I think you’re labouring under a misunderstanding here, Lee.

I’ve been running a film production company professionally for over a decade, using the tactics I’ve mentioned already – making as much work as possible available for free viewing. I’ve attracted multiple six-figure contracts, lived very comfortably off my work, become about as rich and famous as I want to be, and been able to do the work of my dreams for ten years now. Feel free to Google me or check the Wikipedia entry on me if you want more information on that.

And I’m far from the most successful person to employ Creative Commons or free-to-share media. You may also want to Google Hugo winning author Charles Stross, 55-million-viewer-per-day comic artists Penny Arcade, Brit Award winning band Arctic Monkeys or publishing house Baen. And that’s without even touching the computer software examples: you might want to look up MySQL, for example.

I have no doubt that you fervently believe “You can’t give it away”, and I sympathise with your worries for artists based on that belief. But fervent belief doesn’t make a theory true, and there are plenty of counter-examples to that particular theory. Of which I am one.

(Oh, and I love the business aspects of art. Great fun.)

Your work is only as valuable as you believe it is. If you place zero value on it (monetarily), that is what people are going to expect they should pay for it. Once you set yourself up as a source of free or super low cost work, you have made your reputation and dug your own hole. You will have a hell of a hard time raising your rates once you’ve shown the world how far down the price scale you believe your work belongs. Why would anyone take what you offer for free – which makes it look completely without value – and then come back for more of your work and be willing to pay you a market rate? That is not normal behavior for a purchaser.

Based on what you write, I think you need to take some business classes. Being an artist is about sharing your creative vision and your gift with the world but it’s also about being a businessman so you can profitably work as an artist and cover your living expenses. You can’t be a successful businessman by giving away your product — you have to sell it and with the proceeds, you have to cover your costs of doing business. That’s basic business 101– all that gear and all the office expenses and the hours and expense you incur researching, educating, traveling for your work — those costs of doing business must be recouped with a margin of profit to spare to pay yourself a wage for your everyday living expenses. If you are scooping money for your arts from the trust fund or a spouse or the full time 9-5 job to cover this stuff, you are just kidding yourself about being a successful artist – you are instead a hobbyist.That profit accountability is the real world of business, even the business of art. If you think otherwise, you are living in a dream world. And giving your work away is most definitely no way to generate income to begin paying those considerable costs of doing business. I am not talking about bartering for valuable product or service here – that’s a clear way to receive something of true value in exchange for your work.

Sure you may not enjoy the business aspects of art — that’s part of the greater problem, people who are destroying the markets because they don’t have common and basic business sense to go along with their artistic talent. And that comes back to the thrust behind cc, a formulated contract option mostly designed to help people give it away in exchange for credit or attibution. As I wrote, attribution WILL NOT pay your rent or put gas in your car or food in your mouth. Don’t believe me? Go ask your banker if he will grant you a small biz loan and assure him that because you have given away X hundred pieces of your art and you now have so much exposure that you are sure to become rich and famous very soon – he’ll laugh in your face.

Now since you are apparently on the other side of the equation — you want the free work from others — this may not apply to you completely. For all we know you may like to gather up lots of free material, use it to create your own project and then sell your project profitably. If that’s so, the entitlement admonishment stands — shame on you for using fellow creatives in such an abusive way – if their work is good enough to be included in your project, it has value to you and you should be willing to pay your fellow creatives for your use of it. OTOH if you are gathering free work but also giving your own away, well, shame on you for that too. You should have more pride in your work than to value it so little. And you should be cognizant of the world community of artists who all need to make a living just like you. Your giving it away doesn’t help you and it also hurts all the rest of your fellows when consumers in your market begin to think all of the work in your category should be “free” because you have helped train them into such a stupid erroneous belief, especially egregious because history has placed high values on excellent work in just about every segment of the arts and you just totally ignored that fact in order to blindly jump right on the cc/giveaway bandwagon.

See the problem is: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t give it away and then expect to sometime later be famous, successful and rich off your works because magically people will reward you for giving it away. You’ll either go broke giving it away or get tired of going broke on that path or lose your creative mojo and give up before actually going fully broke or give up when you finally realize you’ve crapped on your own dinner table with your poor business choices as manifest in your inability to make enough sale$ to survive due to a jaded brainwashed market rife with free art entitlement beliefs. None of those sound good, eh?

