A few days ago, a colleague sent me a link to the article Why creative people are putting their work free on the Net, by Katie Haegele. While I support innovative marketing and dissemination techniques (including many of the examples in the article), some of the opinions in the article are problematic.
Firstly, I, unlike Haegele, did not smile when I read “Reproduce/copy/imitate whatever you want. Just don’t sell it. This is the Internet, and everything is free.”. Phrases like that reinforce the dangerous notion that the internet is a free-for-all pirate bay. Yes, we should embrace the wonders of the internet to allow creators to reach a wider audience. And yes, the worldwide nature of the internet is problematic for traditional concepts of copyright law, but things are not free just because they are on the internet, nor should they be (at least not with the current way things work…maybe in the future when we can rethink the flow of revenue to creators).
Secondly, the statement “Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org) is what makes the book legally sharable.” is misleading. Creative Commons licenses work within the parameters of current copyright laws in different countries to facilitate the sharing of a book. These licenses make it much easier for creators to indicate the terms under which their work may be shared, but this option would have been possible (albeit not as accessible) pre-Creative Commons.
Thirdly, the marketing technique of giving away some things for free is not new. What we’re seeing is a shift from giving by the creator toward sharing by the consumers. What I had formerly thought was innovative now seems more like the creators are trying to regain some control over what is being given by them versus what has been shared by consumers (which they may not want shared).
Lastly, I would like to remind people that giving away some things for free isn’t a marketing technique which works or is desirable for all creative forms or all creators. Keeping in mind that copyright law already has provisions for fair dealing (which could still use some additional defining/refining), it should be the creator’s choice to give away their work. Unlike music, literature and film, much visual art is more valuable (financially and otherwise) because of its uniqueness. My favourite example of this is Matthew Barney’s work, which is available for viewing through cinemas or to collectors with deep pockets because only a few copies of each work have been created. Although the release of Barney’s work through Youtube means it could reach a wider audience, it should be the creator’s choice to do so.
Tags:
art,
copyright,
creative commons,
internet,
matthew barney
Related posts
Print This Post
