations on tshirts and/or coffee mugs, phone cases, etc. I've spent the last couple of days reporting fake profiles of people pretending to be me with fake galleries and/or stealing my images from the internet and selling my work using my name. This is getting extremely annoying and time consuming and is really making me want to stop sharing work online and use my time on something better than sending emails to website managers asking them to take fake profiles down.

Thank you, and see you some other time.

Chiara."

This is someone who does show off her work for free, and still can't seem to win. I've seen friends' work on these tee-shirt stores that host an image a few hours then pretend they didn't have it, and loads of forums and stuff that pull whole galleries from artist sites and toss them on torrents. That art doesn't come back after that, every dime they need just to buy supplies and feed themselves just went to pot.

Personally, my own work is traditionally inked. A single pen can cost me upwards of six bucks (I use Sakura Pigma Microns, if you're interested)[footnote] Yes, I know they use a greenish ink and are considered lesser pens to some other brands, but I cut my teeth on Pigma, and I can trust that pen one is going to have the same stroke as pen fifty. With the exception to their brush line. [/footnote][footnote] Guess how much cash I've had to drop on my full Copic set?[/footnote]. A single comic can cost me a couple hundred out of pocket if it's inked heavy enough.

This is why you're starting to see more artists only delivering samples on-line with all their stuff requiring you to purchase it and have it mailed to you.

 

[sky14kemea]

Yes. 100%

It's their art. If they want to charge people to see it, they can.

Even if someone who wasn't as popular as the person you described did it, they'd still be fully within their right to.

This person is using a skill they're good at in order to help them make ends meet. It applies in all fields and art should never be an exception.

 

[Vault101]

I wasn't implying you did this, and would not assume anything of you, Colour Scientist. It's just that every time I hear this question brought up, I tend to get the "they want money for it now, so I'll just view it here instead". That mentality, that you don't think it's worth paying for, but still think enough of it to steal it anyways both baffles and angers me. It's either worth it to pay for it, or not for you.

I think that's pretty much the opposite of what color was saying


[quote/] I've seen friends' work on these tee-shirt stores that host an image a few hours then pretend they didn't have it, and loads of forums and stuff that pull whole galleries from artist sites and toss them on torrents. That art doesn't come back after that, every dime they need just to buy supplies and feed themselves just went to pot.
.[/quote]
I'm a frequent buyer from places like Society6 and Redbubble (which unlike saaay threadless or Teefury are quite lax in their curation) and while I do roll my eyes at the occasional super lazy "stick some filters over an image and call it minimalist" BS the plagiarism from other indie artists really pisses me off...they should have more capacity to deal with it (like a flag or report) alongside lazy shit I mentioned above

off topic but I wonder sometimes about the legality of these sites as ALOT of what's popular isn't original....personally while it is probably copyright violation the indie artists always do better and more creative work than the official licensed stuff and there is a demand (not to mentioned licensed apparel is INCREDIBLY limited for female sizes) should we feel morally bad for "rippng off" something like EA or Nintendo? ehhhh

 

[Little Woodsman]

Ever hear the saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch."?

Even artwork that you view without payment isn't "free", the artist paid for it with time and effort.

 

[Armadox]

I wasn't implying you did this, and would not assume anything of you, Colour Scientist. It's just that every time I hear this question brought up, I tend to get the "they want money for it now, so I'll just view it here instead". That mentality, that you don't think it's worth paying for, but still think enough of it to steal it anyways both baffles and angers me. It's either worth it to pay for it, or not for you.

I think that's pretty much the opposite of what color was saying

I know. I was clarifying my response, not arguing against Color's point. I acknowledged that it wasn't the point he.. she.. hue analyst(?) was originally making, I was leaving work and jotted that down. It was an addendum to : not accusatory or argument of, her ( I looked it up)'s sentence. Sorry to come off more aggressive then intended.

I've seen friends' work on these tee-shirt stores that host an image a few hours then pretend they didn't have it, and loads of forums and stuff that pull whole galleries from artist sites and toss them on torrents. That art doesn't come back after that, every dime they need just to buy supplies and feed themselves just went to pot.

I'm a frequent buyer from places like Society6 and Redbubble (which unlike saaay threadless or Teefury are quite lax in their curation) and while I do roll my eyes at the occasional super lazy "stick some filters over an image and call it minimalist" BS the plagiarism from other indie artists really pisses me off...they should have more capacity to deal with it (like a flag or report) alongside lazy shit I mentioned above

off topic but I wonder sometimes about the legality of these sites as ALOT of what's popular isn't original....personally while it is probably copyright violation the indie artists always do better and more creative work than the official licensed stuff and there is a demand (not to mentioned licensed apparel is INCREDIBLY limited for female sizes) should we feel morally bad for "rippng off" something like EA or Nintendo? ehhhh

Again, that seems to be the grey area. Legally what the Indie artists are doing is copyright violation, to which legal ramifications can be swayed, but it's usually a scope of scale when dealing with corporations. When it's possible to control the use of their property ( such as Youtube) they then to use blanket cease and desist. EA doesn't have the time or resources to stop everyone, and tends to focus on the especially grievous ones. Usually indie artists don't monetize IP they don't own and simply use it to show off their skills (greyer area when falling into things like parody, satire, and other loopholes), and use that bit of fame to push their own stuff.

 

[Lilikins]

It really depends, to be fully honest, (without sounding cocky in any way whatsoever....) but I imagine this has something to do with a post I recently answered about drawing a tattoo?

The thing is, if you draw...you draw hehe I dont consider myself to be a high class artist...by all means. I love drawing, I have since Ive been 5, I dont consider myself 'good' at it...but that comes with a bit of ocd and perfectionism in its restraints. Ill literally draw without an eraser...if I make a mistake? Instead of what a normal person would do (erase/redraw) Ill rip it apart... my fiancee has gotten mad at me soooooooooooo many times because of that haha.
I personally try to achieve a CG type art..with pencil and paper, with no mistakes.

The thing is, if an artist likes doing something? That person will do it the payment in itself is first of all..enjoyment from the other person. Ill just take for instance, recently (sadly I dont have a photo of it atm ), a friend told me his sister loooooove psyduck..that was it. I drew a psyduck with the confused face...and had a few other pokemon running around in the background, no it wasnt cg material, but nevertheless I poured my heart into it

He thanked me sooooooooo much that (atleast for me?) that was payment enough. Its...pending on the person I guess.

Sure you can get money for it, if your 'that' good. But if you dont, its also nice knowing the person really appreciates what you did


Thats atleast my personal oppinion on that entire matter, hope its of some help.

 

[The Lunatic]

If they want to, but, they shouldn't feel entitled to an audience after having done so.

Not that I mean it in a particularly harsh way, but, people liking your work, and people liking your work enough to give you money are two very different things.

And to cry "woe is me!" for not understanding that difference is a bit silly to me.

 

[Dizchu]

Even artwork that you view without payment isn't "free", the artist paid for it with time and effort.

Interesting idea, though I think there's more to it than that. I draw and I make music. I plan on releasing everything I do for free as I do them as hobbies rather than a full-time or even part-time profession. This is partially because I don't feel they're up to a "commercial" standard but mostly because I do it because I love doing it. If anything, I find it rewarding and valuable to myself and that kinda negates the time and effort I put into it.

But that's just me. If people want to charge for their work, they should go ahead. People have to eat.