Free software scares normal people

Graphic designers and artists get ripped off, all the time; frequently, by nerds, who tend to do so, in a manner that insults the value of the artist's work.

It's difficult to get those kinds of creatives to donate their time (trust me on this, I'm always trying).

I'm an ex-artist, and I'm a nerd. I can definitively say that creating good designs, is at least as difficult as creating good software, but seldom makes the kind of margin that you can, from software, so misappropriation hurts artists a lot more than programmers.

This is a weird thread for me to read, as someone who a) works primarily with developer tooling (and not even GUI tooling, I write cryptography stuff usually!), b) is very active in a vibrant community of artists that care about nerd software projects.

I don't, as a rule, ever ask artists to contribute for free, but I still occasionally get gifted art from kind folks. (I'm more than happy to commission them for one-off work.)

Artists tragically undercharge for their labor, so I don't think the goal should be "coax them into contributing for $0" so much as "coax them into becoming an available and reliable talent pool for your community at an agreeable rate". If they're enthusiastic enough, some might do free work from time to time, but that shouldn't be the expectation.

It’s a long story, in my case.

There’s a very good reason for me to be asking for gratis work. I regularly do tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of work for free.

Most fields just don’t have the same culture of collaborative everyone-wins that software does. Artists don’t produce CC art in anywhere close to the same influence as engineers produce software. This is probably due to some kind of compounding effect available in software that isn’t available in graphics.

Software people love writing software to a degree where they’ll just give it away. You just won’t find artists doing the same at the same scale. Or architects, or structural engineers. Maybe the closest are some boat designs but even those are accidental.

It might just be that we were lucky to have some Stallmans in this field early.

Fonts are an interesting case. The field of typography is kind of migrating from the "fuck you, pay me" ethic of the pure design space into a more software-like "everyone wins" state, with plenty of high-quality open-source fonts available, whereas previously we had to make do with bitmap-font droppings from proprietary operating systems, Bitstream Vera, and illegal-to-redistribute copies of Microsoft's web font pack.

I think this is because there are plenty of software nerds with an interest in typography who want to see more free fonts available.

I think the collaborative nature of open source software dev is unlike anything else. I can upload some software in hopes that others find is useful and can build on top of it, or send back improvements.

Not sure how that happens with a painting, even a digital one.

Why should they work for pay on free software? Nobody expects to be paid to work on the software itself. Yet artists expect to be treated differently.

If it is your job, then go do it as a job. But we all have jobs. Free software is what we do in our free time. Artists don't seem to have this distinction. They expect to be paid to do a hobby.

It's just more common for artists to do small commission work on the side of a real job. 30 dollars for something is basically a donation or tip in my view, and the community can crowd fund for it the same way bug bounties work I think?

> Yet artists expect to be treated differently.

Because it's a different job!

Your post is like asking, "Why is breathing free but food costs money?"

You know that (some) people get paid to work on free software, right?

Either you're implying that people should code for free, or your analogy is so vague as to be useless.

Yeah it's a different job but they're both jobs. Why should one be free and one not be free?

Doing a pro graphic design treatment is lot more than just "drawing a few pictures," and picking a color palette.

It usually involves developing a design language for the app, or sometimes, for the whole organization (if, like the one I do a lot of work for, it's really all about one app). That's a big deal.

Logo design is also a much more difficult task than people think. A good logo can be insanely valuable. The one we use for the app I've done a lot of work on, was a quick "one-off," by a guy who ended up running design for a major software house. It was a princely gift.

Because programmers consent to programming for free. That fact does not, in any way, obligate anyone else to.

The question/skepticism is why the programmers are consenting to this but not the artists.

> Doing a pro graphic design treatment is lot more than just "drawing a few pictures," and picking a color palette.

Are you quoting someone? Yeah it's a real job, and so is programming. I don't think anyone in this conversation is being dismissive about either job.

Why aten't programmers drawing furry porn?

It's really not deep.

I suspect some of this is due to the fact that the programmers consenting to do free work already have well-paying jobs, so they have the freedom and time to pursue coding as a hobby for fun as well. Graphic designers and UX designers are already having a hard time getting hired for their specific skills and getting paid well for it, so I imagine it's insulting to be asked to do it for free on top of that.

That said, I don't think it's as simple as that. Coding is a kind of puzzle-solving that's very self-reinforcing and addictive for a certain type of person. Coders can't help plugging away at a problem even if they're not at the computer. Drawing, on the other hand, requires a lot more drudgery to get good, for most people anyway, and likely isn't as addictive.

