Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 09-22-2009, 07:14 PM

First, the hide function is not necessary, nor recommended, for articles of reasonable length quoted in the OP.

Second, unless I'm missing something, this guy doesn't understand basic business concepts.

An artist should be paid for both their work and their art, with two assumptions:

The artist has an agreement that indicates he or she will be paid for the time and other resources required to create the art. (Work)
The artist holds copyright or otherwise owns the rights--whether fully or in part--to the tangible or intangible manifestation or subsequent reproductions thereof. (Art)

It really is as simple as that.

This is how many businesses operate. Receiving compensation for a service performed is not new. Neither is receiving royalties or fees under licensing agreements. This doesn't only happen in the arts. Look around. These days, it's happening everywhere.

So, basically, an artist should receive some form compensation for their art if they have copyright (or some other agreement with a publisher, promoter, distributor, etc.) and the artwork is used in a commercial capacity.

See? Simple.

If I owned a company here in Canada that manufactured widgets, and a Chinese company expressed interest in making the same widgets available in the Chinese market, I could license out the brand, designs, and manufacturing process for a fee. For example, I could stipulate that 10% of the revenues from each unit is to be paid to my company as a part of the licensing arrangement.

This would be my company being compensated for what it had the rights to: a brand, design, and manufacturing process. This is how the "products and services" in the arts should work.

It all comes down to whether or not the artist remains the proprietor or part owner of the artwork.

09-22-2009, 07:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	First, the hide function is not necessary, nor recommended, for articles of reasonable length quoted in the OP. Second, unless I'm missing something, this guy doesn't understand basic business concepts. An artist should be paid for both their work and their art, with two assumptions: The artist has an agreement that indicates he or she will be paid for the time and other resources required to create the art. (Work) The artist holds copyright or otherwise owns the rights--whether fully or in part--to the tangible or intangible manifestation or subsequent reproductions thereof. (Art) It really is as simple as that. This is how many businesses operate. Receiving compensation for a service performed is not new. Neither is receiving royalties or fees under licensing agreements. This doesn't only happen in the arts. Look around. These days, it's happening everywhere. So, basically, an artist should receive some form compensation for their art if they have copyright (or some other agreement with a publisher, promoter, distributor, etc.) and the artwork is used in a commercial capacity. See? Simple. If I owned a company here in Canada that manufactured widgets, and a Chinese company expressed interest in making the same widgets available in the Chinese market, I could license out the brand, designs, and manufacturing process for a fee. For example, I could stipulate that 10% of the revenues from each unit is to be paid to my company as a part of the licensing arrangement. This would be my company being compensated for what it had the rights to: a brand, design, and manufacturing process. This is how the "products and services" in the arts should work. It all comes down to whether or not the artist remains the proprietor or part owner of the artwork. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-22-2009 at 07:19 PM..