Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, for the sake of this discussion, Lets say "Mass Effect 3" and "How I met your Mother" as art.
We both know those as two incredibly popular series and ended in a way that make the internet explode in rage. To the point that both ended up having the ending changed.
But in the case of HIMYM it was planned sense the beginning. With the scene with the kids filmed second season. It was clear the writers had this planned and wanted to make an unconventional love story(Or modern depending on how you look at it) with clues plastered throoughout(Where it was shown that Robin was part of the kids life with drawings of them at a young age, like a second mother)
But the fans hated it. To the point that it is now changed.
Or lets look at the Game of thrones. Books are Great as is the show. But Martin is being pressured to write faster and get the next book out. But lets say that he was planning on Offing Tyrion. Imagine how that would go over on the show. So he may be pressured by show staff to not do that because the show might loose audience for it. Is that not the fans controlling the artist and demanding what they want(It isnt the case, im just using a hypothetical)
Side-Note. Is Art considered art even if it is made for soley making money?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, for the sake of this discussion, Lets say "Mass Effect 3" and "How I met your Mother" as art.

The answer is no. The company owns the IP, which the artist developed as their employee. If they made something on their own time unrelated to their employer, then yes they own it, but whoever made the cover art for ME3 doesn't own that cover art. EA owns it. Likewise, though the creators of a show often have a lot of pull with said show, they do not own the show, the company financing it does.

Or lets look at the Game of thrones. Books are Great as is the show. But Martin is being pressured to write faster and get the next book out.

Well as an author I appreciate that his task is a hefty one, especially with how big his books are. Few authors can pull such a thing off. That said... It really shouldn't take this long to produce books. Longer series' have been written in less time.

Imagine how that would go over on the show. So he may be pressured by show staff to not do that because the show might loose audience for it.

In this case, while Game of Throne as an IP belongs to Martin, the TV series itself, belongs to HBO who pays Martin to use his IP. Martin can't tell them to do something, they can't tell him to do something. If they don't like what he does they can just ignore him (at this rate they may have to create their own ending).

EDIT: However! Something really cool they could do is make some prequel seasons for the series! Martin gives some details about the events of Robert's Rebellion, but it would be pretty epic to see HBO take a shot are their own version maybe consulting with Martin on the side about how to do it while creating their own little piece of the GoT universe. Or maybe a series about the Dance of Dragons or the Conquests of Aegon I. Or Ned Stark putting down the Iron Islands (who doesn't want more Ned Stark?). There's room in that universe for HBO to do some cool things on their own.

Art belongs to the artist up to the point (s)he sells it,

and then ownership transfers as per the contract

so if you're an author who signs a contact that lets your publisher get other authors to come and play in your universe and write stuff using your characters and then gets upset with the outcome sorry that's tough

(of course it has to have been a 'fair' contract)

Whoever pays for the art owns the art.

If it's art done purely for art's sake then it's owned by the artist.

Art is of course art, and art is subjective.

However, an artist can attain fame on an artwork they do not own if their work is good enough or is respected enough and then can claim higher fees or salaries in the future.

The innumerable paintings and sculptures over the years have for the longest time been commissioned works where they were paid to make the art but we're not in and of itself the owners of the work they created. Not all the time, but look at all the pictures of royalty and religion. Much of that art work was funded over the centuries.

Art is basically just an interesting object. Artist owns it until they sell it, then they can still own the idea of it. Unless under a company because they will usually be made to sign an agreement or something when they start up stating that what they produced while working for them is owned by the company.

 WarOne wrote:
Art is of course art, and art is subjective.

However, an artist can attain fame on an artwork they do not own if their work is good enough or is respected enough and then can claim higher fees or salaries in the future.

The innumerable paintings and sculptures over the years have for the longest time been commissioned works where they were paid to make the art but we're not in and of itself the owners of the work they created. Not all the time, but look at all the pictures of royalty and religion. Much of that art work was funded over the centuries.

This.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Side-Note. Is Art considered art even if it is made for soley making money?

Michelangelo, Van Dyck, Da Vinci, Holbein were all commissioned. Such artist work could be said to be painted/created on demand.