Open Source Good, Giving Away Art Bad?
I just discovered that a number of commercial artists are really insulted that Google approached them to create artwork, without offering to pay for it. This did seem unreasonable to me … until I read further and saw that this is for the Chrome browser.
Now, Chrome is open source. (Technically the open source project is a separate thing called “Chromium”, but that’s mostly an organizational detail; the code is the same.) So when I compared this controversy to the rather different attitude of the many programmers who’ve gladly contributed to Chrome and WebKit (and thus also Safari) without pay … I went “hmm”.
There’s a long comment thread about this on the LiveJournal of the talented cartoonist Rebecca Clements. The craziest comment I saw was by one “Anonymous”:
“Good will never paid a bill or put shoes on my child. I admit there should be some caring people in the world. But Google being kind …so we all should be kind like them and give our work away? Come on give me a break. Someone in their executive chain of management has thought this through enough to realize it as a Public Relations “cool” thing to do to get more attention and drive people to Google as a source. It wasn’t because they feel like being kind and giving something away.” *
Maybe I’m especially pissed off at this attitude because I just spent most of my weekend being kind and giving my work away (as well as the work of several others). And I’m sure much of the software these complaining artists use was created for free by open-source programmers. Do they draw with The Gimp or Inkscape? Use Firefox or Chrome or Safari? Run Linux or BSD? Host their blogs with WordPress or LiveJournal? (Let’s just hope they’re not using pirated copies of Photoshop or CorelDraw…)
So is there a double standard here, or am I missing something?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:04 AM
If you follow the links in the article we are discussing it appears that Google called an artist personally and asked them to do unpaid work. My understanding is that, usually, when Google calls up programmers, and ask them to do some work, they offer to pay them.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:06 AM
John - I’m really not trying to be difficult or an asshole here, but I just don’t grok the distinction here. By your argument, it seems like the only people who can be part of the open source community are programmers. I mean, the people who use those programs aren’t part of the community? What about potential users? What about tech writers? Are they part of the community?
Would it have been okay if they had only approached artists who use Chrome? Or who have participated in open source projects before? Is it okay for a non-commercially-sponsored project to ask an artist to contribute?
If I were asked, as a programmer, to contribute to a project I didn’t use and had never heard of, aren’t I in the same situation? Should I be offended? Or are all open source programs just one big community of which programmers are automatically part of?
I don’t see how communities can grow if what constitutes the “community” is so firmly defined.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:10 AM
If it is true that Google always (or at least most of the time) offers to pay programmers they approach in similar situation, then the situation becomes different. I don’t know that that’s true, and would need conformation before condemning Google.
But, assuming for argument that it is true, then I concede that Google’s actions become much harder to defend.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Jeff…
Again..this is not putting a call out on a web site. This is specifically asking, as a representative of a corporate entity, one that is not a non-profit, a artist, or artists to do work for that company’s benefit, on a project that is a commercial project, albeit with an open source component. (and let’s be honest, Google does not *need* the open source part of chrome. It’s simply convenient for them and good PR. Gmail seems to be surviving nicely sans open source.)
In other words, a representative of a company approached a professional to do work on a commercial product, and wanted it done for free. Yet, somehow, because the artists DARE to think “hey, you are COMMISSIONING work from me, you’re NOT a charity or other non-profit, you get to PAY like everyone else, stop being cheap bastards”, they’re wrong.
Um. No.
To paraphrase Harlan Ellison: Pay the artist.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:42 AM
John:
The point of confusion I have is that it’s not clear to me from reading through either of the links above, or from doing some additional research, exactly what the request was. It seems like everyone arguing one side is assuming that the artwork was to become Google’s property and part of the commercial project. Those arguing the other side are assuming the art would be donated to the Chromium project and hence become part of the open source project, available as part of the project.
It does make a difference, at least to me, and I can’t see any definitive information about the actual request. Forgive me for not accepting the assumption from the blog post of the offended artists. We’ve only got second-hand info about what Google actually requested as far as I can tell.
So, let me state that if the facts are as you say they are, then I agree that it was inappropriate. But, if the artists were asked to contribute to the open source project and have their works become part of the project the way code is contributed, licensed under the terms of the project, then I don’t think it was inappropriate, and still feel the artists’ response was.
In addition to the fact that the claims are all hearsay, much of the supporting “evidence” are from others and are about completely different companies. It’s impossible to assume from the information available whether Google’s request is being accurately represented or was even accurately interpreted.
Here is why I have some trepidation. Were you aware of the whole uproar over the Orphan Works Act a while back. People get worked up mostly on things they assumed about the law rather than what the law actually said. Very quickly those things they assumes become “facts” passed around from blog to blog. The next thing you know the Orphan Works Act was trying to steal artists’ livelihood and then blame them for global warming. Probably 90% of the information passed around by artists and posted on artists’ blogs in that context was factually incorrect FUD, spread around by people who didn’t take the time to really find out the facts.
