Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Etsy Sellers and Big Business Make Money on Public Domain Art (vice.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the oldies-but-goodies dept.

"Some people have figured out how to turn reselling public domain content into side hustles," reports Motherboard: On Etsy, there are thousands of listings for downloadable prints and lithographs that are in the public domain. The concept is pretty simple: these merchants round up and download the most visually beautiful art in the public domain, and then sell prints on Etsy. But some of them don't even go that far and just sell digital files of the art. Then, the buyers can print out the prints at whichever size they want and use them as they please...

With that being said, there's also big companies like Walmart that are also trying to earn money off art in the public domain... Similarly, the Museum of Modern Art is selling "Red Canna" by Georgia O'Keeffe, which is now in the public domain, for $166.50 (on sale from $185). For the love of god, don't pay $166.50 for something you could download for free and print yourself for less than $16.

Of course, none of this is bad necessarily. The public domain exists in part so that people can give formerly copyrighted works new life -- sometimes an iconic painting simply needs to become a bedspread. But now that many new works are available for free, it's worth having a quick look around if you're thinking of buying vintage art. You might be able to get it for free elsewhere.
To be fair, the Museum of Modern Art is a non-profit -- and reportedly avoids all government funding.

23 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It’s public domain. That’s the whole point. Since when is this news that matters?

    1. Re: So? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      No shit.

      The way the article reads, there is something seriously evil about anyone, anywhere, making money as a result of knowing something that someone else does not know.

      Fucking morons.

    2. Re: So? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Outrage sells. If you can find a way to make people feel outraged, then you can sell advertisements. It's been working for 40 years. "I'm mad as hell and not going to take this anymore!" A lot of these outrage stories are empty, this one just more obviously so.

      From a politicians perspective, the best thing is that outraged people are manipulable.

      The best stories are the ones with a kernel of truth: like Global Warming, or Terrrorists in Iraq, who need to be pre-emptivevly invaded.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: So? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Let's just say there is a such thing as fair and honest dealing and if you're making money based on the customer not knowing a simple fact, your dealing is not fair and honest.

      Of course, given the prices some of the sellers in TFA are charging, I don't necessarily think their dealing is unfair. Actually printing is worth something. Curation is worth something, and doing a high quality scan from a printed book is worth something. The prices shown in at least some of those example looked about right.

    4. Re: So? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Give some specific examples of that

    5. Re: So? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that they sometimes start with public domain works. I want an example of how they prevent anyone else from using those same works (minus all of the Disney original stuff like story modifications, artwork, music, songs, etc).

    6. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the poster was referring to the fact that congress expended the copyright term mostly at behest of Disney because Mickey was about to become Public Domain. He was saying that they like to use PD to generate business, but don't like their own works falling into PD.

    7. Re: So? by nasch · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's a business' duty to inform the customer that they could get a possible substitute good elsewhere for cheaper.

  2. "not necessarily" by bistromath007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is good, without qualification. Anyone who is aware of how many things are gone forever because it was made effectively illegal to preserve them wants a bunch of no-talent hacks keeping old works alive as much as possible.

  3. The whole point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's the whole point of the public domain. It also doesn't change the fact that time has value.

    The last time I needed to put together an icon set for a program, I wanted the icons all in the same theme and normalized with each other. The public domain has plenty to offer and is an especially great way to pretty up something that wasn't even going to be sold or find its way past about 10 people. There is simply no point to paying for art and not using place-holders in such a use case.

    Yet I was more than willing to pay someone else to spend the time to find art in the right style, put it all together, and scale everything to look like an actual icon set.

    Absolutely no part of that process is difficult to do, all simple easy straight forward stuff.
    But it took a few hours which I preferred to spend on other things instead. So it was well worth the value to me.

  4. A worse problem is the perma-copyrighted ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The ones never to be seen again and sometimes potentially lost to time forever are a worse issue.
    Any company that puts their things in to open, public domains after a reasonable period is fine with me and whatever others do is up to them.
    I have a lot of respect for those that do. I do it myself despite being able to make mad money off some art and programming. Sometimes even anonymously because I would rather they stand on their own two feet than be associated with past work.
    Sometimes you just gotta make something for the Greater Good.

