Why do people give away their work for free?
Foxxor
This message contains no flames, no flammable political/social material
(except possibly this disclaimer itself), and no advertisements
whatsoever. So if you read a.f.f for any of those, click the next button
now.
~~~~~~~~~
Okay, I am a asking a question I was taught never to ask. Never question
the giver of a gift. But.. there are many people whose works only leave
me wondering why they give them away for free. I mean I'd pay for it.
Likewise, there have been many artists who have pulled their works because
somebody posted the pictures without permission, or linked to a URL
containing pictures the author wishes to restrict to a limited audience.
If the artist sold their drawings instead of giving them away for free,
then they would certainly have more control over their works than if they
posted them on the web where anybody could web search for them. My
question is, if there had been a payment system in place, would the work
from these artists still be available? After all, if you paid hard earned
cash for a CD or comic book, would you be willing to make copies of it for
freeloaders? Would some Russian kid living in copyright anarchy be able
to post your works if he didn't have the rubles (or his parent's
permission) to buy your CD? Granted, there will still be some behind the
scenes trading of works, whether by a conspiracy (I buy this, you buy
that, and we trade copies), or by a disgruntled fan. But could a payment
system at least provide some incentive for the art viewer to respect the
meager rights of the creator?
Now I'm not suggesting that artists/writers pull all their freely
available works or from now on only post vandalized "for sale on furbid"
tragedies. Nor am I suggesting everybody start selling a $25.00 CD of
their work, when they have little prestige and practice. What I'm talking
about is a micropayment system. Yes I dare bring up the word micropayment
again even after the whole dotcom flop thingy. I've seen CDRs and comic
books sold on Japanese sites for relatively cheap, maybe $4.00 for a CDR,
or $1.50 for a comic book. Also, on occassion files containing comics are
sold. The technology is available to produce copies on demand, so there
isn't as great a startup price like there was, say, oh a hundred years
ago. But why stop there.. why not charge $.25 to view an artist's
selected work in a public art archive or on their personal site. Granted,
you won't be getting Picasso for that price, but hey, maybe they will be
someday.
There are furry auction sites available, but auctions are only good for
selling original items and collectibles. I know I won't wait a week for
an auction to close just so that I can begin a transaction on buying a
freakin' print that will then take another couple of weeks before it shows
up on my doorstep.
Would such a micropayment system lead away from art and into the realm of
pop culture, in which everything produced conformed to a drull stereotype,
as lamented by disinterested audiences that blame RIAA's slumping sales on
the emphasis of teeny pop bands? Or might the marketplace become flooded
with cheap products and degenerate into a popularity contest, in which
items are bought based on the popularity of the artists or based on the
relationship between the purchaser and the artist without regard to
artistic aesthetics? Would artists start thinking of drawing as a tedious
job rather than a diversion, thus leading to a decline in art quality?
If this sort of system could work, is there any reason why people aren't
doing it now? Is it more effort to mail CDRs of your work instead of
posting it on a website/archive/newsgroup, even if being paid several
bucks? Does the potential for dishonesty or damaged goods drive away
potential sellers/buyers?
Any thoughts?
Obvious Fake. Do Not Harvest.
>Warning: lots of unanswered questions ahead.
[nope, snipped the entire lot]
>Any thoughts?
Micropayments, despite Scott McCloud's enthusiasm on the subject, are not
currently feasible. It usually costs money to move money around, and free
services are pretty much worth what you pay for them -- when they work, it's
because of people willing to sacrifice their time and effort, and when other
facets of their lives force them to move on it's pretty much over (unless they
start charging to gain compensation for their labor).
Will a working micropayment system exist in the future? Maybe, but I doubt
web-artists and other creators (furry or otherwise) will be responsible for
figuring it out and making it usable. I suspect it will be an entirely
different set of companies that will finally crack it, and the artists will
simply use the service when they become aware of it (much like eBay and
PayPal).
That's my non-expert, speaking-only-for-myself opinion. Next?
**********************************************************
If you want me to see your response, please post.
http://ursine.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/listing.pl
http://www.towerofbabel.com/antispam
**********************************************************
iBuck
>doing it now? Is it more effort to mail CDRs of your work instead of
>posting it on a website/archive/newsgroup, even if being paid several
>bucks? Does the potential for dishonesty or damaged goods drive away
>potential sellers/buyers?
