Copyright is a topic that has become, sadly, rather polarizing in the digital age where people feel increasingly, and erroneously, entitled to take whatever they want and ignore who that may hurt or the fact that it’s wrong. The truth is, that copyright serves a very good purpose, for all of society.

People who are creative possess skills and produce contents, whether visual, audio, or experiential, that are considered a commodity. Commodities are marketable things that have value within a society; therefore, they have intrinsic value on a monetary scale, depending on the scarcity and quality of the output. This is not unlike commodities within the stock world, such as metals, grains, and other goods deemed necessary for human consumption.

Now on the surface, some people would consider art, music, writing, drama, et al to not be “necessary”, and as Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” goes, it is not at the basic foundation of need. But whom among us would consider living without these things as “living”, rather than as merely existing? What if all chairs looked and felt the same to everyone, and were for many unattractive and uncomfortable? What if all walls were bare, all buildings the same; what if we had no music and no books to read? Is that a world you want to live in? In this context, the value of these “luxuries” goes up exponentially, as they are expression of humanness itself. Even the poorest tribes with the most simple of structures, since our species hit the earth, found art and music a necessity of human function: a vehicle by which to say, “I am here; this is my life; hear my noise and see my story.” This is built into us. It is a “need”.

Through time as humans developed skill and complexity in the various arts, their output began to be coveted; time of the creators was being demanded and that time is worth sponsorship–money, other living expenses, patronage in any of its forms–in order to help the artist to survive and to afford the tools with which to create the art, regardless of the form of art. The equipment is not free; nor should the art be. Artists must eat and pay bills just as much as anyone else. This is the area of their skill. The skill has been studied and honed for many years, as is by others in other sectors. The skill is desired and requires both time and money to produce beforehand. Therefore, it must be compensated, or it cannot exist.

Painters, actors, musicians, writers, dancers, sculptors, opera singers, poets and the like are people just like you who worked hard to learn their craft and deserve to be paid for it, who offer a commodity others want and should therefore receive compensation – people who have mortgages and kids and have to do things like purchase supplies for their creative endeavors and pay for utilities and, you know, eat.

Nobody expects plumbers or lawyers to do “spec work”. It is beyond insulting to expect a creative to do freebies “because they love it” or “because it’s so fun”. It is no less work. It is no less effort. Anyone who thinks that their own job is so much more toil and struggle is likely in the wrong job, and that is not the creative’s fault. It is not a cake walk. It often involves hazardous materials, an inconsistent income with no health insurance, constantly fluctuating markets, a decreasing appreciation in our society for the arts despite the documentation of each culture through history, the training of higher thinking skills…I could go on and on.

Copyright is there to protect the creative worker from those who would steal profits from their work (and food from their table) by misappropriating it. It is not wrong for anyone to expect to be paid for his or her own work. It is wrong for anyone else to steal it.

The moment a creator creates, he or she owns that creation solely–even if they don’t register it. It is a natural right. Copyright registration is an added layer of protection for those at risk of being stolen from, in that it proves that by a given date, this work was created by this person. It is the evidence by which an infringer can be taken to court for using that work without permission, or for claiming wrongfully that it is theirs instead of belonging to its creator.

Merely posting a work online does NOT make it “public domain”. It merely makes it publicly viewable/listenable, but that work is still the property of that copyright holder (again: registered or not). Buying a CD does not carry with it the composer/musician’s copyright; that is why it is only for personal use, not playing commercially in a business and that is why we have things like ASCAP and the MMA and the rest of the transitional mess we are currently in as politicians try to simplify rights. Buying a painting does not carry with it the painter’s copyright either. The purchaser never has the right to reproduce the work, digitally or physically, whether for a gift or for sale. That is strictly the right of the artist through the artist’s lifetime plus 75 years after the artist’s death for the artist’s heirs. That is copyright law. It doesn’t just control resale of copies or unauthorized public performance or exhibition; it also establishes that the creator also has sole right to embellish, alter, do derivative works or destroy the work–anyone else who does any of that without having bought all of those rights (as well as buying the work) is in violation of federal law, and in some cases, international copyright law too. Buying an NFT (Non-fungible token, digital art on the blockchain in the cryptocurrency world), does NOT transfer copyright/reproduction rights either, unless it is strictly expressed so in the coded “smart contract”.

The only three things that MAY be an exception (with limitations, of course) to this concept are:

1. You do a “work for hire” (you are under the employ of a corporation who pays you to create for them, and that’s already in your contract that you agreed to before taking on the gig), OR
2. You actually sell the rights along with the work (say for instance, a songwriter who got duped by a recording company, as happened for decades but is less likely now as musicians are educating themselves and each other against predators).
3. You purposely, yourself, put it on a rights- free status (for which there should be documentation surrendering all rights or specifying which rights you surrender).

Simply buying a book doesn’t give the purchaser the right to make copies and sell them. The copyright belongs with the writer (and depending on his or her contract with a publishing company, with the publishing company on their behalf, again, another area where the artist needs to beware and make sure they’re with a reputable entity).

If artists never got the money coming to them for their output, they would cease being able to afford to put anything out.