    One thing that is especially sad is seeing some digital works go to waste, being left to rot on a HDD, potentially unused. That saddens me much much more given the potential for re-use.
    This is even more hurtful from a film CGI assets perspective. They pretty much never see the light of day outside some companies drives.
    Blade Runner 2049 assets in particular
    That city scene from 8 minutes on. God DAMN. (I'm also madder most of it got covered by stupid smog for some "vision" of Earth being a helldump)
    This likely won't even be used for a third film given the sales, never mind released.
    So much work just left to rot. Untouched. Hell, most times you don't even get to see these behind-the-scenes of the rendering process!

  5. Re:How Motherboards makes money on clickbait garba by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Like posting on /., right? Yeesh.

  6. Why? by Xenolith0 · · Score: 2

    For the love of god, don't pay $166.50 for something you could download for free and print yourself for less than $16.

    Of course, then I have to spend time figuring out printing options, determining if the printer/printing company supports the file in a lossless format or if I have to first convert it to something like jpeg, then determining if compression artifacts will show in the print, then I have to deal with color profiles, then I have figure out framing options and get it framed...

    Or, I could pay someone else $150 to figure out all this stuff and get a nice printed and framed image shipped directly to me in the size I want.

    Sometimes convenience is worth paying for.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can argue about the price, but there is definite utility in having someone else do the grunt work to produce a quality print and framing

    2. Re:Why? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me it seems like the author would be one of those people that complains that a professional plumber/mechanic/electrician costs money. They could do the job themselves and then disaster would ensue. In this particular case they are complaining that a non-profit art organization has made a 24 x 20 print, framed it, and is selling it for $166 when they could have done the same for $16. I don't know about the quality of their work but I would assume that MoMA knows how to frame art doing and have done a decent job. Yes anyone could put in the work and effort to do the same. But I can tell you it would be more than $16 to do that job. The frame alone would probably be more.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Well ... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    I blame the Copyright-Natsys for this article.

  8. You know people will sell you a disk with linux by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    and make money on it ::shocked face::

  9. Quality prints by JillElf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A good quality print costs - heavy acid free paper, non-fugitive ink, high resolution image which was most likely created by a professional photographer or scanned by someone that really knows what they are doing. It may cost more if it is still under copyright but even a public domain image is going to cost if you want a good quality print. If Walmart and the Museum of Modern Art ever sell the same public domain image, pretty sure I can tell you which one will still look good ten years. Sometimes, you do get what you pay for.

  10. To be fair... by McFortner · · Score: 2

    To be fair, the Museum of Modern Art is a non-profit -- and reportedly avoids all government funding.

    To be fair, that sentence has as much relevance to the story as a frog on crutches.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    1. Re:To be fair... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Frog on crutches from 1977. BUY IT! Or, "Streaming Included with Prime."

      Well, it's a wagon, but what's a minor difference between friends? Think of it as crutches on wheels.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  11. And? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    And? I've bought new KJV Bible's at dollar stores. So what? King James' translators were unavailable for comment, being long dead.

    The whole point of public domain is that you can use it, you can publish it, you can do what you like with it.

    1. Re:And? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And? I've bought new KJV Bible's at dollar stores. So what? King James' translators were unavailable for comment, being long dead.

      And I (by contrast) got a more expensive one since I only wanted one copy and I wanted a binding that woldn't fall apart fast.

      The whole point of public domain is that you can use it, you can publish it, you can do what you like with it.

      And in this case, the great thing about the public domain is that both sorts are available.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  12. Painting by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

    I've been painting since 2017 and have made quite a few "real" copies of old masters paintings. It's great practice and you learn a little with each one. They're all hanging on my wall but I probably would let go of a few if someone wanted one. At least you would get a real painting and not something that came out of a printer.

    From where I sit though, not many people are interested in buying paintings these days. Heck you rarely even see family pictures on the wall anymore, let alone a painting. I think it's unfortunate this art form is going the way of the dodo bird.