I am a composer of what we (or at least other composers) tend to call “Concert Music”, that is, music for string quartets and orchestras and choruses and other things where you sit quietly in a darkened hall while shooting dirty looks at the old lady unwrapping a cough drop. I am expensively and elitistly-trained, and work (mostly) by commission. It is pretentious, it is fun, and I do it professionally.
_____________
Note by Noah: This post is by Jonathan Newman, incidentally, who is so shy and retiring he didn’t give his whole name, or his website, which is here.
_____________
Following the thread of posts this week, I’ve noticed more than a little talk about copyright essentially being created for and serving only the Publisher, and not the Creator. But what if that’s the same person? Save one or two works, I am a self-published composer; I run my own “publishing company” (it’s not, really, it’s just me and my Schedule C and a quirky company name), but while serving that function I do all the things a traditional publisher would do, including its main function: to exploit the copyrights it owns. Doing this myself pretty much avoids exactly what Nina Paley describes as the “gate-keepers”…those faceless corporate intellectual copyright owners who keep The Artist down. But I am the Artist (and the Publisher, the two are halves of each other in the case of copyright), and so even though “exploit” isn’t exactly a friendly word, it works fine, because there are in fact multiple ways to make a property (a piece of art) work for the both. Because for me, owning my works, and controlling their distribution through licensing, is how I’m able to survive as a working composer.
Most people don’t realize that when you make a work–and I’ll use music as an example for obvious reasons–your rights concerning the piece are numerous, and on several levels. I’m probably missing one or two, but once your new hypothetical work is completed (Congratulations, writing music is hard) you’re faced with what is actually a constellation of rights, all of which one, or his/her evil representative if s/he’s traditionally-published, can “exploit”:
- The right to reproduce it (make photocopies, bound copies, whatever)
- The right to publish and distribute it (these days you should think twice before signing that one away)
- The right to sync it to motion-picture (this was the prickly one for Nina Paley)
- The right to “grand” staging (use in a play or ballet or pretty much anything else with costumes)
- The right to record it (the first time that is, and then anyone can do it as long as they pay the statutory mechanical rates. Thus, covers.)
- The right to “prepare derivative works” from it (for music that usually means arrange it for other ensembles or instrumentations. For books and whatnot that usually means licensing the rights for the opera, or the movie)
- The right to broadcast it (radio)
- and the right to perform it (the biggie)
Now, which one of these would you like me to ignore because you have a yen to use my piece for your own art? My performing rights royalties alone (collected for me by my Performing Rights Agency Of Choice, ASCAP, which also collects any broadcast royalties that might happen) are actually a significant chunk of my income. Does Free Culture want to perform my piece without my collecting that? It might help to know that performing rights royalties are split 50/50 between writer and the publisher. As my own publisher, I receive 100% of them. (Another gate jumped.)
What about when someone likes my recent chorus piece, and wants to arrange it for their brass choir? I should have an open-source attitude, right? Forget the arranging license (and the fee that goes with it) and let it everyone have it, because it’s good for creativity and good for artists?
My point is that any one of these singly isn’t such a big deal, and I’m all for the big picture of helping the Cause of Creativity. But taken as a whole, managing the above list becomes this precious bundle of life-giving manna. If you’re interested in being a composer making a middle-class living that is. Which I am. I don’t teach professionally (only occasionally, usually as a guest artist at a university), so If I give any of these up, all of a sudden, composing music (ie. making Art) is my hobby, and I have to make my living outside of it. And I’ve found that the people most vocal about the benefits of free culture, or maybe most lax in shepherding the above rights, are those who choose to make their living some other way.
When asked in this Roundtable’s centerpiece interview the other day, Nina Paley replied to a question about Free Culture creating “a situation where you can’t have an artistic middle class.”:
What we have now is you can get paid for craft. You don’t get paid for art. You get paid for craft. Every animator that I know, or almost every animator that I know, works at a studio, working on shit. They know it’s shit. They do their best to not think about it, but it’s god-awful commercial shit.
Actually, I get paid for Art. I could have chosen to get paid for craft (being an orchestrator, or a commercial music writer) and decided I was actually better at making Art. And it’s a slog, let me tell you, selling Art. Because Art is, I’m sure you all noticed, incredibly subjective. Only a few out of many like my stuff, and even less love it (shocking, I know). If I expected many to like it, I’d be writing very different music, and would have a lot more wiggle room when it came to giving away my stuff for the sake of Art.
Paley also talked about art not being a profession:
No, I wanted to keep it pure, the love of the craft. When I was quitting Fluff, I said “make art not money, make art not money. Remember that.” And of course I forget periodically and get confused and think that I should be making money and not art. They’re not mutually exclusive, not at all; but you’ve got to remember: don’t do stuff that’s bad for your soul in order to make money.
I realize how mercenary this sounds, but how about making art AND money? Ultimately I’m unclear how copyleft (or free culture in general) can maintain my middle class income. As far as I can tell, the current copyright laws are what do that.
