Should Artists charge money for their content?

[Vault101]

Again, that seems to be the grey area. Legally what the Indie artists are doing is copyright violation, to which legal ramifications can be swayed, but it's usually a scope of scale when dealing with corporations. When it's possible to control the use of their property ( such as Youtube) they then to use blanket cease and desist. EA doesn't have the time or resources to stop everyone, and tends to focus on the especially grievous ones. Usually indie artists don't monetize IP they don't own and simply use it to show off their skills (greyer area when falling into things like parody, satire, and other loopholes), and use that bit of fame to push their own stuff.

its also a question of "harm" I guess

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.

this is just my personal opinion so take that as you will...but I'll slip you into my previous post as a defence of that kind of thing

because a lot of those artists are filling a demand for something that wouldn't otherwise exist...like ageis ago an artist got a little buzz for doing some awesome posters of Bioshock Infinite in Disney style[footnote/]they even said they wouldn't sell prints without permission...though I have since seen their work on redbubble...and I think its actually them not a rip off artist..thought hat particular print didn't seem to be available in poster just sitckers [sub/]still redbubbles search function can be frustratingly hard to navigate[/sub][/footnote] actual merch NEVER gets that creative...and that's also due to the nature of the internet which has given rise to buisnessnes like Teefury, we stylise and remix and cross over pop culture which makes for something waaaay more awesome than a tacky poster of the godawful cover art of Biochock:Infinite I could have bought at EBgames "legitimately"

I wouldn't be against the companies taking a cut but ultimately they aren't losing any money over these things, curbing the copyright infringement wouldn't help anyone

The thing is, if an artist likes doing something? That person will do it the payment in itself is first of all..enjoyment from the other person. .

that is true...and a good thing

but it really irritates me when people use that as an excuse that everything should be free...if that's the approach that an artist takes to their work then more power too them, that's great

but that artist does not speak for all other artists who might do things differently

maybe I'm cynical/jaded but when say an indie developer talks about the "benefits" of piracy like exposure..that's fine but then everyone start metaphorically fellating themselves over the fact that "see see! piracy is fine! freedom of information!" its like no...come on

I really don't see why so many people seem to have issues with artist charging for their work like anyone else has a right to see it for nothing or the artist should just be grateful people want to see/listen to their work at all.
.

given that its such an oversaturated market with limited demand and our download/remix culture....you'd be surprised

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't see why they shouldn't. It took them time, effort and skill to create their works and, depending on the medium, there may be additional costs relating to materials used or new technology purchased. Plus, you're also presumably getting some enjoyment out of their work which I would think would be considered to "worth" something. Of course, the decision to charge or not is up to the artist, but I don't see why they should ever be expected not to charge.

 

[Queen Michael]

Sure. Moviemakers charge money. Writers charge money. Musicians charge money. Visual artists have that right too. If it's not good art I just won't pay.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

The artist can do that if they want and they have people who look forward to seeing their work on a regular basis. I personally wouldn't do it, since I don't see many benefits of it and I'm doubtful how many people would subscribe to such a thing. Locking your art behind a paywall also prevents people who would commission you or offer you a job from seeing your stuff.

If it's something like a webcomic though, where regular updates are expected as part of a larger project, that would be different and at the very least warrants a donation button.

 

[DementedSheep]

I really don't see why so many people seem to have issues with artists charging for their work like anyone else has a right to see it for nothing or the artist should just be grateful people want to see/listen to their work at all.
Yes they absolutely have a right to charge for their work. The fact they use to put stuff up for free doesn't change anything.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Even artwork that you view without payment isn't "free", the artist paid for it with time and effort.

Interesting idea, though I think there's more to it than that. I draw and I make music. I plan on releasing everything I do for free as I do them as hobbies rather than a full-time or even part-time profession. This is partially because I don't feel they're up to a "commercial" standard but mostly because I do it because I love doing it. If anything, I find it rewarding and valuable to myself and that kinda negates the time and effort I put into it.

But that's just me. If people want to charge for their work, they should go ahead. People have to eat.

And don't get me wrong, if someone 'pays' for something with their time and effort and wants to distribute it without material recompense that's great. Personally I do professional-level massage for my friends without asking for compensation all the time.

