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 460306
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Different arts, the copyright length argument still holds.

We have to look at society _as a whole_.
Cost/Benefit for _everyone now and in the future_, not just "I DID SOMETHING PAY ME FOREVER!!!"

Reply Parent Score: 6

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

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I don't think it's fair to work once and expect to get paid for something that doesn't even exist.

She wants more money from her art? Paint more, or charge more for the originals.

I nearly leaped out of my skin when I saw a special on savants, where some preteen girl spent all day every day painting Jesus, and her parents only job was to manage the print business.

Time invested per painting: 2 hours (savant...)
Cost to reproduce a quality print in quantity: Maybe $10 US
The prints were being sold for $2000 US.

That's reprehensible. (Though, since the paintings weren't that great, imo, 'I suppose there's one born every minute' applies)

I'm no Christian, but I've read the book. I recall something about camels and needles...

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

When the economy goes south, everybody else trying to make a living does too. It's not privileged to "starving artists".

Reply Parent Score: 2