Should Artists charge money for their content?

I’ve heard this question before, but I’m unsure how I should feel about it.

Here’s one example. I go to Deviantart a lot. I know this one artist (who shall remain anonymous for the sake of privacy) who drew lots of pretty pictures that lots of people liked. At first, the artist simply posted their art on his/her blog/Deviantart page for free. However, when the artist became popular, they moved their content to a different site and in order to view their content, the artist requested that their fans not only become members of the new website, but also buy a monthly subscription in order to view the content. Not only that, the artist has specifically requested that his/her art not be reposted to various public image sharing sites (aka 4chan, imgur, etc.).

Now, the artist in question does update frequently and the art itself seems to remain consistent, if similar to previous works. The question I want to ask is: was the above artist ‘in the right’ to start charging his/her fanbase for something they used to do for free?

I understand there are exceptions to this rule, such as commissions. Obviously, a fan is paying you money for a specific drawing and the artist does this service for a small sum.

But what about items that the artist used to do for free but is now asking money for? Things like Paypal or crowdfunding. Should the artist have a right to profit for their work? Are they sell outs in asking for money? Is this an efficient model?

I also do a little (creative) writing on the side. However, I do so because I enjoy writing and like sharing my opinion. I don’t feel as though I would want to do this as a living, but would like to continue writing on the side while I get a more traditional job (such as working in an office building). But, that’s just me.

What do you think?

If they want to eat they should.

There's nothing wrong with artists charging for their work.

I'm sorry, is this a real question?

Edit: Okay, to not be flippant -- yes. It does not matter if they previously put things up for free. Any artist can charge any amount for anything they want (assuming no pre-existing arrangement or contract) and they are 100% completely and unequivocally morally faultless to do so.

Edit2: In fact, there's an argument to be made that artists or designers who do NOT charge for their work are on much more morally dubious ground, since they create the false impression that similar work SHOULD be free and artists do not deserve compensation. This is a pretty grey area, but most of the time if you're doing work for 'exposure' you're essentially being robbed.

What a ridiculous question. They did work, they should be paid for their work. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's really up to the artist's discretion. It's up to the audience to decide if they want to consume the content at the price listed. Neither have any real control over the other.

test test

Edit: I don't know why the forums keep eating my posts.

Yes. Absolutely. They have every right to make money off their work. It doesn't matter if they didn't before.

It is a childish assumption that everything should remain free. No one can or will make any money off their work that way. The world doesn't work like that.

Yes. Although that specific case sounds super shaddy.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. Don't be dumb. Yes.

If you're good at something never do it for free. Don't listen to Zuckerbergs greedy sharing mantras. If the artist doesn't get paid than someone else is profiting.

Thank you for the input.

Yes

Everyone needs to eat so sure. If said person feels comfortable and confident enough that they can make some money by doing so then more power to them.

Not to mention that they are entitled to pursue the dream of living of of their craft. Drawing, writing can also be professions. And with their independence secure they can hone their skills and perfect their vision.

Pretty pictures ay????? I've heard all about those pretty pictures that the kids are into.

Yes. A person should profit from their work if it's good enough that people are willing to pay for it.

Is Valve "selling out" when it asks you to pay for their other games when Dota 2 and TF2 are free? Was Edmund MacMillan "selling out" when he charged money for Super Meat Boy after years of making free flash games?

Is this an efficient model?

Clearly not, if it's this hard to grasp the idea of people trying to earn a living through their profession. Someone who makes art and puts it on the internet is doing the exact same thing as a game dev or a baker or a construction worker or any other job. It's their livelihood. The only difference is that it's incredibly easy to steal the internet artist's work, so people assume that it just inherently belongs to everyone.

It doesn't.

Sure, they can charge money for their content if they want. But it will always be up to their audience to decide whether that content is worth paying for. It's kinda like the Patreon/Kickstarter dilemma isn't it?

Question - "Should an artist profit from their work?"

Answer - Yes.

They need food too.

It's their work, they can do what they want with it. Anyway, if people are true fans of their work, they should be happy to be able to support further works by supporting the artist.

You paid for games, no?

Yes if the artist feels that they should be paid for their work they have every right to charge for it. The market might not agree.

The analogy I see is with cooking. A chef wouldn't be asked to provide meals for free though it doesn't stop them from donating their time either.

If there is someone willing to pay for your work why not use the opportunity to gain wealth? I think getting rewarded for your work is something we all are used to.