So, in short:

“Exposure is the lie all amateurs want to tell themselves.”

Amateurs like Charles Stross, the Baen Free Library, Bruce Sterling, Nine Inch Nails, Broken Saints, the producers of Four Eyed Monsters, and Radiohead, just off the top of my head? Not to mention every successful web/web-promoting artist or writer- Penny Arcade, XKCD, Johnathan Coulton, Tim Ferriss, Tom Peters, and I’m pretty much still at the tip of the iceberg here.

Look, this is fairly simple. You are an artist. You create stuff. Now let’s say for the sake of argument you want to sell some of that stuff. Thus, you need to attract the attention of people who might want to buy that stuff. That’s hard. If it wasn’t, Madison Avenue wouldn’t be full of people who specialise in doing just that.

Fortunately, there’s a simple way to get people to give you some attention, which gives you the chance to persuade them to buy your stuff. Give them stuff they might be interested in for free. Then, if they like that stuff, there’s a good chance that they’ll pay money for either more of that stuff, or that stuff in a more usable format.

Data from most of the above sources shows this works. Slightly counter-intuitively, it even shows that if you give the stuff you want to sell away, people will still pay for it anyway. (See Cory, Charlie and Baen’s results from releasing books under Creative Commons, which show substantial sales spikes from CC releases.).

And of course I’m completely skipping the entire thing where most artists – I don’t presume to speak for you, but most of us – create what they create so that other people can enjoy it. And a Creative Commons release means more people get to enjoy our work. Which is, you know, nice.

“Wow, so we’re lazy, can’t take the time to talk to fellow artists”

I don’t much like washing clothes by hand. I don’t know anyone else who much enjoys it either. Hence, I own a washing machine. You could argue that that’s lazy, I suppose.

In the same vein, I don’t much enjoy sending out pro-forma emails or negotiating pro-forma contracts. I don’t know anyone else who does either, at least who isn’t a lawyer, and I don’t know anyone who enjoys reading them. Creative Commons licenses allow me and the other party, whether I’m licensing my stuff or using other stuff that is CC-licensed, to skip a big chunk of work that neither of us will enjoy – “Can I use this?” “Sure.” “Under what terms?” “Well… *lots of legal nonsense that no-one finds much fun*” – and do more productive things instead that mean more art gets created faster in a way that’s more fun for everyone.

I’m sure you can find a downside in that, but I’m having trouble.

“you want free work and you’ll use any enticement, even a lie like “exposure” to get it.”

Yes. Absolutely, you’ve got me bang to rights. I entice myself to release my work under Creative Commons so that I can, er, download my own work. For free. Because otherwise I’d have to pay, erm, myself.

What?!?

“It’s the least I can do because no one here is thinking about [authors]”

I disagree for two reasons:

1) Because attribution is basically a sacred trait of CC licenses.

2) Because CC identifies other key rights/privileges the artist can choose to adopt or not.

The way I see it, CC thinks of both the authors (“If you find that your license is being violated, you may have grounds to sue under copyright infringement.”) and the public (file-sharing).

Ah, must be a director or actor, I’ve found the soft spot! Certainly collaborative arts are art – what a moronic assumption to make, that I find no value in them by citing one sentence of my post. The truth is that at the top of the food chain are the producers and promotersw who want to own everything BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY. And since they are top of the chain, they have more money and more power to try to force all the rest to give in to their demands for total ownership. Next come the contributors to a project who * if they have any brains * insist upon a cut of the whole because WITHOUT THEM, THERE WOULD BE NO PROJECT! Granted some of this is not so clearly cut and dried as for solo artists like a painter who truly owns his creation from first brush stroke (as long as he is not copying someone else’s photograph or painting!).

You’re missing the point on cc – I know that a few of the licenses reserve many or most rights. But MOST of the cc licenses are formulated to allow people to GIVE IT AWAY – that was the whole reason for ccs in the first place, to make it easy to give away your rights! If you don’t see what’s wrong with that idea, read my notes above to RDD about how the professional artists are impacted and reflect on how “free” exposure is 99% worthless for 99% of all artists! I’m not speaking of bartering for free advertising, real advertising that is effective – that would be fine (value for value) – I’m referring to a credit buried that will never be seen which is worthless in promotional value.

