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 460352
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

If she can't charge more for her originals or get commissions, maybe she shouldn't be making money from her paintings.
I'm not saying she's bad, but I am saying she doesn't command the demand that makes doing it for a living make sense.

I'd do commissions if I got them, I don't get them, but I don't whine about it. I've commissioned several works from a friend of mine, and I'm not alone. He can't sell his originals often, nor prints, but he gets irregular commissions from $40 to hundreds to favors.
Everything I do is CC licensed, because I believe that art should promote art, and I no more want someone else to claim to be the sole creator (bullshit, everyone's 'inspired' by someone else) than I would claim to be Gan himself.

"She does it, she wants money, therefore she deserves money for it." Doesn't hold water.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

If she can't charge more for her originals or get commissions, maybe she shouldn't be making money from her paintings.


Are you saying that because my mom needs some form of copyright to make money off her paintings that it is not worth it for her to try to sell paintings?

I'm not saying she's bad, but I am saying she doesn't command the demand that makes doing it for a living make sense.


If so then from a philosophical point of view you are suggesting that since people can't freely copy my moms work (as their own), that the world would be better off if she never produced art in the first place? She wouldn't paint otherwise, she would get a second job.

I personally hate many aspects of copyright law, or should I say I hate many of the contexts that copyright law is applied in, but I think there is a place for copyright, a middle ground so to say. I wish the laws could be fixed, not done away with.

I'm not saying she's bad, but I am saying she doesn't command the demand that makes doing it for a living make sense.


Most people who are against copyright are against the way that big businesses use copyright to keep out the small and upcoming. As you suggest with your comment above, not having copyright in this context would keep out the small and only support the large.

Sounds like you are against copyright in any form, and believe they produce now value to society in any context?

As I said above there are many cases where I think copyright does enforce the monopoly and hurt the small (software for example), again I don't think that applies to all of the contexts in which copyright is used.

"She does it, she wants money, therefore she deserves money for it." Doesn't hold water.


I never said that, don't put words in my mouth.

Reply Parent Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Playing the Devils advocate:

Unless you are very well know [sic] people just don't pay that much for art.

Thus the inherent value in the work is low. Once the person reaches "stardom" do people think the work has more value.

Looks to me like the value of art is based on a "look at me, I can play in the big league" factor. People are only willing to pay up when the "stardom" of an artist attached to a work can give the buyer a leg up on their peers. I which case the value is more based on ego boosting hot air, than any inherent worth.

Reply Parent Score: 2