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 460327
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

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


Are you saying you think there should be no copyright at all, or just that 75 years is too long?

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


She can't charge any more then she does for originals.
Unless you are very well know people just don't pay that much for art. Getting $5 dollars a print is what makes it worth it.

Per Thom's example, prints to a painter are like concerts to a music artist. It is not like my mom can repaint her paintings on stage for money.

I'm sure the same goes for a photographer. How much do you think most people can sell a photograph for, but if they are diligent, they can make enough money off the reprints to make it worth it.

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...


It is hard to argue with extreme examples, it is too bad you think they apply to everyone.

Reply Parent Score: 3