All that being said, I’m actually a fan of Free. I give away content like crazy on my website…mp3 downloads…score of the pieces as PDFs, etc. I give away CDs, even commercial ones, like candy. I give away many (expensive to produce) printed scores. Because I do believe that giving away significant content–not just useless crap, but stuff people can use–in many ways does help create that “fan base” one hears the astute bands and rock stars talk about … those fans that downloaded the album for free, but who later on shell out 300 bucks to go to the tour show and buy the $25 t-shirts. Which right there crystallizes the line for the Free argument. You don’t see “Pay what you want” Radiohead (I’m a fan) letting their devoted following into the show for free. (Or do you? I don’t really know.)
So among this noise, some content is always controlled by the owner. It’s not all free, it’s just a question of what content is deemed not free. For me, it’s the performance materials. That’s the paper (maybe someday it won’t be, I’m looking at you iPads) musicians rehearse and perform from. I rent it, I sell it, I control it. Nothing drives me more bat-shit crazy than seeing other composers give away their stuff. A website full of scores and parts… “Come play my music! I won’t charge! I just want you to play it to Get My Name Out There!” Well, a) I hope you have another job, b) you just made mine a lot harder, and c) the end user (who, sure, now knows your name) thinks your stuff isn’t even worth the paper it’s printed on.
Paley giving away her (beautiful) movie is great and all, but I can’t exactly sell “Jonathan Newman” t-shirts to make up the difference. If all the cool kids started wearing Sita pins and she turned into a pop culture icon, then it hardly matters whether anyone paid to show the film. As much as I’ve tried to make it one, that avenue is not really an option for me.
It’s true, 70 years after death is a silly amount. 50 did seem like enough–2 generations after death (“My Granddaddy made that! You can’t touch it!”)–does seem like enough time to for the family to come up with some more original content, but, as we all know, Disney had other ideas. Still, before these protections, composers did have to scramble. In 1945 Stravinsky famously changed all the half notes to quarter notes in Firebird (not really, but you get the idea) to make a newly copyrightable version for the U.S, so he could prevent the loss of income from performances there. Nothing new under the sun.
I feel Paley’s pain, dealing with copyright owners. Just ask any composer about getting text permission from a publisher for a poem he or she wants to set. Try figuring out who owns the poem in the first place. Or if it’s PD or not. I’ve actually been working on an opera for the last couple of years. The first year of it was just figuring out who actually owned the film my collaborator and I wanted to adapt. I see the problem as not necessarily the rules themselves, but the companies/businesses/corporations who collect the intellectual property and then seem to want to hoard it without licensing it, simply because it doesn’t seem worth it to expend the time/energy/resources/employees to deal. Their mistake is that it is very much worth it. Exploiting the copyright (issuing licenses and collecting the fees), is the entire point of owning the property, whether it’s small or not. When they do that, they are serving the Publisher function. It’s how or whether they’ll do it at all that’s causing problems.
And so, I’m finding the Free Culture argument suspect. If someone wanted to copy my bicycle so that there’s now “one for each of us”, my honest reaction would probably be ‘Fuck you. I spent 3 years making that bicycle. Make your own damn bicycle.’ Not exactly a constructive argument, granted, but let’s at least acknowledge that we’re not talking about a bicycle. Bicycles are not special. They are not (generally) art. Yeeesss, all art is derivative, it’s true. Art is synthesis, and some synthesis is better (brilliant, “original”) than others. But creativity can not be its own reward. We still live in, for better and often worse, a capitalist society, and in no other profession in that society is a lack of compensation expected, like it is with Art. People get paid for charity work, for goodness sakes. At some point, someone, has to charge someone else, something.
________________
Update by Noah: This is part of a roundtable on copyright issues. You can find the whole roundtable here.
I want the Newman T-shirt! All hail Newman! (include a link to your website, dude–as long as you’re here, self promote!
http://www.jonathannewman.com
I don’t disagree with most of the point made here, especially:
“Ultimately I’m unclear how copyleft (or free culture in general) can maintain my middle class income. As far as I can tell, the current copyright laws are what do that.”
I agree that copyleft is a very questionable business model.
On the other hand:
“some more original content, but, as we all know, Disney had other ideas. Still, before these protections, composers did have to scramble. In 1945 Stravinsky famously changed all the half notes to quarter notes in Firebird (not really, but you get the idea) to make a newly copyrightable version for the U.S, so he could prevent the loss of income from performances there. Nothing new under the sun.”
Well, evidently (a google search shows) this had to do with American recognition of foreign rights, not copyright terms.
“and in no other profession in that society is a lack of compensation expected, like it is with Art”
So society is oppressing you?
If all the laws are overwhelmingly written in your favor, why are you playing the victim card? What’s with the “starving artist” talking points? Who exactly, is oppressing you?
I think if we went back to a term of 56 years, artists could be compensated and culture could flourish.