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>
Simple reason... micropayments don't work well yet - too many banking fees, no
consistant system (billpay, paypal, amazon.com honor system) and then the're
postage -exceeding- the cost of the item itself... It's simply easier to
advertise on the web to drive sales in other venues..
As for people pulling their stuff.. from personal experience, it's not really
an issue of control over the work... it's more of one of respect, the artists
feel snubbed especially when a peice is reposted without credit.. more often
than not I've found if you -ask- people will say "yes" to the same use that
they'd be sending C&D's out for if they arnt..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Samantha Ann Patterson
Foxxor <fo...@u.know.where.to.reach.me.if.u.want.to.email.me> wrote:
>Warning: lots of unanswered questions ahead.
>
>This message contains no flames, no flammable political/social material
>(except possibly this disclaimer itself), and no advertisements
>whatsoever. So if you read a.f.f for any of those, click the next button
>now.
>
>~~~~~~~~~
>
>Okay, I am a asking a question I was taught never to ask. Never question
>the giver of a gift. But.. there are many people whose works only leave
>me wondering why they give them away for free. I mean I'd pay for it.
>Likewise, there have been many artists who have pulled their works because
>somebody posted the pictures without permission, or linked to a URL
>containing pictures the author wishes to restrict to a limited audience.
>If the artist sold their drawings instead of giving them away for free,
>then they would certainly have more control over their works than if they
>posted them on the web where anybody could web search for them. My
>question is, if there had been a payment system in place, would the work
>from these artists still be available? After all, if you paid hard earned
Simple analogy. You buy a pizza and share it with your housemates because
you're playing Monopoly together and you just got paid and it's fun and
social...
Versus: Your housemate drinks all your beer while you're at work, having
never asked.
Sometimes people share, others not. It isn't a logical thing, it isn't
a constant situation. Human beings are sometimes irrational and sometimes
inconsiderate. You can't expect smooth sailing all the time.
Andtwolf
> Any thoughts?
I'm not a great artist, and I don't think my work is saleable, but let's pretend
for a minute that I am and it is. I would still continue to post my stuff FOC on
the VCL. I have one good reason for this (at least I think it's a good reason) -
to me my creation of art is completely meaningless if I can't share it with
people. I wouldn't want to restrict sharing by imposing a payment system.
If I wanted to make money off of my artwork, there's another good reason for
sharing it FOC: exposure. If people see that I do good work, they might bid on a
commission on furbid or they might bid to buy the original of a piece I shared
on the web. Exposure is a big part of making money from art, and I think a
payment system would hinder exposure. Just my $.02 ;)
--
FCWps3s/A[any corvid]ps3s/CtDps3s/Fps3s A+ C- D H- M P+ R T# W Z# Sp# RLCT a+ cblu++$ d-- e++ f h++ iw+ j* p sf*
Chris Baird
in that having to chase down every last cent they're entitled to
will result in a lifestyle and/or mindset that they don't particularly
care for. (You might guess that I'm in the middle of reading "Walden"
by Henry Thoreau. :)
--
Chris,,
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<fo...@u.know.where.to.reach.me.if.u.want.to.email.me> wrote:
[...]
> Okay, I am a asking a question I was taught never to ask. Never question
> the giver of a gift. But.. there are many people whose works only leave
> me wondering why they give them away for free.
I suspect that the resons why artists give away furry art for free
(beer) is simmler to the resons that programers give away software for
free (beer and speech).
* As a Add for there services.
Meany artists use there publicly adavalable art collection as a
type of online portfolio to promote there commisions.
* To improve there reputation.
Buy giving away art, espacally good art an artistis reputation
within the fandom is improved.
* To encourage others to give away there art for free.
Buy giving art to the community as a gift they encourage other
artists to reciprcate and also give there art for free.
Economic thory suggests that gift economies like this will form as a
concequence of some forms of abundence. It should also be noted that
artists are not the only ones giving things away for free, the people
who run archive sites, mucks and other systems give away there
bandwidth and there time for free as well.
[...]
