Why do we choose the products we
choose, when there are so many alternatives?
I watched the ITIF Forum: “Info-Communism:” A Progressive Path Forward
or a Political and Intellectual Dead End? On ustream ustream today ITIF and Jonathan Zuck, the president of ACT, raised this
very fundamental question.
Although the discussion that followed
by the panel was interesting, I am not sure that the panelists ever really
answered Jonathan’s question.
It seems like an important one. Certainly it is relevant for anyone who hopes
to make a living off of their photos, poems, or code. It is in fact a critical question for
everyone who enjoys the products of these creative entrepreneurs.
On today’s panel, the discussion centered on intellectual and
political movements that seek to level the playing field by opening up access to
art to all, without fee, the creations of the few who toil to innovate. By name alone, these movements–“free culture,”
“openness movement,” and “extreme Net Neutrality”–sound inviting. Who would be opposed to a level playing
field? Why would anyone want to pay more
to enjoy what they could have for free?
There are lots of examples of how
we share more in real time today than was ever possible before. We trade quotes and pictures and lyrics with
people we have never met before from all corners of the globe. Sites like Flickr flickr show the amateur photographer in all of us what it
means to aspire to great beauty. This is
all wonderful to be sure. Free – looks
like it works fine. But, there is a rub.
Certainly these same folks that
enjoy such art would likely think they are paying the artist a compliment if
they share this shot with others. They probably
don’t spend much time pondering the fair use exception carved out by the
Supreme Court in its 1984 decision in Sony Corporation of America v.
Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417 (1984) when they use the pictures they downloaded as their
wall photo. But what of the
photographer who hopes to make a living off of the sale of his or her
work?
There are, to be sure, some areas
of grey in the current understanding of what fair use means in the digital
economy. Everyone understands what it
means to give someone credit for work well done and talents well used – and
even this simple courtesy is often overlooked.
At one level there may be a
qualitative difference between similar things:
one may have more artistry; be more elegant; or, more clearly capture the
essence of efficiency. Should the
author, poet or developer who labored and honed his or her skills to create
this artistry not be rewarded for the hours of training?
The real debate, however, probably has less to do with defining
boundaries in the currently foggy areas of fair use, or imposing norms of
civility and kindness, and more to do with human nature of striving for
excellence and wanting to be rewarded for the effort. How do you encourage investment and
creativity?
Jonathan’s question highlighted that people tend to gravitate
towards the work of professionals. In
other words, people seem to like that work best. Viewers gravitate to the music, movies and
art of professionals so it behooves us to allow those professionals who simply
work harder and for longer on their craft to enjoy the fruits of that
labor.
Jonathan raised the example of the “Hope” poster. His point was that while there is a lot of
debate over fair use surrounding that poster, he finds himself asking why when
there were over 100,000 photos of Obama that could have been used for free up
on Flickr, why did that person choose a professional image? Jonathan suggested, and rightly so, that the
user of this shot sought to profit from HIS art, shouldn’t the inspiration for
that art profit as well?
What happens to the art when the artist can’t make a living from
his or her work? After all Free is great – until it isn’t.