If an artist needs every scrap of money 56 years after a creation, I would say that copyright isn’t their main problem… the problem is more likely the publisher isn’t paying them enough, or nobody really likes their art, or they are completely unable to manage their business affairs….
I’m fairly skeptical that a term past 56 years does much to benefit artists.
“Well, evidently (a google search shows) this had to do with American recognition of foreign rights, not copyright terms.”
OK, but what is the practical difference between those? He still had to make a “new” version of the piece (just different enough), in order to maintain income from it.
“So society is oppressing you?”
Well, I guess. But no more than any carpenter would be if “society” collectively decided that it didn’t like paying for his/her carpentry, because it was easy to download.
“If all the laws are overwhelmingly written in your favor, why are you playing the victim card? What’s with the “starving artist” talking points? Who exactly, is oppressing you?”
No, you’re right — I do believe they are written in favor of the artist. But they are also a daily struggle to enforce in any meaningful way. They may exist, but if no one knows about them, or cares, then it’s a bit of an uphill battle. Also I was trying to make an argument against what we seem to be calling free culture. Or copyleft. I’m not exactly clear on whether those are the same thing.
Damn, Eric beat me to the T-shirt comment.
Jon, great post. I imagine at some point you’d like your work to enter the public domain. Is there anything you can do to make sure your music doesn’t end up an orphaned work 100 years from now?
Excellent question, Bry. I’m actually surprised that I never thought about that. I suppose the idea would be to maintain the trail of ownership in a significant way. After my death, it would have to be super-clear who owned the property. And not just legally, but to the music community as a whole.
The first thing that comes to mind is someone like Frank Zappa. His wife Gail maintains his catalog and his publishing name/business, and everyone knows it. Anyone who would want to procure the performance materials to “G-Spot Tornado”, at least.
So, that seems a successful model. Before I’m gone, I’d have to work to make sure the future source of the stuff is clear to everyone who might care…
Nina’s experience is very much that people will pay for the work; I wonder if the expectation of free music is higher than the expectation of free films. There is a lot of “feels free” art in our culture already: radio, web comics, lots of things paid for by advertising.
I don’t think the idea behind the free culture movement is that all art will be given away. I think the idea is that the current systems by means of which which we pay for work are broken, dominated by middlemen who have no interest in the work and who often treat consumers as criminals a priori — a potential scam artist rather than a potential fan. That’s very off-putting. It creates a hostile relationship between consumers and art and I think that’s one of the reasons why you see the anarchistic impulse: people who are treated badly and callously and rudely by faceless corporations are more likely to not give a damn about the rights of the artist who allows that corporation to represent him or her.
I would buy a Newman shirt.
As a student of the “concert” music culture for the last few years, I have noticed several things about composers who like “free”. All of my favorite (read, ‘Childhood Hero’) composers who were the rockstars of my youth all liked free, in the same way that the author mentions. Every concert composer that I remember idolizing as a young musician had a great deal of ‘free’ on their website, available; PDF scores to see MP3 audio files to hear and enjoy/study. Now that my generation is entering the professional music world, most of us have a sense of who the real artists are, and who we will want to commission/perform in the future.
In addition to there being a deeper artistry in the music, artists like the BCM Composers will always triumph over the copy-pasta composers of the Hal Leonard world, (at least to any musician worth his/her salt). I really think the free aspect of samples materials can be such a great tool for composers; at least I know they have one life-long fan in me.
Some clarification for Robbie’s references … by “BCM Composers” he means a specific collective of four composers, of which I am one. I’m not sure everyone knows what “Hal Leonard” is either — it’s a mammoth/corporate music publisher and distributor. In full disclosure, HL distributes one of my pieces. I don’t think that particular title is necessarily “copy-paste”, (or copy-pasta), but I’ll let others decide. ;-)
JN: The term “free culture” is Lessig’s, and I think if you look at his book by that title, available in PDF format under a Creative Commons license, especially the Afterword, it’s pretty clear that the movement is not about eradicating the idea of copyright. It sounds like you’re mistaking Copyleft for what he calls the “No Rights Reserved” culture of the baby Internet, back before the rightsholders’ backlash.
Lessig’s point is that you cannot have a functioning, healthy, democratic public sphere in a world where everything is automatically “All Rights Reserved” and every individual has to ask permission before talking back to culture. That’s why the call in Free Culture is to artists, asking them to free up those works that they believe should be available for public use, and perhaps even to take some of their energy to create those works outright. Lessig himself copyrights his books for a couple of years and then releases them under Creative Commons on the web, so that the content becomes free after he’s had a chance to recoup some of his initial costs. In his “call to arms” he leaves it very much up to the creators what content to free and to what extent they want free it.
