Who is more important, artist or patron?
Thursday, October 15, 2009 by Jon Meoli
When deciding who, if anyone, piracy hurts, I couldn't help but think back to the Renaissance and how wealthy families used to commission artists to produce work exclusively for them. Jesse Lacey of the band Brand New touched on the analogy in this interview in which he said the only money he gets from their record company is for the advance to make the record, not the sales. So while artists are commissioned to do work for the record companies, the work is really still the artists, regardless of who holds the copyrights. Just because Michael Jackson's estate owns most of the Beatles catalog doesn't mean that the songs are no longer the Beatles'. Just because Pope Julius II commissioned the painting of the Sistine Chapel doesn't mean that it is not by Michelangelo.
The Yar article says that rights-holders lose over $20 billion in the U.S. What do they do to deserve that money in the first place? It's insane to think there is even that much money to be made, especially considering the average artist doesn't see any of it. On the other hand, the Vatican has probably recouped what it paid Michelangelo in visitor costs a million times over. So what to make of the record company claims that piracy hurts them? Well, I suggest they start buying paintings.