> My
> question is, if there had been a payment system in place, would the work
> from these artists still be available? After all, if you paid hard earned
> cash for a CD or comic book, would you be willing to make copies of it for
> freeloaders?
Experence says yes they would. Consider this, all thouse pirited
mp3s have to have been ripped from someone's CD collection. At
somepoint someone bourt the CD, and then they let other people have
copies. And its for the same resons as I mentioned above. The people
who buy the CD/comic book would give it away for free, as long as the
costs to reproduce it are less then the value that the "pirate" gets
for reproducing it.
> Would some Russian kid living in copyright anarchy be able
> to post your works if he didn't have the rubles (or his parent's
> permission) to buy your CD? Granted, there will still be some behind the
> scenes trading of works, whether by a conspiracy (I buy this, you buy
> that, and we trade copies), or by a disgruntled fan.
And such a "Tit for tat" conspiracy will quickly evolve into a full
grown pirit community. Indeed thats what the current system evolved
out of (I create this, you create that, and we trade copies). In
effect the intangable benifits for the artist would be transfered to
the people who buy the art rather then the people who create the art.
> But could a payment
> system at least provide some incentive for the art viewer to respect the
> meager rights of the creator?
A payment system would in the long term act paridoxically as a
disincentive for respect of the artist.
> Now I'm not suggesting that artists/writers pull all their freely
> available works or from now on only post vandalized "for sale on furbid"
> tragedies. Nor am I suggesting everybody start selling a $25.00 CD of
> their work, when they have little prestige and practice. What I'm talking
> about is a micropayment system.
We are yet to see a working micro payment system.
[...]
> There are furry auction sites available, but auctions are only good for
> selling original items and collectibles.
This is because original items and collectibles can't be reproduced (a
reproduction of an original isn't an original its just a reproduction
of the original) so the montory economy works for them.
[...]
> Would such a micropayment system lead away from art
No its more likely that such a micropayment system would collaps under
its own waight torn apart by piracy.
[...]
> If this sort of system could work, is there any reason why people aren't
> doing it now? Is it more effort to mail CDRs of your work instead of
> posting it on a website/archive/newsgroup, even if being paid several
> bucks?
Its consridably more effort to mail CDRs and handle the whole cash
manigiment side of things.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Tim Gadd
spent hours writing is a piece of art, or a piece of creative work, on a
par with a drawing which someone spent hours drawing - I give away my art
for nothing.
The main reason I do it, is because I don't really care if someone copies
it, or gets it for nothing. I don't know how I would react if someone took
it and made a million bucks from it, but (despite the fact that sequel to
101 Dalmatians suspiciously resembles an episode of Bob's Demented Alsatian
in several respects) I don;t think that's ever likely to happen.
However another reason is simply that a way to get noticed by people who
might be willing to pay money for something is to give away other things
for nothing. I've had a story published because a publisher saw my
publically available stuff on the web and solicited me. Admittedly they
ended up not paying me anything either, but that publication ramped up my
exposure another level. Sooner or later I assume that if my stuff was any
good, and I produced it in sufficient quantities, this policy would pay
off.
Of course I really don't write creatively nowadays in sufficient quantities
that I really expect this to happen, nor am I really concerned about it one
way or the other. I write a lot of editorial pieces and give them away for
a friend to publish on his blog, which gets a lot of readership. I suppose
my attitude is basically unprofessional.
Of course I'm a writer not an 'artist', and 'artists', in the furry
community anyway, are more in a position to demand money for their services
in the first place.
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
Homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
"The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes."
Stanley Kubrick
Andtwolf
> Well, if we can take the rather radical step of saying that a story which I
> spent hours writing is a piece of art,
It's no radical step! ;) A piece of creative writing *is* art because it's just as
possible to paint a picture with words as it is with a brush and paints.
iBuck
>manigiment side of things.
>
Isn't that somewhat location dependant though? I've heard you fuss over the
cost/time investment in downloading works from austrailia, it seams it might be
cheaper for you to order that CD-ROM...
Tim Gadd
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:08:30 -0500, Tim Gadd wrote:
>
>> Well, if we can take the rather radical step of saying that a story which I
>> spent hours writing is a piece of art,
>
>It's no radical step! ;) A piece of creative writing *is* art because it's just as
>possible to paint a picture with words as it is with a brush and paints.