I can’t really speak for “the movement” in any broad sense whether this middlin position is the norm, but I certainly think that the original idea was to reduce controls on public discourse, not to require artists to produce their work as a hobby rather than a job. Your piece sounds like you, in serving as your own publisher, make your work accessible to people who are interested in it and just require them to pay you and credit you. I don’t think Copyleft would be opposed to that at all, although I think that Lessig would encourage you to select pieces of your work that you felt would benefit the public if they were open for use and free them accordingly. Copyleft is not trying to get a No Copyright regime comparable to the All Copyright regime we have now: a single artist can have works that are licensed under all the available licenses, free and traditional, or some variation in between. What they’re after is a way to bolster the public sphere, not just the traditional Public Domain, by emphasising that when art and culture are playing their role in civic discourse, it requires them to be less controlled than when they are playing their role as work product for the economy.
I hope I’m clear that your points are well taken: I just think you’re arguing against a No Rights Reserved movement that isn’t quite the same thing as Free Culture…
Lessig’s Remix is also available online, and on the fourth page of the Preface he says “Copyright is, in my view, critically important to a healthy culture.”
Somewhere in these threads we’d asked/talked about what the political program was for Copyleft, and I think it’s pretty clear that it’s to weaken the default “All Rights Reserved” position and the power it gives to middlemen and lawyers, not to eradicate copyright or prevent artists from using traditional copyright, where appropriate, to ensure they can make a living…nobody’s trying to get any artist to give all his or her work away for free. It’s just to get artists, and everybody else, thinking critically and creatively about participating collaboratively in culture and enabling participation by others.
The whole “child takes care of the copyrights of the parent” (or wife, or whomever) seems very problematic to me. Often the child, or whomever, is too close to the situation–or too in need of money, maybe–to make decisions that the actual artist would have wanted. If you look at Dmitri Nabokov’s handling of his father’s final non-novel…or Experience Hendrix (vaguely related to Jimi)’s handling of his musical estate, you’ll see what I mean. Nabokov explicitly said, “Do not publish this thing, it’s not done–(or even fully started))”–but then it arrives anyway, to nobody’s delight. I’m not necessarily against the publication of this novel, but let’s not pretend it’s safeguarding the artist’s wishes and interests. After the death of Nabokov, (or death + 50 if you prefer), it makes more sense to me to just make it freely available to those interested. At that point, it has intellectual interest, sure, but it’s not making money for anyone in particular. Maybe Zappa’s wife is more careful/trustworthy–but somewhere down the line she’ll be dead too (I’m guessing). Do we really need, then, the Zappa archives being exploited by some distant relation who needs the dough…or would it make more sense to make it freely available to those who are interested (and who then might do something creative artistically with it).
I mean, Kafka wanted everything destroyed—Should his family be monetarily rewarded for explicitly going against his wishes…?
Jon…you’ve got three buyers now for the t-shirts. Smell the profit!
BTW, this is all kind of a fun exercise in utopian thinking…but given the immense power of corporate monoliths like Disney, it seems highly unlikely that copyright law will get looser and shorter. If anything, it will continue to become tighter and longer… and more heavily enforced, at least for the rich and mighty.
Eric — I think the power of the corporate monoliths is one reason why this approach of “free some, copyright some” is a really cool idea. Folks in Jon’s situation (or Noah’s or mine) might be too in need of every penny we earn to really take it seriously, but Noah mentioned Beyonce: what if she freed even two songs? Or if Disney just freed Goofy? Or even if ordinary artists just freed their in-progress dead ends, the “I started this but I can’t finish it” crap? If enough people did that, you’d have enough free culture to actually see the effects of it, without actually even touching the mainstream copyright works.
That’s the most interesting thing about Lessig’s approach to me: it does not actually require any legal changes to current law at all. It just requires some artists to use the copyleft licenses some of the time. That’s, like, the most politically feasible lefty movement I’ve ever heard of.
Sounds good, I admit, but I guess I have a more skeptical view on both sides of the issue…I think Disney is not going to let go of Goofy, nor is Beyonce going to let go of 2 songs. There’s money to be squeezed and they will squeeze it. Likewise, on the other side, people will download all of Beyonce’s songs for free..not just the 2 free ones, etc. Admittedly, downloading is not the only issue (more about the use of the songs for creative new projects–I get it)–but I don’t really think people “steal” or “use” others’ copyrighted works just because they’re angry at the monoliths…I think they do it because they like music and can’t afford to buy all the stuff they would like to…and then also they do it because they can get away with it.
Monoliths won’t give up anything they don’t have to…and they won’t have to if they have the money and power to retain rights. And people will get anything free they can get… So…there’s just a lot of minefields that I doubt are going to be overcome anytime soon.
I’ll also just go ahead and admit I haven’t read through all of these threads, so some of these points may have been addressed (or made) already.
Yeah, Disney wouldn’t even free a drawing of a bit of shrubbery by the side of Goofy’s house.
I think though that there are 2 issues: there’s the broader legal/cultural question of whether art is worth paying for at all or whether you should be able to download with impunity. I don’t think an “all art should be free” model is sustainable and I don’t think the free culture movement thinks so either. People who want to download whatever they want when they want it for free are spoiled, petulant infants.
