We read a lot about music online, and how the music industry is transforming because of the Internet. But how has the Internet transformed things for the visual arts?

It has given visual artists a new opportunity to make their works available to the public, a new medium through which they can distribute their works, and new opportunities to get new audiences and new fans.

What are the legal concerns for creators working online?

Copyright is a big concern. Copyright is about the bundling of different rights and dividing them up between competing legitimate interests. Artists and creators have legitimate rights, they want to derive revenue from their works, and the public has legitimate interests to want to be able to experience and enjoy these works as well. Copyright sets the default parameters for what people can do with particular works. Musicians have to bear in mind -- if they want to put a song up on the Web that they record, they have to have all the copyrights to do that. In music there are a variety of difference copyrights associated with each song -- the copyright to the underlying melody and lyrics, to the actual performance, to the recording. Often the copyrights are owned by different parties. More often than not the labels own the copyrights to the sound recordings. So that means if you are a band, and you've signed with a label, you've probably signed over all your copyrights to the sound recording, which means you'd need your label's permission to put those songs up on your website.

How can an artist protect his or her rights?

You have to think very carefully about whether you want to sign over any of your copyrights. There may be a strategic reason to do so... if you are offered a deal whereby you split your copyright with a label, and that label will offer you so much promotions and distribution, it might be worth your while to take the hit of not owning everything, [if you] have laid out very carefully in writing everything you are and are not permitted to do. But for the most part, I would counsel artists to think very carefully about that, particularly in today's digital environment, where they have the means of distribution and promotion at their disposal with the Internet.

In the wake of the dot-com bust, e-commerce seems repudiated. It seems as if the promise of the Internet as empowering artists is lagging behind the reality -- it's still hard to make a living, in other words.

This is a time of dramatic transition. Most artists who have tried using the Web have done so using old-world business models in a new place and it hasn't always been tremendously successful for them so far. Cyberspace is still such a very new place and we have to be prepared to undergo several attempts at reworking business models to find a model that works for online artists. Most of artists who have been unsuccessful have been trying to fight against the properties of digital technology (like ease of copying and distribution) rather than learning how to embrace these properties and profit from them. When we see the shifts in business models taking place, we'll begin to see evolution for the artists in how they can succeed online.

Are the complications the same for visual artists?

I think each medium is going to have its own issue ... I don't want to say it'll be more or less complicated, because all of the different forms of creative expression will have to experience shifts in business models.

Are tape-trading Grateful Dead fans sort of an analog open-source distribution system? Does that qualify as an alternative business model?

People love live music. The Internet really provides you w/ an opportunity to advertise and promote your live music, put your songs up on your website. So I think performance revenues will continue to be a big part of revenue for artists. Plus they can use the technology to create fan mailing lists for communities who show up at your concert, buy your t-shirts and support your causes.

It seems like distribution and community go hand-in-hand, creating a distribution network by creating a networked audience.

That's something we're trying to take advantage of with our open-audio license, where you really let your fans be your distributors. If you like a song, you can pass it on, you can send it to your pal in Chicago. You've got the legal permission to do that ... The license is very song-specific, artists may only choose to release one song under the open audio license, and use it [to] get people to buy the whole album.

Is there an open-visual license?

It hasn't been released yet, but it's under development.

How will online arts issues change in the future?

We will see so much more creativity brought about by this new medium, not only because it's able to distribute things, but because it's able to connect people. And simply by having the connections people are able to create more. I think there will be more opportunities for people to have access to work, to be artists themselves -- not only consumers but creators ... artists [will] have more opportunities and choices than they have had in the past. So I think it will be a win-win situation all around, with the sole exception of those who have been disintermediated, like the major corporate record labels.

Disintermediated ... what an interesting word.

It's a word that's been floating around for a while. Disintermediation, it's what happens to the buggy-whip makers when cars come out.

To learn more about evolving legal issues for online creators and producers, visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation online at www.eff.org/, or call (415) 436-9333.