Actually I was being sarcastic.
Brian W. Antoine
<fo...@u.know.where.to.reach.me.if.u.want.to.email.me> wrote:
>Okay, I am a asking a question I was taught never to ask. Never question
>the giver of a gift. But.. there are many people whose works only leave
>me wondering why they give them away for free.
Because it was created simply for the joy of creating it, and
they wish to share it with others who might also enjoy it.
Chris Baird
> over the cost/time investment in downloading works from austrailia,
> it seams it might be cheaper for you to order that CD-ROM...
International Bank charges.
(Although the usual way around it for most established fans here is to
have a barter system going with someone overseas, legitimate or
otherwise. In the early days of the Gaffney/Laine-edited South
Fur Lands fanzine, they had a deal with Mailbox Books where instead of
being paid for new issues of SFL, they could use their due balance to
order stuff in return. (Although most of the time, they'd organize
with several other locals and make ~$300 orders, where the $25
transaction charge was a little more tolerable.)
--
Chris,,
Foxxor
(aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
> I suspect that the resons why artists give away furry art for free
clipped analysis of bullet points:
> * As a Add for there services.
> * To improve there reputation.
> * To encourage others to give away there art for free.
Those are all good; I was curious as to why the American furry system
developed as it did compared to the manga-business-inspired kemono scene
in which even beginning artists sell copies of their work instead of
giving every last piece away for free. Maybe the reason was, at least
in the past, easier to break into the commercial comic business in Japan
than it is in the U.S, thus there is a greater spirit of commercialism.
Maybe population density is a factor as comic markets, which sound
similar to the all-day-saturday car shows that appear in the U.S., are
easier to amass large crowds and a large number of artists. Huge as in
thousands of artists. Such an avenue makes it easier for budding artists
to sell their wares. The buyers can then talk to budding artists and
flip through their works, and possibly put down a $1.50 on a comic book.
This differs from the rest of the world, as most internet users live in
countries with relatively sparse population densities, thus making it
difficult to create such huge events. It's more efficient to just give
away art away free over the internet than it is trying to sell
prints/cdrom/other duplicated matter and deliver through the mail system.
It is apparently worth it to sell originals through the internet however.
> Economic thory suggests that gift economies like this will form as a
> concequence of some forms of abundence. It should also be noted that
I'm not so sure that a gift economy is necessarily a good thing. At
least when applied to tangible products, it results in wacky laws and
bizarre restrictions. Take for example the printer business in which
printers are sold below cost and the price of ink is ridiculus. Some
printer manufacturers make their customers sign contracts requiring
the customer to return used ink cartridges and build in electronic
circuitry in the ink cartridge itself to circumvent would-be ink
refillers.
As for applying the gift economy to intangible items, I've noticed that
there are people who spent a couple extra hours per drawing to add a
background, that'd make a big difference in their works. Likewise, there
are some people, who if paired with a storyteller, could be writing an
illustrated book. Not necessarily to publish printed form, as such a
step is risky. But supplying the book in CD-ROM form should be
relatively inexpensive experiment. Granted, the question of course is,
would people buy it? If CD-ROMs were printed on demand there is
little financial risk. Even if a book only brought in a few dollars a
month, it might be better than nothing if publish on demand CD-ROM
has very little risk. Perhaps even a relatively small incentive would
spur people to take their work to the next level.
> And such a "Tit for tat" conspiracy will quickly evolve into a full
> grown pirit community. Indeed thats what the current system evolved out
Interesting conceptualization of the formation of the
give-it-away-for-free community.
> We are yet to see a working micro payment system.
Yeah, there isn't any system yet in place for micropayments. Paypal
and the Amazon system aren't meant for granular payments even if that was
their original purpose. I think the main barrier is the cost of insuring
against theft, which then translates into transaction fees. Most payment
services link themselves to a credit card number which greatly increases
the cost of theft. A thief with a stolen credit card number can quickly
drain thousands of dollars. The trick is to implement a system
completely separate from credit cards in which risk is minimized to say,
$5.00 a day. Only then could a micropayment system work.
