top | item 37102346

(no title)

bigodbiel | 2 years ago

Like the idea, but tangible arts like paintings or live tours are scarce, unlike digital media. So for these money should be going directly to the organizer (artist, sculpture, troupe, etc). For non-tangible mediums, an endowment would make sense (despite the bickering). I can see an incentive for artists to then produce tangible arts for the monetary rewards, but also our industry already is filled with negative incentives and bickering. Something new would be nice.

discuss

order

hakfoo|2 years ago

I'm thinking a stipend eliminates the need for "commercial success".

If your band tours to public parks or empty bars, you still get a living wage. If you crank out six paintings a month but they just line the halls of public libraries because nobody really wants to buy them, you can still live on the stipend.

More importantly, it eliminates the need to create that ownership right, and impede any "descarcification" tactics. Yes, those tangible things might be somewhat scarce, but if someone starts making posters of your paintings, or a recording of your concert goes viral, you both have no reason and no legal method to stop that from happening.

account42|2 years ago

> Like the idea, but tangible arts like paintings or live tours are scarce, unlike digital media.

These don't rely on copyright so wouldn't need any special consideration when abolishing it.