In this case, it not only did that, but the artist was able to turn the video directly into extra income. Gallery showings are often done in the reverse, you pay to get the art pieces to the gallery, you price them, and the gallery displays them.
They are essentially risk or consignment placements. Art for art's sake is a nice thing, and everyone supports it. But this is being put forward as a business model to support art, and it really doesn't appear to pass the sniff test.
So bands don't make any money but when they do it's not enough money and if they do make enough money it's still not enough for you. You're never happy, are you? But that is only true if that where the story ends. You'll have to ask Oren Lavie if he feels it was a wasted effort, but I would wager that some of the people who saw that video in are industry people who have him on their list of artists they would like to work with.
He may fall off the public radar, but the industry remembers these things. You also seem to be missing the compulsive nature of many artists.
This guy would probably be making art, even if he never saw a dime from it. It may or may not be worth it to the artist in some non-monetary way, but as a business model which is what is being discussed here it doesn't appear to be a money maker. Ron Rezendes profile , 16 Dec am.
I think you've run too fast into the forest and bumped your head on a tree! Aside from the already completed sales I believe that there is also a marketing value in having your art on display in various venues which you don't seem to be willing to accept in your "bottom line" analysis. The sales you claim are from a window of opportunity that has already closed however you offer no support for this claim and seem to ignore all other factors such as: "When did these sales start?
How very short sighted of you. Where did you get the idea that this is the sole focus and business plan for this artist? Do you not understand this is merely one project and not a be all end all business strategy? Anonymous Coward , 16 Dec pm. Ron, the video and the still for it were produced in or earlier.
The video received it's Grammy nomination for last year. We are talking about an older project here. If the artist is only releasing the images now, they probably long since missed the boat on this one explaining low sales.
Just as importantly, they have produced all of the images and signed and numbered them, which itself is work , and now would be storing, warehousing, or perhaps lending some of the images out to other galleries.
It probably pays for the prints, or just about. It isn't narrow-mindedness that is an issue, it is looking at a business model and not seeing any success in it. That isn't the case. Suzanne Lainson profile , 16 Dec am. I think selling stills is an interesting idea, but the numbers so far show just how difficult it can be turning exposure into sales. And given that that are only prints available, there is a built in scarcity that hasn't resulted a rush to snatch them all up.
Shawn profile , 16 Dec am. An Australian Horror film called The Tunnel did the same thing where they sold each frame of the film to make a handsome profit and are now releasing the film through torrents everywhere in It was a genius way to fund a film honestly. They priced it low enough to be open to most people. Transbot9 , 16 Dec am. How do interesting merch offerings excuse and offset piracy? Oh that's right, they don't.
How do more restritive copyright laws help reduce filesharing? What you seem to miss is that finding ways to make money in a world were people can and will freely copy it is now a requirement for anyone who wants to profit from their artwork.
No amoumt of preaching or lobbying will change the reality of the marketplace. That's what these posts are about, helping people find solutions that help them adapt to the reality instead of just complaining about what they can't change.
Pretending that the landscape is going to forever be as it is now is not a wise idea. You'll see. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. Heinlein, Life-Line, You mean the "changes" where the Music And Film Industry Assocations of America keep doing the same anti-piracy measures that keep on failing over and over again every single time they're tried?
Or are they going for the effective measures that are highly unconstitutional police state policies? Ain't gonna happen. And even if the landscape does someday change, why not prepare artists for the possibility that it won't change? Why not give them ways to make money in the meantime? Anonymous , 16 Dec pm. I'm sure when gun and speeding laws were first put in place people complained about "police states". But eventually they accepted them and got on with their life. Guns can murder people.
Speeding vehicles can murder people. How does committing copyright infringement end up with someone dying? Not all laws are created equally. Except gun and speeding laws do not require monitoring of all private communication and gimping of the internet to work right. You can't realistically expect to effectivly monitor who is doing what with a piece of data without being able to see everything they transmit both online and off. Hell, we already have cases where there was difficulty telling infringing from non infringing even when the transmission is public.
