101–110 of 122 posts
never seen it before, never heard it before. I'm pretty sure that their case is as solid as the cult status they claim this pice has.
That's really just your own lack of culture. You should give it a listen, it's pretty good.
never seen it before, never heard it before. I'm pretty sure that their case is as solid as the cult status they claim this pice has.
This happened to an ex of mine. While we were together she was asked to do the album artwork for a top international-name stadium-filling band. I persuaded her to charge £10k, which was around what she earned a year. She was going to charge much less. Neither of us considered future revenue from licensing or merchandise, so it was signed as a one-off work-for-hire deal. The manager still grumbled about how pushy she…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy thing to say. But imagine Zuckerberg had hired you to code the first version of his site, paid you a few thousand bucks, and then he went on to be one of the richest men in America? We here in SV have evolved a culture and a set of business practices that do a much better job of compensating us fairly. We make good cash money, and we tend to get a share of the success when things get big. It's not like we as ind…
> But imagine Zuckerberg had hired you to code the first version of his site, paid you a few thousand bucks, and then he went on to be one of the richest men in America? Would you be willing to give the lion's share of the money you were paid to code it back if the site flopped? > We here in SV have evolved a culture and a set of business practices that do a much better job of compensating us fairly. It'ss not cultur…
As if the two were separate. The idea of market economics itself is a cultural artifact. But this is obviously culture, not some sort of universal law of economics, because Silicon Valley is a unique ecosystem that people keep trying to copy by adopting behaviors, practices, and ideas. Those are all cultural traits.
> He did. Plenty of programmers do work for hire and contract work, and aren't paid in partial ownership.
Sure. And, back to my initial point, if Zuckerberg, or some other entrepreneur had used that to get his initial product built and then said, "Fuck you, buddy" to the person that helped make him rich, people here would have empathized with him. Some would have called it wrong. Because we are part of a system that believes that the benefits of great success should be shared among those who created it.
The principle is the same. It's disappointing to me that people here will apply that to themselves, but suddenly turn to "might makes right" when it's somebody they don't identify with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not a sustainable way to run an industry though. Who decides what constitutes wildly successful? Who decides how many percent and who gets what share of it? Whoever went on and did the work to make the project so successful would have had other costs in doing so, they must have budgeted it out, they might even sell on the rights to the project at some point as happened in this case. Is it fair to then hit the…
> That’s not a sustainable way to run an industry though. Sure it is. Just because nitpicking is possible doesn't make the basic idea impossible. For example, of course the new owners would know what they were buying. > Who decides what constitutes wildly successful? Who decides how many percent Just as an example, it could be "more than 4x the expected revenue cited when doing the original negotiations", and 5%. (Or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But imagine Zuckerberg had hired you to code the first version of his site, paid you a few thousand bucks, and then he went on to be one of the richest men in America? So? I agreed to be paid a few thousand bucks for a few hours of work. Why does he owe me anything other than what we agreed on?
Counterpoint: the Nike logo was designed by an art student for $35. Phil Knight recognized her work’s role in the success of his company and later paid her a lot of money.
And in that particular case the visual branding plays a very prominent role in selling the shoes anyway, so the artwork matters a lot, lot more. I remember feeling embarrassed for not wearing shoes with that swoosh logo back when I was a kid, the marketing and subsequent judging by other kids was that overwhelming at the time.
It carried over into adulthood too, because when I bought my first article of clothing that had the Nike swoosh on it (a t-shirt and basketball shorts, no big deal), there was this crazy sense of relief, like "Finally, I'm no longer the outcast," even though it was more than a decade after I was out of school and hadn't seen 99% of those kids since.
> In 1971, Terry Ellis, the co-founder of Chrysalis Records, paid him a flat $1,500 fee for the three paintings which would comprise the album’s artwork It is too bad he didn't negotiate a royalty agreement, but then they might not have given him the work, either. FWIW if he had invested $1000 in the S&P 500 on January 1 of 1972, that investment would be worth about $100K today, according to some online calculators t…
Generally speaking, and of course with all due exceptions, most painters, even many of those that were later acclaimed as masters, tend to have the need to sell their artwork in order to barely survive, so, besides the missing online brokerage, there would be the issue about the possibility of saving and investing.
Anyway, to provide another easy comparison, the Average Hourly Wage[1] in US in 1970 was around 3.50 US$, while now it is around 22.50 US$, assuming that buying power is correspondent, the US$ 1,500 in 1970 represent something like US$ 10,000, IMHO not that bad for three paintings.
[1] Series Id: CES0500000008 here: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, selling a painting is different from granting a copyright for a painting. that's the point.
The artist entered into the agreement knowing full well what it was going to be used for.