Sure there are those trust-fund kids and bored kept spouses who are sponsored by personal connections in their craft, but in a pay-to-play world, the talent pool is awfully crowded, shallow and altogether infested with ickiness.

This brings me to an aside on “contests” and vanity (insert area here: presses, galleries, publishers, etc.) that prey on those with more dollars than sense (or talent), and bring down the market rate for all legitimate artists. DON’T DO IT. Everyone who falls for these predatory tactics hurts the entire group. Some of us are trained, skilled, and trying to make a living, and not just armchair weekend hobbyists. By watering down the inventory with substandard work, you actually make our culture in our time look bad to future generations. Stop it. And such purveyors of “contests” that “let you show” your own work “in your portfolio” (hello, you don’t need permission from anyone to do that!) are predators who want to amass tons of free work, screwing a bunch of wannabes to get something for nothing (= a “chance” at a bogus prize) that they will sell later without compensating or crediting you. Giving even perceived legitimacy to these things by participating, collectively hurts all art everywhere. Anyone that tells you they have to SELL you “wall space” isn’t into selling your work at all. Legitimate commercial galleries make money off of the people who BUY the art – NOT off of the people who make it and who already spent the time and money to make it!!! If artists pay galleries to show their work, there is no incentive for the gallery to ever sell it: they already got their profit off of YOU.

I can imagine that this new Non-Fungible Token trend is ripe for the same type of victimization as people figure out how to do it; it is new and hot and there’s a lot of buzz and lots of big “cash” being thrown about (particularly for those who can name-drop already, just like it was in the old-school art game; don’t be fooled). “Buyer beware” is an old adage but to be honest, it’s much more of a thing, especially today, to remember: “Creator beware”.

A few insane sales prices notwithstanding, the market may not sustain these prices (not financial advice); there are only so many players that can trade on that echelon, and the newness may wear off…folk today have famously short attention spans. However, I believe the relevant “Web 3.0” is the future, much as “Web 2.0” was 35-40 years ago, to become the essential-to-life Internet we all know and use. I am looking into dipping my toe into this income stream but I am not putting my whole savings into it. I don’t expect anything, but you can’t gain anything if you don’t try. I am risk averse but I am aware that technology advances and those who don’t keep up get left behind. It’s best to be well-versed in both worlds as the transition comes. I’ve been studying the space for months, and learned a lot.

I will learn more about how copyright is treated in this NFT market; “ownership” is a term slung around in a way that lacks clarity for those who don’t do due diligence and seek it. It should not be played with casually. Do your own research, and check it against multiple sources. Don’t listen to rumor. The US Copyright Office offers some bulk-filing options, and as an artist one should only be minting one or a few images to the blockchain at a time anyway–especially a 1/1 artist (as fine artists are more likely to be, it’s a completely different section of NFT’s from those enterprisers who are selling the infamous pricy profile-pictures like Bored Ape Yacht Club and Cyberpunks in large numbers). But back to the main topic of this post…

Artists should not be proponents of copyright only to protect their own artwork. They should want to protect their entire industry. We should be a community looking out for each other rather than competing for blood.

I was offered  a great deal of money to rip off another artist’s style more than a few times. Every time I turned it down. As a website designer, I had clients try to get me to steal pictures off of the ‘net to use on their websites–even after I made them sign a contract that this would not happen! I even had one client try to pass something off as her own photograph. I can check that against image search online. She stole it from a bakery in Canada. I fired her. That is how strongly I believe in protecting ALL copyright. I will not artistically cannibalize or steal or betray people like that. Nobody should. We’re adults who should have honor and accountability; many children know better than to try to pull off that kind of thing. If you don’t want to be a victim of wage theft, don’t do it to others. If you do want that…well, get some therapy.

In the long run, regardless if IRL or digital art, copyright protects the earned, deserved and good and right credit and income for the creator of anything. They are the only ones who should have it. Anyone calling themselves an artist should be producers of original material. Anyone doing anything else is already known by another set of titles: thief, opportunist, conman, morally bankrupt, and defendant.

Here is my official statement on this topic:

I do not, and will not, forge the work of any other artist, living or dead, for any commercial or other purpose (other than personal self-education in practicing, as art students do, using masterpieces as a teaching tool). Please do not ask artists to forge other artists’ (particularly living or recently passed artists’) work; copyright infringement and forgery are unethical and in most cases highly illegal on a felony level. I have been repeatedly offered crazy amounts of money to do this simply because I have the skill, and I always turn it down; I don’t care if “nobody will know” – I will know; God will know; it’s taking food off of someone else’s table. No. I do not cannibalize my own, nor would any reputable artist. If you like the work of a certain artist, please invest directly into their continued practice if living, or if not, purchase versions of their legacy at the licensed gallery or museum of your choice in order to promote arts education. Thank you so much for your cooperation and understanding. .

I have far more to say on this and related subjects, but I wish to devote more time to it than I currently have. It will likely involve more of the mechanics of copyright filings as well as actual quotes from the law. But you know I’ll throw some editorializing in there somehow. Thanks for reading.

 

♥ – Eilee

 

All content on this site, unless otherwise noted, are © 2012-2021-present Linda Eilee S. George, All Rights Reserved.