But I do think that people should be aware that nothing produced by people exists without someone having 'paid' for it in one way or another.

 

[Redryhno]

It honestly depends on a case to case basis. As a general rule of mine though, anyone who started on DeviantArt probably isn't the best to go start paying to view their work on a completely different site. Seeing as most of the people on there are either there because they like what they do and want it to be seen as a hobby, or looking to start a fanbase to go off-site and never visit it again. Then there's also the meagre handful of professionals looking to get a job and just have that up there for quick and easy access to examples of their work.

The one way I would consider it is if they released one or two of their works on the DeviantArt page that were previously locked behind the paywall every month or two as incentives, and even then, I'd have to have found multiple people on this new paywall site to even consider the remote possibility of subscribing to them. There's artists on Youtube that let you watch them go through the process of their creations for free and the most you get anymore is a link to a donation box if you want.

It's certainly well within their rights to do so. But I doubt there's many people that'll follow them, the internet's a big place, and there's bound to be another artist with a similar or exact style doing very similar stuff for free. And even commissioned work I'd say is fine behind a paywall, so long as the person that paid for it doesn't also have to subscribe to get ahold of it.

 

[Just Ebola]

I feel really torn about this. On the one hand, I feel like anyone who puts effort into adding to the beauty of the world should receive a slice of the pie. But at the same time, art is a very subjective thing, and doesn't serve the same function it used to. Back in the day, one could dedicate all their time to creating art and receive a sponsor. Can that still work today?

I'm not sure, but they certainly have the right to ask for money in exchange for their stuff.

 

[SKBPinkie]

Wasn't this also posted on the Giant bomb forums? This exact post as well?

Anyways, OT - Yes. Fuck yes.

It's their content. Consider it a gift that they were providing it to you for free for all this time. They are well within their rights to charge for it the instant they wish to.

 

[CrystalShadow]

They have every right to charge money for their art if they feel inclined to. It's their art, and they are under no obligation to share it with anyone. What they did in the past has nothing to do with it either.

Having said that, eh. I don't think it's the best of moves, but I can understand someone doing it, and ultimately it's their choice.
if someone creates art others like, the facf that others like it is not an obligation to keep handing out more and more art.
It's the artists choice what to do with it, and they don't 'owe' you or anyone else more art just because you were fond of something they did in the past.

Fans are great, sure. And it's nice to know people enjoy what you do, but some of them seem to behave as though they own you now, for the sole reason that they liked your work, they now expect you to go out of your way to please them or something?

I don't know it's a weird topic.

 

[Story]

Absolutely it is they artist's right to charge for their work and the rights to use/view that work.

That fact this is even a question is worrying.

Edit:
Furthermore, after reading the above comments, it isn't even a case by case basses either.
Whether the artist used to offer their content for free...
Whether the artist is in a tight financial spot or rolling in money...
Whether the artist only takes minimal/maximum time and supply money to produce the artwork work...
Whether the artist is talented or not...
Whether the artist has a unique style or not...
Whether the artist does this professionally or as a hobby...
Whether the artist is popular or unpopular...

...they still have the right to charge for their work.
Just as you have the right to not give them patronage or viewership.

Finally, the artist can still get appreciation for the work they've done and charge money. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Armadox]

Wasn't this also posted on the Giant bomb forums? This exact post as well?

Anyways, OT - Yes. Fuck yes.

It's their content. Consider it a gift that they were providing it to you for free for all this time. They are well within their rights to charge for it the instant they wish to.

Actually, apparently yes it was. Though it's being panned much harder on that site then this.

Personally I do professional-level massage for my friends

What's the trade value on a professional-level massage? Can I trade two sketch cards for one, or is this one of those two chickens equal an epic poem spoken in length by the fire kinda thing?

 

[visiblenoise]

Most countries don't fund the artist, so they kinda need to charge money...

 

[silversnake4133]

To be honest, I couldn't care less what any artist wanted to do with his or her art. If they want to charge to view it, hey, that's up to them, but if they were to take a large cut in viewership or their audience because they're basically locking their content away in a vault until possible viewers essentially "pay up", well, that's their problem. What I would recommend they do is limit that "pay per view" stuff to the really REALLY good polished stuff and commissions, but give the audience at least something to enjoy for free. Yes being an artist is hard and you need monies to live (who doesn't?), but you also need an audience. And one of the quickest ways to lose said audience is to demand they pay just to even SEE your art.

