im not sure what to think of this article anymore.. evrything in this world has to be paid for.. the idea of something being free is only going to be exploited so artists have no rights.
complexed issues. what to do, how to be an artist?
When media in Australia uses works licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution licences the media is given no rebate by the rights organisation. My view is that if commercial media did get a reduction when they used open content, that the market would be more efficient. More local self published content would be used and publishers might take their ears out of their pockets.
My understanding is that commercial media in Australia pays for the use of much of their content this way: Media is issued with a blanket licence to use any content they choose and provides details of what they use to the rights organisations. Users pay a fee that is distributed via the rights organisations to the publishers and artists that created that content.
Things are different in the U.S. In the U.S artists are able to deal directly with media and licence content as they choose and remain members of a rights organisation. This means that Creative Commons Attribution licences are able to be incorporated into the media in the U.S with some success. Consider also: In Australia artists are not able to sell a song, in the U.S artists can. Artists members in Australia must maintain 50 percent of what they create. Different moral rights apply to content in different countries. No glove fits all yet the net crosses many boundaries.
These double standards give the U.S media the ability to steam roll its content globally. Big name acts like
Madonna take much of the media's attention? Are feet getting cold as a result of over exposure of these acts? Do they create the best content?
Rights organisations provide content at one price, this creates conditions where both commercial and non-commercial media shall most likely always use content owned by a
publisher, rather than that of a self publisher. Even when the
self publisher can show that she or he created content to the media. Almost all artists associated with rights organisations are self publishing artists.
Most artists that can create a song and sing that song in a public place join a rights organisation, why? I reckon its because of the live performance
royalties received when they perform a song. Some self publishing artists might tell the rights organisations that they are performing content they created, when really they are singing songs owned by a publisher. This can increase the live performance returns of that artist. Rights organisations create conditions where artists are encouraged to create content that is similar to content already published.
Woody Guthrie wrote the following
message in the 1930's:
'This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under
Seal of Copyright 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.'
Imagine that copyright is now maintained for over 50 years after death. Much of Bob Dylan's work would be public now under the conditions of the 1930's. Copyright keeps on being extended to serve a minority of created works. Is culture better with this extension of author rights and artists not having to register their works?
Artists are often under the illusion that the rights organisations protect their works from theft. If someone steals your art and calls it theirs, its not their job to protect it. Rights organizations collect when your content is performed.
Consider that much of the content used in Australia comes from the U.S. Consider also this: The person with the most steam in the popular music scene might be the programming director of the alternative national youth radio network
JJJ, JJJ is a government funded radio network. If most of the exposure that flows into independent music culture comes through government funding, this creates a difficult arts scene.
The way the voting system works for the board of
APRA (apra is the Australian rights organization): For every 500 dollars that an artist or publisher collects the artist or publisher get an extra vote. The
board is made up by artists that create works for television, popular artist and the publishers that collect the most. Half of the board is made up of publishers and half are creators of content. Albert music who publish ACDC's music are able to put themselves on the board. Board members are making decisions mainly in the interests of publishers. Board members can't be expected to make decisions that benefit culture, artists or the arts scene. They are more likely to make decisions that creates better conditions for a
karaoke bar than self publishing of art.
I reckon the organisations that keep a check on these monopolies (the
ACCC in Australia) must spend a lot of time figuring out how they are able to justify the existence of structures like
APRA. When these organisations fail, what shall take their place?
Myspace have their own blanket license system. Myspace are able to collect music content and sell advertising space without paying the artists for use of their content. Almost every popular band in the world must be on Myspace. Even APRA have endorsed myspace by creating their own
profile. All live venues and media in Australia have to comply with APRA policy, yet Myspace does not. These double standards create conditions only big venues and big media can stay in step with. Small clubs shut down. Internet radio is also not possible in Australia, only streaming of content from above ground networks.
When I joined APRA (Australian Performing Rights Association) I thought that the organisation was similar to a post office. I cancelled my membership when I realized that APRA was far from anything like a regular post office. Rights organisations create conditions so that publishers can communicate the message of published artists best. With the internet and new technologies here, more is being created. Why can't what we create be used by media in conjunction with popular media to the advantage of that media. Its seems that works created by few are creating unfair conditions for all.
The community benefits when artists are able to self publish. If Creative Commons licences can be used by media in Australia (and other countries) with an incentive for media to use that content, culture would improve (I reckon). Some might drop their graffiti cans and be more interactive. Many artists give up on art because of the brick wall the rights organisations create. Other artists start out creating art for the community, end up scoring films and making content for commercials. Free Culture and Creative Commons is part of the solution.