@joshwent: OP sounds like a kid, duder. Maybe ease up a bit. lol

As far as OP question goes; it depends on the creator and his/her audience. The creator can set any price they like for the work they produce (from $0 to $bahhiahdahdzillion), and it's then up to the audience to determine what that work is really worth. If nobody pays for the work, then the work was worth nothing. If people do pay for it, then it was worth the money they spent on it. I don't think there's anything wrong with a creator charging their audience for the work they enjoy doing. The goal for a lot of people is to get paid for doing something you love. For some people, creating art is rewarding in and of itself and for others, creating art and paying the rent at the same time is great, too.

Yes, of course.

Doing something initially for free and then charging is a great way to garner interest. If this artist you eluded to charged initially you probably wouldn't know he/she existed today.

Hey man, welcome to capitalism. I know it's change from what you're used to but its pretty simple once you get used to it. Basically what happens is that one person pays another person money in exchange for goods and services. Let me give you an example. Say someone draws a nice picture, and you want to look at the picture. Well, under capitalism the drawer of said picture will charge the looker what they feel is an appropriate amount of money for that service.

Sorry for the snark, but come on man. people gotta get paid.

Yes they should be paid and as long as there is a need for money they have all the right and not be morally questioned about it. Artist, we need to pay bills too ya know.

No way, man. Art is gotta be free, man. Art is like the wind. You can't own the wind. You can't own art. You dig?

It should be up to the artist. Most like to get paid for their work.

God damn, I'm agreeing with the majority here, but some of y'all aren't making a good impression of the site by being such asses.

@spiritbomb: I can't believe you actually ask this question

"Should the artist have a right to profit for their work?"

That just makes me feel like you have no respect for art as a profession. All he did was put himself out there so he can get noticed, what you didn't think this guy's plan was to someday get paid for his work? It takes time and dedication to be a good artist, how can you ever question the payment of that?

Fine if you don't think his work is worth the price don't subscribe to his website but don't question him making a living. Why not question adult sites or even this site with there pay subscription.

Me as a professional graphic designer I find it very disrespectful that you would even question if this guy should be able to make a living for his work.

Substitute Video game developers for artist.

I think everyone agrees that artists should charge for their work.In addition, you should not repost art to 4chan, imgur if you don't credit the artist. Insert relevant video

They can, but they should also understand that their art is worth what that market dictates it's worth. Even if that is a terribly offensive low price.

An artist can perform, display and charge for their art anyway they choose. Let's not make the direct comparison that a piece of art or a performance of art is the same thing as hiring someone to mow your lawn or buying an office chair from Walmart though. Banksy doesn't charge for a street mural but may sell prints. You can't always quantify the value of art in monetary terms.

You don't garner a living by some perceived right to be paid just because you created something either. That's for the market to decide.

Every creative industry already competes with free. There's a reason people still pay to see current films instead of only relying on public domain films. It's a value proposition. If there's value to something then people will pay you for it, or make an effort to appreciate it, or will trade something for it, etc. If you want to be paid for doing something creative then you'd better be making the proposition that your creative expression has a monetary value. If people are fine with hiring their cousin Jimbo to take wedding photos instead of an actual professional then tough shit, the professional's value proposition didn't win out over Jimbo's "good enough" photos being free. I'm not going to cry for that photographer or the couple who got garbage wedding photos.

As far as OP's example I will say that seems to be a very unusual way of monetizing that form of art. As far as being right or wrong though, or justifiable, that's completely irrelevant. It's unanswerable. Some people want to create just to create. A kid isn't making a drawing to hang on the fridge for a monetary gain. They want to share their creation, make an emotional impact on their audience. Sometimes people want to make money to have the time and resources to continue their art. Some people want to make a career out of the creative efforts. Some people slap together half assed shit and expect to make bank on it. Whatever, it's their choice.

Unequivocally yes.

I'm not high enough to appreciate this statement in any way

I think it's in better taste to leave formerly free content as free, but once that free content has done its job as promoter anything released moving forward should be priced as the artist (and as the fickle and nebulous "worth") chooses.

But then this kind of artist isn't what I would call an artist. They're really just a media producer. I believe an artist is marked by intentions of expression and exploration rather than motivations of financial security. Before any media producer gets indignant, producing content in a medium as a profession is a perfectly valid occupation. It's just that it's comparable to carpentry or IT support.

There's people out there who does not understand the personal sacrifice some artists make to keep their heads above water. While it's impossible to keep your art safe from theft (I mean posting your stuff on the internet and asking people not to take it is like throwing a porkchop into a rabid dog pen and whispering no at them when they start tearing it apart), you can at least request/beg that no one shares it publically. This is also a requirement from some sites that hire artists.

