Alternative Compensation System - Artistic Freedom Voucher

Artistic Freedom Voucher

The artistic freedom voucher (AFV) is a system proposed by American macro-economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research Dean Baker "Related Views" as an alternative to the copyrights system. In his 2003 paper titled The Artistic Freedom Voucher: An Internet Age Alternative to Copyrights the argument is made that the current copyright system providing a state enforced monopoly leads to “enormous inefficiencies and creates substantial enforcement problems”. Under the AFV proposed system, individuals would be allowed to contribute a a refundable tax credit of approximately $100 to a “creative worker”, this contribution would act as a voucher that can only be used to support artistic or creative work.

Recipients of the AFV contribution would in turn be required to register with the government in similar fashion to that of religious or charitable institutions do so for tax-exempt status. The sole purpose of the registration would be to prevent fraud and would have no evaluation of the quality or work being produced. Alongside registration, artists would also now be ineligible for copyright protection for a set period of time (5 years for example) as the work is contributed to the public domain and allowed to be freely reproduced. The AFV would not affect creative workers ability to receive funds via live performances.

Baker claims that this system could create up to $20 billion annually to pay artists, which is far greater than what currently flows to them through copyrighted material. At $100 per adult voucher, over 500,000 writers, musicians, singers, actors, or other creative workers could be paid some $40,000 a year. Baker also states that it is realistic to assume that the savings from the reduced expenditures on the copyrighted work would vastly exceed the cost of the AFV. The majority of these savings would come from individuals deciding to use AFV supported work in place of copyrighted work as well as lower advertising costs due to the fact that the AFV material would be public domain. Copyright enforcement demand would also decrease as AFV material increased. The assumptions made are that in the low end direct costs to the public of copyrighted material would be reduced around 20 percent while in the high end all the way up to 60 percent. Over time it is also likely that the savings would increase due to the lesser costs of the system and brighter prospects.

Critics of the AFV, notably musician and investment specialist ,Mark Stanley, argue that it would be unfair to force taxpayers to spend money on art when those funds could be used to help people pay their rent and feed their children. He believes that the success of art should be based on competition and choice. In his 2010 article The False Freedom of Art Vouchers he writes:

“Like school vouchers, the flat tax, and other pretenders, the AFV assumes the necessity of state intervention, and tries to bend liberty around such strictures. Freedom isn’t so forgiving to such manipulation.”