Perhaps it’s unfair, but these posts have a very similar feel to them. They are high on emotion, but low on specific factual information. We see Melinda Beck’s response to Google, but not the inquiry that it’s responding to. Is it possible that the facts are as you say? Yep. Am I confident that’s the case. No.
Let me shift my vote back from “it was appropriate”, to “undecided” for the time being. I admit I made assumptions that the artists were asked to contribute art in the same way a programmer would be asked to contribute code to an open source project, and it’s not clear that that was a correct assumption on my part. But, it’s also not clear from the research I’ve been doing that it was an incorrect one, either. There’s simply not enough factual, reliable evidence from both sides to know the real story which, in and of itself, seems to warrant taking the emotional level down a notch and finding out the real story..
May 6th, 2009 at 6:24 PM
If a representative from a commercial company specifically approached professional artists and asked them to work for free for anything other than a non-profit or a charitable cause, (and Chrome/Chromium is neither of those), it was a dick move, regardless of reason or end use. Period.
I do not know how to make that statement any more clear.
Two of the responses are from artists approached by Google. That’s not hearesay, that’s an account from someone directly involved.
My wife and others on DeviantArt et al read the bill and realized their alarm was quite justified. Just because artists want their work protected from pirates and thieves does not make them wrong, or fudmongers. I have a family member who gave up on letting anyone other than family have access to their art, because the theft was so rampant that they were able to see their stuff stolen, copyright notice erased, and new copyright added in less than a day from the initial posting.
Just because that kind of process works for programming and code, that doesn’t make it right for everyone. Artists have the right to be pissed about such things.
Right. She’s probably lying to get attention. Because that’s kind of what you’re saying. That Melinda and the others are either lying or misstating or misinterpreting Google’s intentions, because of their reactions. I guess the only proper response when asked to donate work for free to a global conglomerate who’s name is “Google” is fawning willingness to do whatever they want.
If Google approached me and asked me to set up an SNMP system for the Chrome(ium) group for free, because “it would look good”, I’d reprint their email en toto and laugh in their faces. My time has value, and Google can certainly afford it. If my friend “bill” asked me to help him out, unofficially, and he happened to be on the Chromium team, I’d have a different response because I know “bill” and he’s a cool guy.
Ragging on people who don’t want to work for free is just a little inane.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Their statements about their own actions are not hearsay. Their statements about Google’s actions and intentions are, indeed, hearsay. They are the very definition of hearsay. They are one person’s claim about what another person or persons said.
There’s a very good reason why hearsay is not generally allowed as evidence, and it’s not just because people might lie. It’s because misunderstandings happen, and it’s because people tend to have imperfect memories and subconsciously represent the actions of others viewed from their own point of view and skewed by their own self-interests.
Please stop misrepresenting my words. I’m trying to have a civil discussion and you seem intent on twisting my words to put insults in my mouth. I never stated that there were no reasons to be against the Orphan Works Act or that anybody who argued against it was wrong to do so. But, I can tell you with certainty that not “all of the artists on Deviant Art” read the bill, though, because many of them posted factually incorrect information when speaking against it.
What I’m referring to is an organized opposition that flat out lied about what the law said and would allow. I’m talking about sensationalist misrepresentation to get others up in arms with little regard for the truth. I’m talking about a campaign of deceit led by The Illustrators’ Partnership of America to get a bill they didn’t like defeated.
Here is one, fairly typical (and actually somewhat reserved) example. Since you’ve read the act, you must realize that this page contains several factual errors. The Orphan Works Act does NOT, as this site states, retroactively cause works to lose copyright protections and it does not in any way change registration requirements or add a registration requirement for protection.
Since you’ve read it, you also must be aware that the Orphan Works Act doesn’t even take away or modify your existing rights to stop someone from using your art nor does it take away your ability to sue infringers. It doesn’t even change your ability to get compensatory damages if you win. It only takes PUNITIVE damages off the table, if and ONLY if the person you are suing partook in a “reasonable search” to find the rights holder. There were, IIRC, five components given for what constitutes a reasonable search, with a search of copyright records being only one of the five. If the infringer didn’t take those steps, they would still be subject to punitive damages if you win.
I don’t care how justified you believe your cause to be, lying to further it is uncool. In your words, it’s a “dick move”. Not every artist who opposes the WPA has spread lies and misinformation, and I’m simply not talking about those people. But a great many artists did spread the lies, and many of those did so without bothering to confirm them because they trusted the information passed on in websites and on forums or simply because they didn’t have the background or legal grounding to fully understand the act themselves.
Ragging on people who don’t want to work for free is just a little inane.