But — just because there are a lot of spoiled infants on the Internet doesn’t mean that the way we’ve taken to stopping them is good for our culture.
I really buy the Copyleft point that we must change the terms of the debate so that we as a culture recognize the existence of other concerned parties in this issue besides the spoiled infants and the corporate monoliths.
Eric, you’re right, but among those who can afford to pay, there’s also the issue of perceived value when it comes to stealing content. I think most people would gladly support their favorite artist by paying for content, but only to a point. Music piracy took off in the 90’s because consumers felt ripped off paying $15.00 for an album with only one or two good songs. The success of iTunes, which is just as easy to use as Napster or other file sharing programs, shows people are OK with paying .99 for a track because it seems like a fair value.
First, thanks Caro! I see the difference now … and yours is actually a much more friendly explanation of Copyleft than what I was trying to grasp on Wikipedia… I feel more like I can someday hold hands with Copyleft, rather than jump back in distrust. Which was my initial reaction when trying to understand it.
And I remember being horrified when I saw the Nabokov book coming out, and the story behind it. So EB’s not wrong about the children (or wives, Gail Zappa being notoriously difficult to do business with–she’s reportedly zealously overprotective) being a recipe for artistic disaster. Truthfully, all I think about when I think about copyright at all (which this week was quite a bit) is me, right now, making a living. On a day to day basis, I don’t REALLY care about what happens 20 years after death, or 50, or 70. So the argument for releasing work after death, or 56 years after creation, or whatever, actually resonates. It just seems like SOME time after death might be necessary, simply ’cause the close relations WILL most likely be over-zealously protective, and because of that, a bit of distance might be needed before everyone goes hog wild on a property. The consequence is, of course, the occasional catalog mismanagement by the Doofus son, or the ill-advised publication of the unfinished novel. It’s a price, definitely. Thinking of the Gail Zappas of the world, who I’m pretty sure would go Postal if they lost control of the catalog, it’s probably a necessary price.
Not to digress, but I wonder what Eric’s thoughts are on the upcoming David Foster Wallace unfinished novel… is this yet another problem with ‘estate’ management?
But…if the law doesn’t give the relations control, it doesn’t matter how protective they want to be. It seems like the danger of relatives being nuts is a reason to free up the catalog, not a reason to put it under their control.
Bryan, I think a lot of the attraction of downloads is not just the price, but the ease — which is why itunes can be successful.
Noah, I agree that ease is a factor, but the illegal file sharing programs are just as easy to use and most people choose not to use them.
“It seems like the danger of relatives being nuts is a reason to free up the catalog, not a reason to put it under their control”
Fair enough.
I was thinking of it more as a kind of respectful period of distance. As in, let’s wait until everyone who cared about the bloke (as a person) is out of the way before we start screwing with the stuff. That certainly doesn’t get rid of The Crazy. But it seems nice and human on the surface, doesn’t it? :-)
Despite my status as “expert” on postmodernism, I’ve never read Wallace. The truth is, though, if I like an artist enough, I kind of like to read the crappy stuff that was never necessarily meant to be read. But this kind of obsession (sometimes academic, sometimes personal) shouldn’t really be the guide for how posthumous projects get released and in what order. If the thing IS under copyright, then it should probably be subjected to the “WWDFWD” (tha’ts What Would David Foster Wallace Do) test. If it’s not going to be managed under that barometer, it should probably just be “anything goes”. Sometimes this is hard to determine, I guess…but the Nabokov case was pretty clear.
As for the “petulant infants” on the internet–I think it’s a bit trickier than that. I mean, if I see a dollar bill floating along the street, I’m likely to pick it up and put it in my pocket, if the rightful owner is nowhere in sight (This actually happened to me the other day). I’m not going to undertake a worldwide search to return the dollar bill…nor am I going to leave it floating around. While the internet downloading thing isn’t really equivalent, it does have that feel. There’s so much crap floating around out there, that it’s kind of like picking it up in the street. I have yet to download for free music that in my former life as avid CD purchaser, I would have purchased. That is…I try to ask myself, “would I be buying this” under other circumstances, and if the answer is yes, I’ll probably buy it (on iTunes or in physical form, or whatever)…But if it’s a matter of trying something new–or obtaining something that I otherwise probably wouldn’t have bought–well, I’ll let your imagination wander. Sometimes this kind of sampling leads to purchases (concert tix, other CD’s, songs by the artists I especially like) and sometimes it doesn’t. My income is very limited (or has been over the last 5 years or so)–but my appetite for music isn’t really, so I try to resolve those things. I buy a lot of blank media, so I guess some of my money finds its way back to those who profit, or whatever…Maybe this makes me a “petulant child” –but I’m guessing I’m not an atypical one. I don’t think I should be able to get anything I want for free…and I do support my artistic favorites…but I do think that it’s unwise to take a pie-in-the-sky view of this kind of thing. Just because it may be ethically “wrong” to download without paying, it will continue to happen regardless of changes in copyright law unless there is a way to stop it. Currently, there isn’t really.
