Should Artists charge money for their content?

[Spider RedNight]

I've never really had a problem with artists choosing to do this - *I* personally wouldn't do it as I like to draw as a hobby and as soon as charging other people enters the picture, it's no longer a hobby for me - but if they want to, have at it.

HOWEVER, I do believe it should be original stuff. There are artists who do commissions (really expensive-ass commissions, too) of fan art and that's always burned me because they're making money by very obviously taking something that isn't theirs and having someone pay to get it from them.

So I guess the bottom line is yes, artists can charge money for their content if they want as long as its theirs. If it's fan art, whether it's good or not, then I disagree and it should be free regardless of quality because it frustrates me to see people getting paid for a design or idea that everyone knows isn't theirs.

(Don't shoot the messenger; I only draw fan art but at least I don't make other people pay to see it)

((edited for redundancy's sake))

 

[RolandOfGilead]

How could the answer be anything other than absolutely yes they can?

Get a job, all of you.

 

[Risingblade]

She can, I'm just amazed people would pay for what sounds like a picture version of netflix.

 

[Vault101]

Considering I wasn't really talking about business decisions, I don't know what you're talking about.

but you are...this

[quote/]In principle, it's a stupid idea. By all means, go ahead and protect yourself and your property, but there's not much you're doing putting it behind a paywall except cutting your audience into fractions of fractions and only ticking off a couple of people enough they just put it up somewhere else.[/quote]
is weather or not its a wise business decision,

but the [I/]principle[/I] I was talking about was weather or not its too much for an artist want to charge for their work, again some people forget that or think it should be free because to them it isn't worth paying for

and many people say its not for reasons we've discussed

its up to the artist to find the balance between gaining and maintaining an audience and money but an artist has every right to make money from their work

 

[Asclepion]

The problem is that ease of distribution via technology is fundamentally incompatible with the economic systems in place. In terms of information we are, in effect, post-scarcity.

 

[Vault101]

The problem is that ease of distribution via technology is fundamentally incompatible with the economic systems in place. In terms of information we are, in effect, post-scarcity.

that doesn't mean you can't "arbitrarily" put a price on something, again as long as we live in a world where one needs money creators are entitled to that

now weather or not that works...

...well the music industry is figuring that one out

 

[HardkorSB]

If you have an opportunity to make a living from doing something you love, you should take it.
What else do you expect them to do?
Get a job at McDonalds and wither away doing things they don't like surrounded by people they don't like?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Yes you always have the right to charge people for your work.

And let's make it clear, we live in a cut throat monetary society, you will need every penny you can get to survive. You might want to play nice and do shit for free, but no one else will and you are the one left behind.
Now I'm not an artist but as a programmer I know how much more beneficial my work would be to people if they could have unrestricted access to it, but that would also mean I get completely fucked by our monetary system so shit needs to be locked up for decades to come.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Sure they should if people will pay for it.
Its not something I would do, but its not like they can't ask for money in exchange for their time and effort.
We can't just demand they let us view their art for free if they do not wish for us to see it.

 

[jklinders]

I'm a little surprised that this is even a question.

If someone starts out an artistic endeavor as a hobby and posts it for free that is their choice. If that same person wants to switch over and commercialize their original work for a fee (modest or not) that is also their choice. Any following this artist has built then has the choice of paying to continue to consume that art or find someone else to follow.

I don't see the problem here. this person is not sitting on their established work. they are by the OP's acknowledgement continuing to update (meaning they are still investing large amounts of time into their work) so they are still pouring a great deal of their time into this work. If you are good enough at something, sooner o later the thought of getting paid for it is going to cross your mind. Time will tell if the switch was worth it for this person.

 

[Joccaren]

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.

This pretty much sums it up.

Whilst I personally don't see it being worth paying for digital art [Well printed or painted or hand drawn physical is another issue], and find it utterly ridiculous how much certain professions [Mostly sports stars and actors/singers/ect.] get paid for their work, they've got a right to do so [Sports, actors/singers, ect. Are seriously ridiculous and could get paid far less, but lets ignore that].

They put in time and effort, and if they would like to be paid for that time and effort, that's their right and prerogative.

If you don't want to pay them for their time and effort, you're very welcome not to. You won't get the content, and they won't get your money.

 

[Joccaren]

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?

All artists start off doing their art for free.

Why are people so against artists earning enough money to actually do it as a career?

Part of it is probably a combination of the flawed mentality that such artists don't really contribute anything meaningful to society [Their work may not be as obvious to praise for this such as a Doctor who saves hundreds of lives in his career, however art is by no means useless {Though often, IMO, not worth what is asked for it}. Art inspires, it can add an atmosphere to a room that people enjoy and can relax in. At times, it has enacted social change, and at others it has recorded it. It is important, though some like to think it isn't], and mild jealousy that the artist gets to do what they want with their life - a hobby they enjoy, but earn money from - whilst many are stuck in jobs they don't enjoy, and who will often be needed to support that artist, when they too would rather be just doing what they enjoy for a living - I'd be crying of happiness if I could just play games pretty well and earn money.

It leads to the sort of assumption that artists aren't working, they're just relaxing and doing what they enjoy, and then charging people money for it. Its an incorrect assumption, but you can kind of see how it arises.

 

[Bat Vader]

It's their work. If they want to charge money for it they should fully be able to. At the same time though they shouldn't be surprised or angry that their work isn't getting as much exposure as an artist that puts up free artwork.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Creative industries (or rather those industries than make use of creative individuals) are complete bastards for this - there's always someone who says 'Can you just...' then proceeds with a list of 'little things' that are going to take about three days to sort out. And the threat they always leave having over you (well, not me, I'm totally uncreative) is 'there's someone else who'll do this for free to get their name out there/for the love of doing it, etc.', which, as it goes, is generally bullshit. Sure, they'll do something for free, but not what you're asking for, it's just something used to try to keep people in line who want to charge for their time.

That... is an oddly specific and right on the nail example. You're calling yourself uncreative but damn you sure know the shit that goes down on a regular basis.[footnote]I am not being sarcastic, I've literally heard and experienced every. single. example. you just presented.[/footnote]

 

[Revolutionary]

Sure, if they want to make it for a living and people are willing to pay for it. Why the hell not.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

There are photo sites where people can show off their photos and people can rate them or whatever and follow your favorite photographer. But if you see a photo you like you can buy a copy of it and can even get it as t shirt or iphone case if you wish. This is great. But charging a person money before they even see a picture is stupid and most outside of fans will not bother so it seems counter productive to me.

 

[Olas]

Of course. It's their art. If they own it, they should be able to sell it, for whatever price they want.

It doesn't matter whether it used to be free, or how good you think it is, or whether you're poor and REALLY WANT IT. They should be able to sell their toenail clippings if they think anyone'll actually pay for them. If it's theirs, and it's not something illegal, they should be able to sell it.

 

[happyninja42]

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?

Yeah that's my thoughts on the matter too. If someone is trying to do their art professionally, and make it their life's work, then they should absolutely be allowed to charge for their art.

We don't bat an eyelash when we buy movie tickets to see a movie (a piece of art), or buy music produced by a musician (another bit of art). We don't mind paying to go to the theater to see a live performance of something (again, art). So why should we draw the line and say "no, this form of art should always be free, and if you charge for it, you are a bad person" ? That makes no sense to me. If they want to provide their work for free, great, good for them. If they want to charge for it, and have the fan base to allow it, great, good for them too. I'd much rather have them able to do what the love for a living, instead of trying to do it while also working a job to pay their bills. They will be able to devote more time to their art, produce more, or perhaps higher quality, and enjoy what they are doing.