Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
The copyright argument is almost never customer vs artist (although the industry tries to portray it that way). It's almost always customer and artist vs industry.
|
I don't really think that's true at all. It's ALWAYS about the artist. He always tries to portray it as if it was only the faceless 'industry' that is ripping the customer off, as if he (the artist) is somehow divorced from that same industry and is just some hapless bystander, in the same boat as the customer. Yet.
Who initially owns the copyright? The artist.
Whose name is on the cover? The artist.
Who sells/assigns his copyright to the publisher? The artist.
Who continues to get paid royalties for 70 years after death. The artist.
Who is most vocal in complaining about pirates 'stealing' from them. The artist.
Who has the most potential to gain from the status quo. The artist.
The publisher on the other hand, says that all he is doing is simply acting in the best intersts of the artist (as his intermediary). After all, the artist willingly signed away his copyright to him on the expectation that he (the publisher) would shower riches upon his (ther artist) head from producing the work for him.
The publisher says that all the editing, proof-reading, marketing and price-fixing he does is simply done in the name of, and on behalf of, the artist. In fact, any small smidgen of profit the publisher makes (he says) goes into subsidising the other unsucssesful artists that are freeloading on his roster right now. He (the publisher) will say that he can barely afford to survive after all these expenses have been accounted for and the artist paid his due. Indeed, he is the one who has to send his wife and childern out to work to make ends meet!
In truth both the artist and publisher are in in the scam together against the customer, and when all is said and done,it always comes down to the initial copyright holder -- the artist.
In fact, the whole of the copyright legislation itself is specificaly designed and implemented with the single intention of benefiting the artist. (You know 'to promote...'). If the artist actualy gave a damm about the fate and treatment of his book, he wouldn't sign away his rights so filpantly. If the artist really cared about the ciustomer, he wouldn't give the publiher complete control over his rights to enable them to treat customers the way that they do.
Its simply not good enough for the artist to whine that 'it's the publishers fault'. That will not do at all. Okay, the artist may be getting the short end of the stick too from the publisher -- but two wrongs do not make a right.
It may very well be that in todays industry the artist is regarded as nothing more than a pen for hire to source 'the product' from. But whse fault is that? When I buy a tin of beans, its Mr Heinz I am paying. Same as with the artist. I don't care how much Mr. Heinz paid the farmer for them, or how much he paid his worker to can them, or how much the retailers cut is for putting them on the shelf. If the price to too high at the counter -- I blame Mr. Heinz.
Same for a book. if the cover price is too high -- it's the artists fault. No argument.