Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Multimedia, AV Francis Ford Coppola is one of the most prestigious and critically acclaimed directors in cinematographic history. He directed, among others, the Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now, and has won so many awards it's hard to keep track. In an interview with 99%, he touched on the subject of art and making money, and his musings are fascinating, and yet another indication that the times are changing in the content industry. "Who says artists have to make money?" Coppola wonders.
Thread beginning with comment 460305
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kuraegomon
Member since:
2009-01-05

For most of human history, slavery was commonplace, and democracy non-existent. Human "rights" is a pretty new concept too. I don't hear too many people wanting to go back to the old conventions on THOSE fronts.

I'm sorry, but the editorial part of the original post comes off as the ventings of a selfish prick. I certainly don't think of Thom as any such thing, but boy, it sure came off that way this time. There's a reason that "starving artist" is a powerful (and still accurate) cliche.

The wealthy artists that can _choose_ to be more lax about giving away their material (mostly musicians and a few writers) are the exception that mask the reality of most artists. Their reality is that copyright protection is vital for their ability to continue to produce original works. I think the "professional" artist (as opposed to performer) is a great modern development. Lets keep them.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Their reality is that copyright protection is vital for their ability to continue to produce original works.


Sales of copyrighted material makes artists very little money. Performing and merch is what makes the cash.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kuraegomon Member since:
2009-01-05

Replace the general "artists" with the specific "authors", and make that statement again. A total crock, there. Repeat for "painters" - another crock. Artists does NOT equal musicians. Oy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

My mother is an artist. Not big and successful or rich, but she makes enough extra money on the side to help supplement her income as a teacher.

Her work is copyright and the prints she makes in her lifetime will generate money for her, in a way that I think is fair and needed. 7 years is not enough time when you only produce 5 to 8 paintings a year. Plus your work builds on itself. Her old stuff gets better as the collection of her style grows. I think it would be unfair if someone was able to run prints of her older work and sell them after seeing the amount of time and years she has put into building a following for her style.

In this context 75 years seems fair, or maybe 50 would be a better number.

Reply Parent Score: 5

westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

Sales of copyrighted material makes artists very little money. Performing and merch is what makes the cash.


For every artist in every genre, at every stage in their professional career?

The audience ages - and so do you.

There are only so many coffee mugs and tee shirts you can sell to someone over thirty, over forty, over fifty.

When the economy goes south, so do ticket sales and merchandise.

Reply Parent Score: 2