Too much work to answer some emails? Wow, so we’re lazy, can’t take the time to talk to fellow artists before cannibalizing their work as well as being greedy by wanting it for free? Amazing and disgusting. What do you think people did before emails? Maybe pick up the phone, write a letter, actually make a lunch date to meet the sucker they wanted to persuade into giving them free work? I’ve heard stories about artists who were so passionate to collaborate with someone, they respected them so much, they changed their lives by moving across the country or the world tfor just a chance to try to make contact so they might work together with an artist they respect. But for you at least, it’s too much of a burden to have to communicate via email now to initiate an artistic collaboration. Astounding. I’m sorry but the bleating all sounds so much like laziness and entitlement. Not a pretty picture at all…

As for the prat, that would be you and your ilk, who bleat on and on about how they are too busy to communicate, too entitled to have to pay for valuable works. And for those who are too talented to have to exercise their own creative muscle and can just magically transform others work into their own genius creative works, who are too superior and too righteous in their misguided socialism to support and nurture rather than discourage and destroy working professional artists who make their living from their works and devote their lives to it.

As for troll, well, I didn’t come here to incite argument or revel in your upset over my words which is what the troll wishes for. I came here hoping against hope that someone who is presently on the misguided path to “free” art via cc and Lessig worship would read my words and consider the points made which obviously have not been adequately addressed in the fever to convert more “artists” to the giveaway schemes. If I can reach just one, I will have made a small difference and maybe they will tell their friends. Why? For all the working professionals that have given up in the past few years or who will have to give up their life’s work as a result of this nonsense in the future. It’s the least I can do because no one here is thinking about them, least of all Lessig and his copyright decimation mission. Funny how he has no comment about these casualties he endorses and encourages… funny how they are just swept under the carpet. Easier to feel good about “changing the world” when you can block out any memory of the victims of your activism. It’s unconscionable..

For RDD: Hates cc licenses? Yes, as long as they are promoted as part of a plan to strip rights from copyright owners, to make it more difficult for creators to own, control and profit from their works. Lessig promotes “free“ art for all and that is why ccs were created – to achieve that goal. It is in direct opposition to creatives‘ pursuit of a living off their work. It‘s sickening that so many people are being swayed to this ridiculous idea that giving it for free will get them “exposure“ or “notice“. Does exposure pay your rent? No, but how many happy cc users are thinking about this? Much easier to follow the leader….

Hates sampled works? No, not really, there are many great works that rely upon notions and nods to past works – that is the true nature of art. We are all “reinventing the wheel“ to some extent when we create our works. The point being that it takes a lot more skill to create something from nothing, something that was just inspired by past works rather than to take existing works, modify them a bit and call them your own. I’m sorry I just don’t buy that your (not yours, the collective yours) regurgitation of a slightly modified/mixed song or a collaged painting or photo or a remade film takes just as much talent as it took the original creator of the reference piece. That is not small minded – it’s just the plain honest truth! If you truly believe that the skill required to recreate something someone else already conceived and executed, well, there isn’t much hope of you ever being able to reason through concepts like licensing and its market which may be the real crux of this problem. You can say all you want that “the market demands sampled works” and that doesn’t change a thing. This push via cc for allowing more free access to others creative works has and will continue to degrade the quality of works we will get from our artists.

How can you not clearly see this and how it works out? If working professional artists cannot get enough money out of their work (because they are competing against FREE works) to support themselves, what incentive to they have to continue their work? If the market is flooded with free this and that and the $ sign rules the reasoning behind “creative” choices in the market (which it has to some extent, witness the Virgin Mobile incident) resulting in more and more freebies being chosen instead of relying upon professional working artists to meet those artistic needs, how can you not see that this cc program is indeed helping push artists out of business? And also flooding our cultural outlets with subpar work (and yes, I’ll grant you sometimes even great works which should be licensed for $$ for their creators who are giving them away)? This is done by amateurs, hobbyists, beginners who are apparently too thick to see that they are cheating themselves of licensing fees (if their work is good enough) and that they are adversely impacting people who have devoted their lives for their art? I am appalled that people who say they care so much about the “world” conveniently seem to forget about the professional artists they are hurting while they bleat on and on about how “free” art is good for everyone, we “must reform copyright“, blah, blah, blah.. It’s not good for everyone. Period. You can’t pretend that it is. Artists are hurt and as a whole, society is hurt as the level of art quality goes down and as the dedicated artists have to give up and we end up with hobbyists and amateurs as the artists of our time. Sad, truly sad, but that is what is happening and will continue with this focus on making art “free”.