I dispute that claim but it doesn't answer the question. When you have multiple people involved in the community of an open source project, what makes them decide where to contribute, and what makes them decide if they'll use marketable skills for free or not? I think it's an interesting thing to look into.

Isn’t there a lot more compensation available in software? Like as a developer, you can make a lot of money without having to even value money highly. I think in other fields you don’t generally get compensated well unless you are gunning/grinding for it specifically. “For the love of the art” people in visual arts are painters or something like that, probably. Whereas with software you can end up with people who don’t value money that much and have enough already, at least to take a break from paid work or to not devote as much effort to their paid work. I imagine a lot of open source people are in that position?

Programming is a big deal too.

It’s not like graphic design is harder than programming.

I’d rather have crappy graphics than pay designers instead of programmers for free oss.

Well, early '90s Torvalds wasn't the wealthy fellow he is now and he was busy churning things out and then relicensed Linux under GPL.

Wouldn’t designers consent to designing for free?

This seems like a self selection problem. It’s not about forcing people to work for free. It’s about finding designers willing to work for free (just like everyone else on the project).

I think most OSS projects are started by unemployed people as hobbies. Or ego projects to get jobs.

You'd be surprised, then, to know that a lot of programmers think graphic design is easy (see the other comment, in this thread), and can often be quite dismissive of the vocation.

As a programmer, working with a good graphic designer can be very frustrating, as they can demand that I make changes that seem ridiculous, to me, but, after the product ships, makes all the difference. I've never actually gotten used to it.

That's also why it's so difficult to get a "full monty" treatment, from a designer, donating their time.

There's actually a fair bit of highly influential CC-licensed artwork out there. Wikipedia made a whole free encyclopedia. The SCP Foundation wiki is it's own subculture. There's loads of Free Culture photography on Wikimedia Commons (itself mirrored from Flickr). A good chunk of your YouTube feed is probably using Kevin McCleod music - and probably fucking up the attribution strings, too. A lot of artists don't really understand copyright.

But more importantly, most of them don't really care beyond "oh copyright's the thing that lets me sue big company man[0]".

The real impediment to CC-licensed creative works is that creativity resists standardization. The reason why we have https://xkcd.com/2347/ is because software wants to be standardized; it's not really a creative work no matter what CONTU says. You can have an OS kernel project's development funded entirely off the back of people who need "this thing but a little different". You can't do the same for creativity, because the vast majority of creative works are one-and-done. You make it, you sell it, and it's done. Maybe you make sequels, or prequels, or spinoffs, but all of those are going to be entirely new stories maybe using some of the same characters or settings.

[0] Which itself is legally ignorant because the cost of maintaining a lawsuit against a legal behemoth is huge even if you're entirely in the right

> see the other comment

Which other comment?

If you mean the one saying it's not harder than programming, that's not calling it easy.

It can be a lot harder. Programming, these days, isn't always that hard.

Very different skillset. There was a comment about how ghastly a lot of software-developed graphical assets can be.

Tasteful creativity does not grow on trees.

"can be" makes it a very different statement. Either one "can be" a lot harder than the other, depending on the task. The statement above is about typical difficulty.

And even if they're wrong about which one is typically harder, they weren't saying it was easy, and weren't saying it was significantly easier than programming.

I believe it's more nuanced than that. Artists, like programmers, aren't uniformly trained or skilled. An enterprise CRUD developer asks different questions and proposes different answers compared to an embedded systems dev or a compiler engineer.

Visual art is millennia older and has found many more niches, so, besides there being a very clear history and sensibility for what is actually fundamental vs industry smoke and mirrors, for every artist you encounter, the likelihood that their goals and interests happen to coincide with "improve the experience of this software" is proportionately lower than in development roles. Calling it drudgery isn't accurate because artists do get the bug for solving repetitive drawing problems and sinking hours into rendering out little details, but the basic motive for it is also likely to be "draw my OCs kissing", with no context of collaboration with anyone else or building a particular career path. The intersection between personal motives and commerce filters a lot of people out of the art pool, and the particular motives of software filters them a second time. The artists with leftover free time may use it for personal indulgences.

Conversely, it's implicit that if you're employed as a developer, that there is someone else that you are talking to who depends on your code and its precise operation, and the job itself is collaborative, with many hands potentially touching the same code and every aspect of it discussed to death. You want to solve a certain issue that hasn't yet been tackled, so you write the first attempt. Then someone else comes along and tries to improve on it. And because of that, the shape of the work and how you approach it remains similar across many kinds of roles, even as the technical details shift. As a result, you end up with a healthy amount of free-time software that is made to a professional standard simply because someone wanted a thing solved so they picked up a hammer.

