Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 460341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Please distinguish Big Content from independent artists
by lucas_maximus on Tue 1st Feb 2011 00:03
in reply to "RE[5]: Please distinguish Big Content from independent artists"
If you painted something for a particular person, and then someone likes it so much they want you to do the same thing exactly again , it is much easier to make a copy of it, and to give them that, then it is to keep on spending hours painting it again and again for each person who are willing to pay for it.
They are essentially selling a product ... this is how businesses work.
Edited 2011-02-01 00:18 UTC
RE[6]: Please distinguish Big Content from independent artists
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 00:59
in reply to "RE[5]: Please distinguish Big Content from independent artists"
So it's totally fine to work once, and live on it forever?
So if you work on someone's house, they should keep paying you as long as they live in that house?
So if you work on someone's house, they should keep paying you as long as they live in that house?
I doubt anyone would suggest that. What if, however, the work is so amazing that the home's owner makes significant, ongoing income by charging people admission to tour it/view it/etc (with that being his plan from the get-go)? In that situation, would you consider the carpenter greedy for expecting a cut?
That's probably a little closer to the situation of most professional artists.




Member since:
2010-05-19
So it's totally fine to work once, and live on it forever?
So if you work on someone's house, they should keep paying you as long as they live in that house?