 

[Vault101]

I feel really torn about this. On the one hand, I feel like anyone who puts effort into adding to the beauty of the world should receive a slice of the pie. But at the same time, art is a very subjective thing, and doesn't serve the same function it used to. Back in the day, one could dedicate all their time to creating art and receive a sponsor. Can that still work today?
.

well we have patreon

anway as I said above like bringing up past systems is kinda irrelevant, technology and society changes and so do the industry's, no its not as easy to be a billion rockstar on the level of rolling stones anymore

some people like to paint the past as a time when art wasn't commercial...except it was either through patronage or demand like religious paintings in the renaissance

snip it.

weather or not its a good business decision is entirely separate from weather or not its a good idea in principle

 

[Armadox]

To be honest, I couldn't care less what any artist wanted to do with his or her art. If they want to charge to view it, hey, that's up to them, but if they were to take a large cut in viewership or their audience because they're basically locking their content away in a vault until possible viewers essentially "pay up", well, that's their problem. What I would recommend they do is limit that "pay per view" stuff to the really REALLY good polished stuff and commissions, but give the audience at least something to enjoy for free. Yes being an artist is hard and you need monies to live (who doesn't?), but you also need and audience. And one of the quickest ways to lose said audience is to demand they pay just to even SEE your art.

Yah, a tiered subscription method tends to work best, still allowing the public to enjoy some of what you have to offer. As for viewership, would you rather have a thousand people seeing your art for nothing, or fifty people paying you money every month to enjoy the same content? Ads and such could make the thousand profitable even if they don't play up immediately, but then you're just getting into how they prefer getting paid, not if they should.

Also, someone mentioned commissions paid for being set behind a pay wall. That depends on if the artist gave a copy of the commission to the buyer to do what they want with it too. Otherwise, double dipping doesn't really seem... ethical.

 

[Redryhno]

weather or not its a good business decision is entirely separate from weather or not its a good idea in principle

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

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. Originals are nice and all, but nobody but the people that can afford them are going to care that what they've got is just a reprint.

 

[Just Ebola]

I feel really torn about this. On the one hand, I feel like anyone who puts effort into adding to the beauty of the world should receive a slice of the pie. But at the same time, art is a very subjective thing, and doesn't serve the same function it used to. Back in the day, one could dedicate all their time to creating art and receive a sponsor. Can that still work today?
.

well we have patreon

anway as I said above like bringing up past systems is kinda irrelevant, technology and society changes and so do the industry's, no its not as easy to be a billion rockstar on the level of rolling stones anymore

some people like to paint the past as a time when art wasn't commercial...except it was either through patronage or demand like religious paintings in the renaissance

snip it.

weather or not its a good business decision is entirely separate from weather or not its a good idea in principle

I'm not sure I follow. Of course technology and society change, that's simply a given. I only pondered if the way painting (and art in general) was viewed as a viable means of income can still be applied to today's market. How is making a comparison irrelevant?

I never said anything about art not being commercial in the past, that would be a bit difficult considering most of them operated under a sponsor, as I said.

 

[tetarga]

Speaking as an artist I find some of the responses in here to be rather depressing

 

[pearcinator]

It's up to the artist to determine whether to charge people for their art or not.

As the aforementioned artist the OP is talking about, he should have left all the art he had already offered freely on DeviantArt and then directed people to his site for all his newer art. The best way is to show all your art for free but in a much lower resolution than paying people.

For example, Digital Blasphemy is an online wallpaper website with thousands of wallpapers. You can view his art for free (albeit at low resolution) and if you like it then you can subscribe and get access to all his art in a huge variety of resolutions (up to triple 4K monitor set-ups) and you can also purchase merchandise of his artwork (posters, mousepads, mugs, t-shirts etc.). I think this is the best system as people get to view your art for free yet restricted by the size. He puts out a new wallpaper on a weekly basis.

http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/seeall.shtml

Click on any image to see a larger version (new ones at the top, old ones at the bottom) but you need to subscribe to gain access to all resolutions.