Think about this: if you needed an open heart surgery or an architect to design a safe building or an attorney to save your butt from prison for a charge you are not guilty of, how would you choose your heart surgeon/architect/attorney? Would you select the highly paid professional who has spent years learning and honing their craft, educating themselves, keeping current with the latest developments and in the process spending thousands on education and tools, giving up other life opportunities in order to specialize and become an expert and to provide unique high quality services? Or would you select the hobbyist, the part timer, the weekender, who always wanted to be a heart surgeon/architect/attorney and has spent some time dappling in the field, learning just enough to appear legit, sometimes even making results that could pass for a “real” pro’s effort – someone who still works a 9-5 “regular” job and moonlights for free or for very low cost to appease their ego that they too “could have been a surgeon/architect/attorney”? Certainly there will be a big difference in what you’ll pay for these services but isn’t it obvious a specialist dedicated to their craft is a better choice in the long run? This is what we are talking about here – how the push for a free creative market is impacting professional artists. Ask one how it is affecting them – they’ll tell you themselves, you don’t have to believe me. Sure, the antidote is to be better, deliver more, fire your bad clients but that only goes so far — eventually there isn’t enough market to support the suppliers in it. CC is fostering this and yet they trumpet this as some kind of societal improvement. Not.

Hates communes? Well, no, anyone who wants to live in one should be free to do so and I wish them well on their journey into alternative lifestyles. But please don’t try to force me to live in a world where I am expected to give it away for free for the benefit of my society. Communes don’t work well because they are inherently based on faulty logic — you can‘t save the world by giving it all away to your fellow residents/the world. If you don’t believe me, go read up on how they fared in the 60s and find the stats to tell you how many of them are long term survivors. They don’t stay cohesive because it’s not in human nature to live like that long term. They’re great for young idealists but soon lose their appeal as the young ones grow pragmatic with age. Some people call it wisdom… Of course there are a few who never grow up, so…..

– Allan Keith

I know I don’t have to use Creative Commons work to be an artist. But it gives me more options, and lets me answer less emails.

Sure, I could contact the musicians who wrote the pieces I want to use in a soundtrack, and ask their permission – I’ve done so plenty of times. But if they’ve released their work under the appropriate Creative Commons license, perhaps because they know it’s an excellent promotional tool, it saves both of us time. I know they’re cool with their work being used, and they don’t have to answer an email or carefully sift through an individual contract. And because of that, they’ve got a much higher chance of my using their work on a film, which gives them exposure.

(Lee g – you know that there are some artforms which only work by collaboration, right? Like, you know, the film and TV industries, theatre, opera, music… I’d be fascinated to hear how you’d propose that Ridley Scott or Sir Ian McKellen “just create something wonderful and original all by YOURSELF”. Or maybe you don’t feel that directors, screenwriters, and actors are artists?)

Likewise, I don’t have to release my work under Creative Commons (interesting that your only argument against releasing under CC is “Why should any creator allow big deep pocket corporations to use their work for free?”. Uh, I recommend that you read the Creative Commons site for the answer to that one, expressed in the form “NC”). But it’s easier.

I want people to share my work (and the work of all my collaborators) with their friends. Sure, I could ask them to all individually email me for permission, or have a lawyer draft a custom contract allowing people to give my work to their friends. But the first one would be a hell of a lot of hard work answering emails, not to mention a lot of work for my fans, and the second would cost money.

If only there was a third option, like a well-respected, well-drafted license that I could just attach by default…

(P.S. – thanks for referring to, ooh, everyone but you as “sheeple”.It means everyone else has to do less work, because you already look like a prat just by your choice of vocabulary.)