JN: Glad to hear it! As with any movement, there’ll always be extreme positions, and I suppose if an artist feels comfortable and empowered to release all his or her work under copyleft there’s no particular downside to it for anybody other than the artist. But I absolutely don’t think artists should be compelled either way — copyleft or copyright — and I’m glad to hear the pluralistic approach is appealing.
On Bryan’s point: wonder if the recent decision preventing EMI from selling individual tracks off Pink Floyd albums will have ramifications for these other albums/artists and put us back in a situation where consumers are not able to pick and choose the tracks they want again. It’s just as easy to download a whole album as a single track, but the value equation is definitely different.
My personal solution to feeling ill served by corporate power has been to buy everything used except the specific albums or books where I want to make a statement of support for the creator. (I pretty much buy everything I own used except original paintings and drawings, electronic equipment, and food.)
I prefer used food.
Jon, assuming Eric is right and Disney will get copyright extended in perpetuity, is there some way an artist can sign a contract or will saying “50 years after my death, all rights to my work will be transferred to the public domain”? That way, the relatives have 50 years to do what they want with it, but the greater good is eventually served.
Caro, Apple introduced the iTunes LP, which is essentially an electronic album. Some reports are saying the format is tanking and the Apple rumor mill says it was forced on Apple by the RIAA.
Eric: I’d label “petulance” just for the idea that anything and everything creative should be free on demand, period. I absolutely agree that the situation for most people is trickier.
But I think the industry’s response to downloading has been to assume that everybody is a petulant infant who will download large quantities of music indiscriminately and never pay anything for anything. That just feels like a way of making sure that we all are stuck paying $15 for something crappy or not listening at all. Usually I’m just glad I’m not that interested in music…
Bryan — I think that the only obstacle to an artist setting a term limit in the contract or will is the fact that most copy right transfers are adhesion contracts: most corporations just probably wouldn’t sign anything with that provision. But it’s a contractual relationship, so if you could talk the big guy into agreeing, I don’t think there’s anything stopping you from doing it that way.
Eric, you can go dumpster diving all by yourself. Blech.
Heres a link to the iTunes LP report, if anyone is interested:
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/09/report-riaa-pressured-apple-into-creating-itunes-lp/
Caro, would I be right then in assuming that Jon, as artist and publisher, could set up such a arrangement?
I hit post too soon.
Could Jon set up such a arrangement giving his daughter the rights for only 50 years?
Yup, I think so. It would be worth talking to a probate attorney; contracts are very flexible but probate is a beast. Since the publishing company is likely also one of Jon’s assets, a probate attorney would need to clarify what legalese was needed, but it should just be matter of getting the contracts in order.
I polled some enthusiastic iTunes users of my acquaintance about iTunes LP and none of them had ever heard about it, despite visiting iTunes fairly regularly, so if the anecdotal evidence is actually right that may have something to do with it failing. :-|
Yes, to the revised question too, with the same caveat that a probate lawyer would have to advise on the legalese.
Bryan — one more point: I think the work would have to go under one of the Creative Commons copyleft licenses in 50 years; I don’t think you can specify “public domain” since that’s defined by those laws and it’s currently a set number of years. I don’t think you can redefine the public domain law, but I believe you could specify that on X date the copyright license expires and the work is put under a Creative Commons alternative, which amounts to the same thing as public domain.
You also may want a provision specifying whether the copyright is transferable to Jon’s daughter’s children, and if so, that the copyleft license would go into effect upon the death of Jon’s daughter without issue. Otherwise the rights could get tied up in probate court if his daughter passed away sooner than 50 years after her dad.
Sorry for the delay — during childcare times, the computer is hijacked, and there’s less Hooded Utilitarian … more http://www.poissonrouge.com/
Leaving aside the squirming discomfort I’m starting to get from discussing my death (let alone my daughter’s) … Sure, I suppose one COULD arrange different/more-public-domain-friendly terms for one’s creative works if one felt strongly about it … but I can’t even imagine the struggle that would be involved. The system (so to speak) involves far more than me (for example), and even with the best probate attorney in the world, I’d think that any of the existing copyright support-systems (licensing agencies, distributors) would do anything other than ignore it. 50 years and a day after my death there will still be an ASCAP or a BMI (one hopes), and anyone else who makes a single cent off of the property would likely make sure that anything but status quo would be squashed like a bug.
This, of course, speaks exactly to Caro’s point about changing “the terms of the debate”, doesn’t it?
Indeed! I think if the parties involved really are just you and the publishing company you own/run, then probate is a do-able route. Once there are additional parties, the complexity does escalate exponentially. A lawyer might could figure it out; I sure can’t.