Mp3.com had something of a micropayment scheme, except the money was
collected from advertisers not users. Once the online advertisement went
downhill, the advertisement fees were not enough to sustain the payments.
> No its more likely that such a micropayment system would collaps under
> its own waight torn apart by piracy.
I'm not so sure, necessarily. If it's cheaper to pay a dime than it is to
spend time searching for pirated copies, then I'd think people would just
pay.
> Its consridably more effort to mail CDRs and handle the whole cash
> manigiment side of things.
I do agree, it is difficult to track the transactions, although I'm curious
as to why services to handle the burden of selling CDR and one-off
printed material haven't materialized within the art realm.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<fo...@u.know.where.to.find.me> wrote:
> In article <slrnb5ku0r....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>, "David Formosa
> (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>> I suspect that the resons why artists give away furry art for free
> clipped analysis of bullet points:
>> * As a Add for there services.
>> * To improve there reputation.
>> * To encourage others to give away there art for free.
>
> Those are all good; I was curious as to why the American furry system
> developed as it did compared to the manga-business-inspired kemono scene
> in which even beginning artists sell copies of their work instead of
> giving every last piece away for free.
I think part of the reson is the way fan art is treated by the
compernies. In japan fan art is accepted and you can sell your art
without getting sued (for the most part). However in the US (and most
other western compernies) you have to give your fan art away for free
to avoid the ire of the comperies.
In effect this creates a pool of free artwork which pulls down all the
art in this group to zero.
[...]
>> Economic thory suggests that gift economies like this will form as a
>> concequence of some forms of abundence. It should also be noted that
>
> I'm not so sure that a gift economy is necessarily a good thing. At
> least when applied to tangible products,
But we are talking in this case about intangable products.
> it results in wacky laws and
> bizarre restrictions. Take for example the printer business in which
> printers are sold below cost and the price of ink is ridiculus.
The printer business isn't a gift econmy. The printer business is an
example of a loss leader.
Andtwolf
> Interesting conceptualization of the formation of the give-it-away-for-free
> community.
Aren't we talking about displaying artwork on the Internet and someone(s) has
interpreted that as giving art away free? Technically, it's not giving it away.
Some artists might, but the vast majority of artists assert their copyright or
allow use with restriction. (And many artists give their work away to friends
and other artists to show their friendship and respect).
Every single piece that I have in my VCL gallery is owned by me and no one else.
Under international law (Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention), I
have *exclusive* rights to that art, and by putting it up on VCL, I'm *sharing*
it with others *not* giving it away. I realize that this might not stop certain
people from taking it anyway, but that sort of thing doesn't just happen with
works of art.
Also, I wouldn't pay a quarter (dime or nickle) to look at each bit of art out
there. I especially wouldn't pay without knowing what I'm going to see. There
are some very talented artists who use their talent to draw things that don't
interest me in the least, and even though it's very good art I don't want to pay
to see stuff that's not interesting. There's also some not-so-talented artists,
and I don't want to pay to see that for the first time either.
As it is right now I can only think of two, maybe three, artists to which I
*might* pay a small amount to see their work - but I only say that because I've
seen so much of their work already that I know it's always something I want to
see. I also wouldn't commission an artist without seeing a portfolio. If you
want to make money as an artist, you have to do some displaying of your work.
Even the Japanese that you talk about display the work for people to see before
they buy. How many people look at that comic book *free* before someone decides
to lay down $1.50 for it? Probably quite a few. Anyway, I think people need to
remember that displaying is not the same as giving-away.
> Likewise, there are some people, who if paired with a storyteller, could be
> writing an illustrated book. Not necessarily to publish printed form, as such
> a step is risky. But supplying the book in CD-ROM form should be relatively
> inexpensive experiment.
I'd love to work with an artist and do an illustrated book. If we all had to pay
a quarter to view each artist's work, though, I think I might end up racking up
a considerable sum just trying to find the right artist to work with. I can't
just pick anyone because I'd want to make sure the person's skills and style
match my skills and style. After all, it's more about producing a quality
product than it is about getting a book on a CD, isn't it? I imagine the artist
would feel the same way about me...Right now I have a few stories in the works,
but have nothing finished and up for people to see. Could I reasonably expect an
artist to want to work with me without seeing some sample writing? I don't
think I could.