Respectfully
Creativity in and of itself, is not that scarce. OTOH, creative works, that
contain a message that translates generally are. My wife owns a gallery and
art school. The number of folks who come in with SOMETHING created, and the
creativity of even the grade school participants (during the day she teaches
art to homeschooled kids) is astounding. Then again, there are the folks
who called the local paper to report "a naked woman in the front yard of a
building on Main Street" - when we recently showed a nationally recognized
scultors works.
There is no reason why an artist ought not get compensated for the work they
do. And most artists actually 'sell low' out of fear of rejection. Through
my wife I have met quite a few artists that make a decent living at their
work. And those that really are professional, DO have work that has more to
it than those who dabble. The single biggest difference between artists
making a living at what they do, is how much they actually just 'do the
work'.
Most 'starving artists' are actually either
a) blocked
b) really don't want to be artists, but like the image of it
c) worried too much about 'being successful' with the small body of work
they have, rather than just continually 'doing the work'.
The hard part for photographers, unlike sculptors and painters in various
media is that
a) almost everyone has access to a camera, whereas most folks figure they
simply are 'bad at art [read drawing]'
b) shoot enough shots and you might get lucky - this makes some parts of the
Stock industry just brutal
c) photographic images are inherently reproducible, and hence lack quite as
much 'uniqueness' to them - especially ones that have been or are being
digitized in some form.
But that doesn't mean you can't make an income of it.
BUT ONLY if the creative rights are protected.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
> Johnny writes:
>
> > I am interested in how you would go about
> > 'abolishing' royalties.
>
> By dramatically limiting the scope of copyright protection, and/or by
greatly
> reducing its duration, perhaps to the same duration as patent protection.
>
> > If it seems unfair to you, that's your problem.
>
> Not really. In the not-so-distant future, I think it will become a
problem for
> artists and especially organizations that depend on royalties.
>
> > Creative works are a scarce commodity ...
>
> Hardly. There are far more people with talent than there is demand for
talent.
> This is why there are so many starving artists in the world, whereas there
are
> very few starving engineers.
>
> Celebrity is a scarce commodity, and that's what usually commands the big
bucks,
> not creative talent. But celebrity is ephemeral, so last year's solid
gold may
> be this year's solid lead.
>