I agree. Ragging is wrong. Asking might be. Ragging on someone without getting their side of the story is also a little inane.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:04 PM
I don’t know what happened - part of my argument above disappeared when I posted it. In response to this:
I said that misunderstandings happen without people lying. Misunderstandings happen every day, especially when people don’t have a common frame of reference. Do not put insults in my mouth simply because I suggested it might be a good idea not to condemn Google based on the hearsay of from people who might have misunderstood or even unintentionally misrepresented the request from Google. Do put accusations in my mouth because I, unlike you, do not feel like I have the whole story and wish to refrain from passing judgment yet.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:43 AM
“hearsay” and “speculation” are two very different things, and you have confused them. If Google approaches you, and says “foo”, and you say “Google approached me and said “foo”“, that is not hearsay. If you tell Bob, and bob says “Google approached Bill and said “foo”“, that is hearsay.
If Google approaches you and says “foo, and here’s why we’re saying “foo”” and you repeat that, again, not hearsay. If they just say “foo” and you say “here’s why I think Google is saying “foo”“, that is speculation, not hearsay. There’s a reason we have different words for speculatin and hearsay.
But no, no matter how hard you wrap your big Google fanboy banner around things, (and at this point, your relentless insistence that these people should have wet themselves at any chance to work on anything even vaguely related to Open Source is seriously tilting into Google Fanboy territory), someone whom Google approached and said “foo” talking about how Google approached them and said “foo” is not hearsay. Me saying they said that is, them talking about it is not.
Please either stop trying to run away from what you’re saying as soon as it’s disputed, or start writing what you really mean instead of talking points. You said, quote:
While you do leave yourself a nice bit of wiggle room there, (90% ISN’T ALL! HAH!), your implication is pretty clear, namely, that opposition to the bill was not based in fact, but just a bunch of silly artists all a-twitter over nothing. You could have said “Much of the information…” or “A lot of the information….” but you said “90%…”. If you cannot be bothered to live with the implications of what you say, stop saying stuff. Seriously.
Of course, you then go off on a multi-paragraph diatribe about the Orphan Works bill, which has nothing to do with this, and because it’s wildly off-topic, I’m ignoring it, except to say, you seem very invested in getting the Orphan Works bill passed, making sure that you paint pretty much everyone who opposed it as lying fudmongers, and that all the people who are unhappy with Google are obviously in the wrong.
As well, if Google wants their side of the story heard, I hear there is this “Internet” thing, wherein “Information” can be sent out “at the speed of light” to “the entire world” via “websites”. But hey, maybe sitting alone in the dark all butthurt is how Google does stuff. Being whiny and butthurt when people disagree with them is certainly the standard modus for a rather significant chunk of the open source world. Just call “Linux” “Linux” in front of Stallman for a shining example. So, if they are sitting there whiny and butthurt, they come by it honestly.
Oh please. Again, stop running away from what you say. It’s pretty obvious, that in your eyes, any and all requests to donate time/work and therefore money, regardless of how unreasonable they may be to the person the request is made of regards it, must be immediately and joyfully accepted.
You even say that if what the people Google approached are right:
Not “wrong”, but “harder to defend”. So even if what the artists say is a *perfect* representation of cold hard reality, you wouldn’t think Google is wrong, you would just have to work harder to defend what they did as right.
Just admit it, you cannot, and will not find fault with Google in this situation, no matter what. The above quote makes crystal clear the fact that no matter what Google’s actions in this case, you will still defend Google, no matter how much harder you have to work. So I’m not even sure why you bring up long diatribes about “teh evul reaction to teh orfan werks bill” when that earlier statement told anyone who reads it that no matter what, you’re still going to defend Google’s actions.
It would save you time to just respond with “Google is still right to do what they did, no matter what.” See? Less space needed.
Waiting for predictable “You didn’t actually read those words I wrote down” statement.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:00 AM
John:
This is tiresome. I am not running away from my words, I am correcting your extremely biased and incorrect interpretations of my words. But you aren’t listening to me and aren’t willing to give even the smallest amount of respect to anything I say. Since you have no intention of respecting my opinion I see no point in continuing this discussion. I am tired of the ad hominems and straw man attacks. I am tired of having to refute characterizations of my words that only a biased interpretation could lead to.
You obviously have strong feelings about this. That is fine. I do not. Contrary to what you certainly believe, I am honestly trying to explore a difficult topic on which I have no vested interest. I have remained open to the possibility of being wrong in my assessment or of having not taken factors into account. As far as I can see, I’m the only person in this thread who has conceded the possibility of having been wrong about something, so please do not accuse me of an inability to see Google as having been wrong.
Anything I say that isn’t basically “Oh, John, you’re absolutely right, I’ve been such a fool” is twisted and re-interpreted by you into some kind of attack. You continue to mischaracterize things I say, with things like:
May 7th, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I’m closing further comments. Please take the arguing elsewhere.