That’s why I’m so enthusiastic about the pluralistic approach to copyleft. Lots of choice and freedom to choose from among the choices isn’t sufficient for meaningful “control,” but I think it is necessary.
But creativity can not be its own reward. We still live in, for better and often worse, a capitalist society, and in no other profession in that society is a lack of compensation expected, like it is with Art. People get paid for charity work, for goodness sakes. At some point, someone, has to charge someone else, something.
I just wanted to thank you for saying this. I feel like I keep screeching this fact into the abyss lately, and it’s nice to feel I’m not screeching alone.
With all due respect, some of these points are, frankly, ludicrous. The fact that I, for example, post all my scores and all my music on my music site is never going to make your job “harder.” Do you honestly, truly believe that performers will prefer my music to your because mine is available for free? Do you really think someone would avoid your music because you might charge for the score? Perhaps someone might avoid your music for other reasons, but my having made my stuff freely available has nothing whatsoever to do with it. So if it drives you “bat-shit crazy,” so be it.
In all honesty, I’ve never heard of you before, so perhaps you’re diminishing awareness of your own music by restricting some of it to pay-only?
Oh simmer down, David. I haven’t heard of you either. So what?
And, hey, you’ve heard of Jonathan now, and I’ve heard of you. It’s a promotional bonanza.
I (and a friend of mine, composer John Mackey) briefly responded to this on another site, where I first saw David’s comment:
http://www.sequenza21.com/2010/03/copyright-vs-copyleft/
One thing I think is interesting here is that you’re essentially making a labor argument; that is, composers need to agree to keep prices at a certain level or no one is able to make money. Whereas Paley and David are arguing for an unfettered market, where you offer the lowest price to attract business (the lowest price in this case being “free”.)
Artists have never been any good at unionizing…which is a shame, perhaps, since collective bargaining would actually be much more powerful as a tool for preventing exploitation than copyright is.
“…composers need to agree to keep prices at a certain level or no one is able to make money. Whereas Paley and David are arguing for an unfettered market, where you offer the lowest price to attract business (the lowest price in this case being “free”.)”
Yeah, I think you’re right. That might be exactly what’s going on — I didn’t think of it like that.
And if you do look at it through that lens, the problem is crystallized by the fact that, even though there are several composer lobbying/proponent organizations (the performing rights agencies, the American Music Center, the American Composers Forum, etc.), none of them have the actual collective power to make real change that a dues-collecting union might have. They have just enough influence to make it seem like they are looking out for our interests, but ultimately they are kind of toothless.
That being said, my wife (a costume designer) is a member of the theater designers union (United Scenic Artists, Local 829), a dues-collecting, collective-bargaining organization … and I am consistently stunned at their lack of oversight and protection you would think they’d provide their members. Ultimately it acts less like a union, more like a guild. So, even when you have that, it doesn’t seem to do much.
Things are getting juicy over at http://www.sequenza21.com/2010/03/copyright-vs-copyleft/
Seems we stirred a pot.
For instance, re my last comment, when you have a moment, please glance at this:
http://meetthecomposer.org/node/95
Meet the Composer is trying to (helpfully) give prospective patrons a guide to practical aspects of commissioning music (ie. how much does a piece cost). But, when the the ranges between low end and high end are presented as so ridiculously wide, the result has no meaning, and thus, no teeth for bargaining.
A couple of points, since I seem to have stirred things up a bit:
1. How is my providing my scores and MP3 files for free online hurting you economically, Mr. Newman, aside from the (highly) theoretical “Giving away your parts, in a tiny, fractionally, and incremental way, bolsters an expectation that composer’s (hard) work doesn’t deserve monetary compensation?”
2. I could care less if someone charges for his or her music. We all make choices. I have no interest in making $ from my art, but have nothing but respect for those who do. But I don’t. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
3. Most of my music will probably never ever be performed during our lifetimes, Mr. Newman, so I really don’t think my freebies will hurt anyone. Unless they listen to my stuff and develop some horrible mental disorder as a result (which is quite possible).
4. I personally have an issue with art as a business. I realize it is for many people, and again, I respect that, different strokes, etc. But I made a decision many decades ago that I would never compose for a living. I really like what I do in terms of music, and if I had to depend on that for my living, it would be a job, and that would no longer make it as pleasurable. I compose because I like to, because I feel compelled to, etc. But not because I need to eat and pay rent. As a result, I can write whatever I want, for whatever instrumental grouping I choose, etc. If someone performs it, I’m quite happy and honored that someone would take the time to perform a work of mine. Similarly if someone has listened to my music, I’m also touched. But I write because I want to. I keep my work and music separately, so music is not my business but my passion. Whether it’s a “hobby” is debatable. I describe it as such, but of course it is much more than a hobby.
4. Have you seen Kyle Gann’s blog post on a very similar topic? http://bit.ly/cdZ2Ur Kyle and I are of the same opinion here, so it’s not just my delusion that my “freebies” are not hurting anyone but those who persist in listening to my music.