I like this explanation, though there is one form of creative standardization: brand identity. And I suppose that's where graphics folk engage with software (Plasma, the GNOME design, etc.). Amusingly, I like contributing to Wikipedia and the Commons so I should have thought of that. You're absolutely right that I had a blind spot there in terms of what's the equivalent there of free software.

Another thing is that the vast amount of fan fiction out there has a hub-and-spoke model forming an S_n graph around the solitary 'original work' and there are community norms around not 'appropriating' characters and so on, but you're right that community works like the SCP Foundation definitely show that software-like property of remixing of open work.

Anyway, all to say I liked your comment very much but couldn't reply because you seem to have been accidentally hellbanned some short while ago. All of your comments are pretty good, so I reached out to the HN guys and they fixed it up (and confirmed it was a false positive). If you haven't seen people engage with what you're saying, it was a technical issue not a quality issue, so I hope you'll keep posting because this is stuff I like reading on HN. And if you have a blog with an RSS feed or something, it would be cool to see it on your profile.

Just for the record: as a developer, I have done a ton of free software contributions. I pretty much didn't get anything from it, except people complaining or asking me to do even more for them, for free.

I don't know if that qualifies as "getting ripped off", but it's not exactly paying me either.

That only works if you form a team with the artist. It doesn't work when the person you're commissioning free stuff from is an external artist who is getting flooded by both paid and unpaid requests. Even a token amount will let them know to prioritize you over the freeloaders.

I can relate, but artists get treated even worse. It seems to be a thing with creatives. Musicians also get ripped off a lot, as do writers.

Developers seem to have a product that people can actually attach a value to, but art and music; not so much. They seem to be in different Venn circles.

In all of it, we do stuff because of the love of the craft. One of the deeper satisfactions, for me, is when folks appreciate my work (payment is almost irrelevant; except for "keeping score"). It's pretty infuriating, to have someone treat my work as if it is a cheap commodity. There's a famous Star Trek scene, where Scotty and his crew are being disciplined for a bar fight with some Klingons[0], and Scotty throws the first punch. I can relate.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rsZfcz3h1s

This is true. I have paid friends free market rates for work; even though they would have done it for free.

It’s a matter of Respect. It’s really amazing, how treating folks with simple Respect can change everything.

I like working in teams, but I also participate in an organization, where we’re all expected to roll up our sleeves, and pitch in; often in an ad hoc fashion.

Programming well requires taste and creativity. A different type, but no less rare than taste and creativity in "arty" fields.

Exactly. It's amazing how we, as programmers, can demand that others recognize that, for us, but we, ourselves, refuse to give the same respect, in regards to other fields.

The same can be said for any vocation that generates a product. An expertly-crafted duck decoy can have the same level of experience and skill, as a database abstraction.

I have had the privilege to work with some of the top creatives, as well as scientists and engineers, in the world, and have seen the difference.

> It usually involves developing a design language for the app, or sometimes, for the whole organization (if, like the one I do a lot of work for, it's really all about one app). That's a big deal.

> Logo design is also a much more difficult task than people think. A good logo can be insanely valuable. The one we use for the app I've done a lot of work on, was a quick "one-off," by a guy who ended up running design for a major software house. It was a princely gift.

A lot of developers also tend to invest quite an insane amount of work into their preferred open-source project and they do know how complicated their work is, and also how insane the value is that they provide for free.

So, where is the difference?

I'm unemployed (retired), and it's a hobby (that I take quite seriously).

Ego is likely involved. I love my babies, but what others think of my work isn't that important (which is good, because others aren't very impressed).

I make tools that I use, mostly.

Art tends to be a solitary vocation.

But professional graphic designers, train to work in product-focused teams. They also are able to create collaborative suites of deliverables.

Most developers will find utility in the work of graphic designers, as opposed to fine artists.

> Developers seem to have a product that people can actually attach a value to, but art and music; not so much.

This says more of your perception I think. Many people attach value to art and music. Many people do not attach value to software.

Open source/Free software communities are comprised of programmers. People love to help their communities. Sometimes a community contains some artists, but this condition is rare. e.g., Inkscape have some good picture when user open it.

That's possible, but remember that I used to be an artist[0]. I have sold a number of works, and I'm familiar with attaching value to art.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40917886

There isn't any.

That's my point.

Users are trying to solve their own problems.

Graphic artists are creating graphics editors (Gimp, Krita, Blender, ComfyUI, etc.) with tons of options.