Huh. Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, hey, the artist sold it. Not theirs anymore. This happens all the time in the business world with stocks and patents and such. On the other hand, it's not like the thought on your ideas getting resold for SUCH higher values isn't irritating. Plus, unlike, say, a person buying a company that later becomes hugely successful, an artwork is imbued with (what we generally consider to be) unique creative talent. The artwork also often has the artist's name attached to the work. No one remembers the original founder of Android; we just know that's a phone OS brand owned by Google. Eeeeeeeeeeveryone knows what "an Andy Warhol" is. Still, where do we draw the line, then? Suppose someone sells the rights to a novel or screenplay or other idea, and the new owner makes a ton of money off of their creative work? The creator's name/brand may not be attached in the same way, but isn't that kind of art just as valuable? This bill is specific to "works of art", but what does that cover exactly? Or what SHOULD it cover, rather? I guess what I'm asking, although I am ultimately in favor of this bill, is what the heck makes artists so special that they ought to get royalties on what work they sold, but not other people as in the scenarios above? What's the difference? I feel like if this bill is passed, things could get messy, and a lot of these other questions might come to the table as well. And I guess I sort of hope they do.
Huh. Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, hey, the artist sold it. Not theirs anymore. This happens all the time in the business world with stocks and patents and such.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it's not like the thought on your ideas getting resold for SUCH higher values isn't irritating. Plus, unlike, say, a person buying a company that later becomes hugely successful, an artwork is imbued with (what we generally consider to be) unique creative talent. The artwork also often has the artist's name attached to the work. No one remembers the original founder of Android; we just know that's a phone OS brand owned by Google. Eeeeeeeeeeveryone knows what "an Andy Warhol" is.
Still, where do we draw the line, then? Suppose someone sells the rights to a novel or screenplay or other idea, and the new owner makes a ton of money off of their creative work? The creator's name/brand may not be attached in the same way, but isn't that kind of art just as valuable? This bill is specific to "works of art", but what does that cover exactly? Or what SHOULD it cover, rather?
I guess what I'm asking, although I am ultimately in favor of this bill, is what the heck makes artists so special that they ought to get royalties on what work they sold, but not other people as in the scenarios above? What's the difference? I feel like if this bill is passed, things could get messy, and a lot of these other questions might come to the table as well. And I guess I sort of hope they do.