Peace,
David
————————-
eric b says:
I want the Newman T-shirt! All hail Newman!
————————-
I looked through http://www.jonathannewman.com/ and threw the following lil’ design together: http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/666/newmantee2b.jpg .
Mr. Newman, I’d gladly donate this art to you (putting a © jonathan newman on it) if you think anyone might possibly be interested in getting this exceedingly humble graphic printed on whatever. (CafePress might work for this purpose…)
Mike, I think you have a hit! Newman T-shirts will shortly be sweeping the nation!
David…the argument is basic economics. If you fix cars, you want to charge the people whose cars you fix a rate that will make you money. If there’s someone on every block who wants to fix cars for free because doing so fills them with an ineffable sense of wonder, you’re not going to be able to charge as much money — or, perhaps, any money. Which will make earning a living difficult.
I’m not sure the analogy entirely works for art for various reasons (individual compositions are more different from each other than individual getting-your-car-fixed, and so demand for a Newman composition might be elastic enough to provide income even if other non-Newman composers are offering their work for free), and you can argue back and forth about whether this is really a reason for anyone to stop giving things away for free (doctors prevent midwives form undercutting the market in birth, for example, and I think that’s an incredibly bad thing for lots of reasons.) But the argument itself is straightforward enough.
Noah, the world is changing. Paradigms change. Just as midwifery has proven itself to be a very desirable and viable alternative to traditional obstetrician-managed prenatal and intrapartum care, there are other models to consider for new music distribution. I’m not here to argue which is better. It’s not relevant for me. What is relevant, however, is the argument being made here that folks like me are somehow undercutting other composers.That’s not only ludicrous, but somewhat offensive, and perhaps that’s why it touched a nerve in me somehow.
For starters, I’m not out to undercut anyone, and doubt any of us who post our works for free have that in mind either. That’s not my motivation. I don’t receive any income from my music and that is entirely by choice. When I was offered all the revenue for a recording of my piece darfur pogrommen, I requested that all profits go to savedarfur.org, and that’s how it’s been and will continue to be. Composition is my passion, and I’ve been doing it for decades, and only in the past few years has much of it been performed, thanks largely to the Internet. My music is an acquired taste, and folks either really like it or don’t. It would never occur to me to ask someone to pay royalties for it. I also don’t take commissions. I just finished a piano work for three major pianists. I chose to compose it for them because I really respect their work. For the most part, I just write, and if someone performs my music, then great. But whether or not someone is going to perform it, or pay for it, doesn’t have any impact on my decision to compose.
I still don’t see how my choosing not to be remunerated for my music has an impact on all the new music composers out there who earn a living from their scores. They can keep on doing what they’re doing, and I don’t see that I’ll have any impact on their ability to earn revenue. I’m not someone with a mass following. Let’s be real. If I’m a threat to Mr. Newman’s rent or mortgage payments, something’s really wrong with the space-time fabric.
Pingback: TuneBlog: By Dan DiPiero
“For starters, I’m not out to undercut anyone, and doubt any of us who post our works for free have that in mind either.”
I’m sure this is the case. Just because you don’t intend to undercut anyone doesn’t mean that you aren’t undercutting somebody, though.
I’m actually all for copyright reduction personally, for what that’s worth.
Kind of ironic that Mike offered Jon a free shirt design when his wife is a working costume designer. Any more revenue streams that need undercutting Jon? :)
Well, let’s look at it another way, shall we? Let’s accept your proposition that unintended or not, some of us are “undercutting” composers who desire to be paid for their works. I can tell you that no one has ever, ever performed my music because it is royalty-free. No one. Years ago I even suggested to some performers that they might consider performing my stuff because it’s free. That lead nowhere.
Music gets performed because it appeals to someone and because it’s genuine, regardless of whether it’s free or revenue-generating. People shell out a lot of money for a score by Steve Reich that, in the case of his early process music, probably doesn’t even require a score. And people download other folks’ music, like mine, because of their own interests, not because it’s free. But I’m quite sure few would grab it if it cost. That’s just reality. And rather than decry this reality, I think it should be respected, if not embraced. I don’t care if folks charge for their musical works. But they also shouldn’t care if I don’t charge for mine.
Mike Hunter is my new hero. That. Is. Hilarious. I am simultaneously giddy and horrified!
And I know what my wife is getting for her birthday now… ;-)
Pingback: why I don’t charge for my compositions « david’s waste of bandwidth
Noah Berlatsky says:
Mike, I think you have a hit! Newman T-shirts will shortly be sweeping the nation!…
—————-
—————-
Newman says:
Mike Hunter is my new hero. That. Is. Hilarious. I am simultaneously giddy and horrified!…
_________
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4497/stereobizarro3.jpg
Pingback: Self-publishing – nuts and bolts | Steven Bryant
Pingback: Self-publishing - nuts and bolts – Steven Bryant