So tell me, how do you think that copyright could be enforced effectivaly while not invading privacy? I recall a study or two about speeding laws saying they didn't really affect whether people actually speed or not.
Can't remember it off the top of my head so I'm not sure how credable the studies were, but since you mentioned speeding If you can't see that DPI for content is on the horizon, then you're remarkably naive.
If you think that will be able to reliably detect infringement you're remarkably naive. I'm refering to entertainment content.
If you think that will be able to reliably detect infringement LOL I'm rather surprised that you think tech is all of the sudden limited in what it is capable of. You apparently forgot that while it has thus far it has worked in favor of pirates, it can just as easily be used against them. You seem to forget that while technology has made huge leaps it has very real limitations on what it can realistically assist it's users in doing.
Especailly when others have a vested interest in countering those advances and you're dealing with mass amounts of users and content. And the metion of dpi being currenty in use was more of a technical correction than anything.
But come on, dpi is already used for censorship and even then it isn't able to keep the cat fully in the bag. No one is trying to keep " the cat fully in the bag".
Not now, not back before the internet was invented and people bootlegged records. The idea is that the problem was way out of control due to lack of enforcement; regulation is always slow to catch up when big technological advances occur. That had to change and that's exactly what is happening.
The problem is that tech regulation is so often done by clueless people. Case and point: a lot of the "takedowns" of infringing sites don't really do anything to stop anyone from getting to the sites, they just revoke the domain name.
It's the difference between entering a name and a number. So basically by "not fully able to keep the cat in the bag" I mean "not stopping people who actually want to download crap illegally" Also, companies like microsoft have expressed a vested interest in not stopping piracy of their operating system because if the price of windows rises so does the incentive to look for cheaper alternatives and thus removes a good deal of future revenue when the "pirates" go legal.
And they're right to worry; Linux for example is a free OS that is rock solid enough that a lot of businesses use it for mission critical systems and as a componet of consumer electronices.
These domain seizures are window dressing. More than likely to prep and alert people that the status quo is ending. Anonymous Coward , 17 Dec am. What is your evidence for this belief? This is the same old song and dance that's been happening for years and here we are, with piracy still alive and kicking. Sure, sometime in the future it may be figured out but for now it's blatently clear that the ones looking to enforce copyright still don't truely grasp the size and scope of the issue they're trying to tackle.
And again, ending piracy may not bee holy grail you think it is. Deep packet inspection? Oh, so you're saying to expect a rise in encrypted file sharing in the future. Yeah, I agree. Wait, you don't really think DPI will stop copyright infringement do you? That business model is still based on artificial scarcity.
They are making different signed and numbered prints, exactly one copy of each. The scarcity here is that, even if you copy one of them, the copy is not one of the originals. But nothing prevented them from creating two or even ten signed and numbered copies of them. The scarcity exists only because they decided that they would only print them in that "signed and numbered" format once.
It is not a natural property of the work itself. Scarcity is only an issue when there is sufficient demand to absorb the production. Otherwise, it is just over production. If all were sold and there was a thriving secondary market trading in these images, they might have something.
But instead, they have massive over production and a lack of demand. Even Mike Masnick can tell you what happens when you have over production. Markus profile , 16 Dec am. Kudos to you Nina for your "The Middleman" reference, even if it was unintentional.
I'm not sure I fully understand why, under the techdirt doctrine, the video itself shouldn't be made available for free download, thus allowing anyone so interested to create their own prints of any frame they like.
Today it is the most successful stop-motion video ever. It has inspired the art community and in return gained a nomination in the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards.
The music video was created with still photographs that were shot and sequenced to create the sense of movement. Recently the artists of Her Morning Elegance have released The Making of Her Morning Elegance in order to better demonstrate process involved in the project.
After transforming the stills into motion, the artists have decided to break the video back down into its original form.
0コメント