Question: How do people feel about fiction collective (with shared IP) using creative commons?

I've been talking with people about this and want to hear more thoughts.

My current opinion is that it would limit prospects for adaptation of written work into film and television, but I could be mistaken on this. Would a studio want to adapt a work under CC?

More thoughts:

*A fiction collective optioning their work for adaptation is a really good revenue generator, but it also allows for the collective's work to reach a wider audience. Both are helpful towards building stability within the collective (paid positions, benefits, long-term viability of the collective, etc.)

*(In the speculative fiction market at least) A lot of short fiction is already available online for free. If the collective is writing primarily short stories and making them accessible online, is it necessary to use CC, especially when they're making their money off of site visits, subscriptions, ads, etc.?

*The problem would really come from adapting larger work (anthologies and novels) in print and Ebook, but I know writers often post their books on their site as well. Same question applies: is CC necessary?

*I know a lot of this is getting into the weeds, but I've seen a divide here when I talk to writer/artists friends. Some people like giving full access to their work/freeing up control of their IP, while others want to compensated for access/and optioning rights. I think it is a labor question as much as a question about the commons. Artists are constantly exploited for their work ---

and it is one of the only industries (areas of work) where people (both consumers and even some artists) don't expect/believe workers should be able to live off their work. On the other hand, everyone recognizes its value and it is a 760 billion dollar industry (news.artnet.com/art-world/nea-) that provides the livelihood of millions of workers (but often not the artists themselves).

Big names can afford to loosen restrictions and open up access to their work, while being able to negotiate with the traditional industry. Artists with more niche or smaller followings may find that option not viable if the want to live off their work.

So the larger question I'm asking is: how do we open up access while actually creating livelihood for artists?

Follow

Secondary question (equally important in my opinion): Is popular work the only work worth of sustained stability and livelihood?

*popular, meaning, successful enough that open access doesn't affect its economic viability*

My thinking is that art for small communities should also be sustainable, even if readership/engagement is limited. I think some form of solidarity should allow such art to exist with livelihood attached (the same way academic work is supported even when engagement is low).

*Note: Art can have a niche following and still be acclaimed. Such art often has value for its fandom AND other artists.*

I think solidarity between artists (collectives, co-ops, shared IP) could allow for niche art to provide livelihood for artists.

I also think solidarity work could be a place where artists can grow and develop their craft while getting stability in return.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!