If you're an artist it's very likely your livelihood, or your secondary income on-top of a shitty one. Sadly for it to become viable as an income (secondary or main) you need to step up from your humble beginnings and discover your own self-worth. This can be incredibly hard when you have people, especially fans, come down on you for doing so - a lot of artists, in many cases the drawing and painting kind, have self-worth issues.

So please, as a fan of a certain artist/artists who might've managed to get somewhere in life with their art, please consider donating or purchasing their stuff if you can.

It's kinda like Giantbomb - they did amazing stuff for free and now they offer premium to their biggest fans and they need the premium option to continue doing what they do.

You sound like a teenager who doesn't want to pay for stuff... Everyone has been in that stage were they think that the world owes them something and they should get something for nothing. Once you start working (especially creatively) you want to be paid for your hard work, even if you're doing it out of love.

Yes. This shouldn't even be questionable. If someone wants to charge $1000000 for a picture of Mario they drew on a napkin they are well within their rights. You don't have to buy it, but questioning their right to charge for it is ridiculous.

This is why I make all my Giant Bomb fanart pro-bono so I don't appear like a sellout. Also this is why I live in a cardboard box.

It would be up to the artist no? If he/she wants to charge for his work, its well within his/her rights.

If they want it to be their living, sure. The model they choose is entirely up to their discretion - there are tons of models beyond simple commission, as viable as that may or may not prove to be for a given person.

Plenty of artists through history got paid for their work and are still widely recognized as being motivated by something high and above fiscal gain. These things really aren't mutually exclusive at all.

@crembaw: I repeat: I.

of course not. what a silly question

Should artist charge? Sure.

But, how you charge and for what matters. If your are going to sell your art you need to be smart about the business of selling it. The simplest concept is: protect your art by making it EASY to buy.

Every day there are artists who make good money selling their art. And every day there are artists who do JUST AS GOOD WORK who lose their work to thieves. People will pay, but if you make paying onerous or difficult they will just take it.

I see three questions to answer in your post. I'll just say words and stuff and see if it makes sense at all. It's gotta make some sense I hope hehehe.

1. Should an artist be able to earn money for their artwork? Yes. This is the question most responders react to and answers here with no further thought. Not much to discuss here.

2. Is it ethical to change free content (art or otherwise) into paid content? I got this question out of the fact that nowhere in your post did you clarify that the artist in question had either made new works at a different site so he could charge it (leaving existing free content free), or if the artist literally moved all works (including past free works) to said site to make money. If it's the former then this question doesn't apply as much here, but I'll keep it here as it may bring more discussion value here.

Also note that since we're talking DeviantArt here, I'm assuming this artist's works are all digital, so there isn't a big material costs impact that the artist is suffering here aside from the costs of his tools and IT components to turn his free activity into a paying one. I'm contextualising my answer mainly for digital works. Depending on the work it's likely those costs won't necessarily be significantly large compared to regular necessary IT hardware to create those works (could be wrong of course).

Now to the question - No it really isn't (in my opinion) as it always comes off as a bad gesture to consumers of the content. It gives people a good reason to no longer appreciate the content anymore. This does not correlate in any way with someone's ability to perform this act, however the consequences of doing so are fairly straightforward to see and almost always happens. This also is still unethical even if in the long term, an artists manages to make good later on in some fashion to regain reputation after doing such a thing. The unethical nature still exists regardless of an individuals ability to ignore it for the sake of enjoying an artist and their work.

This move should be avoided if one can help it through pre-planning or leaving free content as free, whilst making new content paid. That generally minimises damage to your reputation amongst the consuming public. There are of course times when this move is the only move to make as an artist. However even if your audience understands the artist's necessity to do this, it does not negate the bad taste of taking away free content people used enjoy. This holds especially true if the content is in a digital format where people likely saved said free work and don't expect to now pay for it for any reason, which is completely understandable. Never a good publicity move in my opinion.

3. Are you right in expecting artists to make creative works for free at all times if they began making content for free? Unfortunately no you're not. Artists at their own discretion have the right to change their stances in the value of their abilities for making content, however they should handle such transitions with care. They basically become the artist, businessman and sales rep of their own work once they request compensation for their talents, and they should analyse carefully who they are selling to and how they handle audience reactions to their transitions.

Overall, this just looks like another example of how digital content and the rate that content is being churned out can really mess with people's value expectations. I feel this kind of issue will get even worse for a while before it gets any better.

@random45: The way he words his question makes it seem like he doesn't really respect art or artists.