111–120 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 89. If you remember what Manhattan was like 25-50 years ago, you wouldn't be saying that. In the 80s you could buy brownstones for $20k.
Not the 80s. The 70s. You could not buy a UWS brownstone in the 80s for $20k.
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? > Would you be willing to give the lion's share of the money you were paid to code it back if the site flopped? That's why you'd only get a little bit of the money, rather than half. But it still makes a lot more sense than 0% > If I'm a farmer, and…
Ok it is quite normal that people do not understand risks and costs involved in running enterprise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles
You pay more in taxes, anyway...
(And the other costs and risks in farming are nowhere near 250x the cost of labor, are you joking? Any situation where you're paying minimum wage AND labor costs are less than 1% of revenue is unconscionable, and I can't believe anyone would suggest otherwise. I wasn't intending for anyone to jump up and become a hyper-capitalist strawman, I was using a stupidly huge profit number so that everyone could agree that fair pay shouldn't be unlivably low...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
How about everyone writes a contract laying out their rights, and we have default contractual arrangements if they don’t? Aside from some occasional entitled, envious whining it seems to work out ok so far.
The risk of course is that there becomes a boilerplate that strips out such things, and it gets used so much that it becomes the new "default".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This artist created something that got widely recognized, and the genesis of it (he alleges) was widely misrepresented by both Ellis and Anderson. Also, he got paid squat compared to what the album generated in sales. Unless you are Spock from Star Trek, you are going to have some feelings of frustration, indignation, and envy from that experience.
Doesn't matter to me what he got paid. If he wanted royalties, too, he should have negotiated that into the agreement, and he probably would have been paid even less of an upfront amount. He's not the one exposing himself to the risk involved with creating the project. By taking the fixed rate, he had a guaranteed return on his investment and didn't have to worry about the success or failure of the album.
But now I look back and I read, "I have trouble feeling bad for..."
Did you silently edit your comment, or did I accidentally misread it? I meant to respond to the topic of someone failing to empathize with another human being, which is a completely different conversation than someone failing to feel pity for another human being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So If you make a lot of money On Uber with your Tesla, they “deserve” a piece of that too? A deal is a deal, he sold the art up front without any royalty, that is in him and he was in no way cheated, had he done the same deal with 20 other covers of bands that disn’t make it big he would not be complaining.
The difference is that you cannot sell litographical copies of a Tesla with your autograph, as Ian Anderson is doing with that image now. The "copy" part of copyright exists precisely because these works are not simple manufactured goods, they can be easily copied .
What the artist could have done is paint as many new versions of the image as he wants and sell them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would they still be selling t-shirts and posters of any cover or no cover and pocketing that money?
Nobody can say for sure. However the music is why the album sold, and I think why people want to associate themselves by buying t-shirts and posters.
I work in the realm of public art projects and thus have collaborated with a lot of artists, mostly painters and sculpters. I must say the success of any piece of artwork - especially the ones created with the public in mind - is not the work of a single man or woman, but the result of the collaboration of a team of professionals - designers, marketers, financiers, metal bashers, crane operators, all the way down to…
>So a deal is a deal, if one agrees to the terms of a deal (oral or written), it must be honoured Sure thing. The deal was for an album cover. Perhaps $1500 in 1970s money is a fair sum for that, even for an iconic album. Did the deal also include T-shirts, posters, and exclusive prints of the said cover signed by the band's front man? That's where the contention is. Some people would say yes - work for hire is work…
But another way to look at this is, if the artwork is commissioned by the company for commercial purpose - much like if someone is commissioned to create a logo for a company - then the copyright is generally transferred to the company.
In the absence of a written contract, one can argue both ways, which I think is why the lawyers didn't think there was a strong case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So If you make a lot of money On Uber with your Tesla, they “deserve” a piece of that too? A deal is a deal, he sold the art up front without any royalty, that is in him and he was in no way cheated, had he done the same deal with 20 other covers of bands that disn’t make it big he would not be complaining.
The difference is that you cannot sell litographical copies of a Tesla with your autograph, as Ian Anderson is doing with that image now. The "copy" part of copyright exists precisely because these works are not simple manufactured goods, they can be easily copied .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that you cannot sell litographical copies of a Tesla with your autograph, as Ian Anderson is doing with that image now. The "copy" part of copyright exists precisely because these works are not simple manufactured goods, they can be easily copied .
He bought the art for the exact reason it was used. Eg copying the art on covers. Like buying a Tesla for driving and Selling a service with that driving. I agree duly that if he has sold them just one image for one cover of one LP he would have a moral claim to having been cheated. However if that was the case his pricing would be an insane ripoff. And obviously that is not what transpired.