JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  2005

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: copyright fee structure?

From:

Saul Albert <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Saul Albert <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:18:32 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (73 lines)

You might want to take a look at Heath Bunting's recent list of works for sale,
many of which are web-based works:

http://www.irational.org/cgi-bin/cv/projects/sale_price.pl

The site looks static (ie. the prices don't seem to change) but the fact that
this is a perl script rather than a static web page, and that the sale page
itself is on sale indicates there may well be something clever happening under
the surface somewhere. I couldn't say what this cleverness is though.. possibly
some dynamic reflection of the artist's speculative collector value based on
statistical assessment of who-knows-what process or processes.

As far as I know, http://art.teleportacia.org/ is still the first commercial
net.art gallery. Maybe get in touch with Olia Lialina to ask for an estimate of
the value of the works on show - I believe that kind of valuation is what
happens in commercial art sectors. Since many national collections now include
net-based pieces, it seems perfectly likely that careful valuation by experts
in the field would stand up to the market forces.

However, the lack of established 'best practice' in this domain (amazing it
hasn't been tied down yet) is a real opportunity to do something exciting and
interesting with your pricing structure.  

If you want the valuations to reflect anything relevant to the work, you might
want to take your cue from the true innivators of Internet culture and
commerce: the pornographers.

Many 'amateur' porn sites actually allow self-documenting models to upload
pictures of themselves, and then get paid kickbacks in proportion to the reveue
those images generate in advertising and click-throughs. Perhaps in this
context that kind of commercial model makes more sense than Patrick's very
sensible suggestion that since there is only a negligible cost involved in
distribution, that the most efficient transation of value would remain in a
reputation economy.













On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:08:58PM -0500, Goebel, Johannes E. wrote:
> One might look at sound/music installations and their fee structure on this issue. Sound installations come closest to webworks -  they have a certain physical presence (which indeed web-based work has as well), the sounds are as quickly gone as they appear, there is mostly no beginning and no end,  the visitor decides on begin and end, the evolution/development/"linking" over time is the most important constituent factor. So one might regard webworks as installations with a generic physical interface (and thus potentially more readily presentable, and mostly at a lower cost for the physical embodiement).
> 
> In Germany exists a very rigid system for royalty payments (not fees) in the field of music, represented by GEMAC. It took a few decades until electronic music was not automatically put in the same category as a simple melodic line. Electronic music was always considered to be non-complex, not comparable to e.g. an orchestral piece - since it just emanates from a loudspeaker Ö
> 
> Sound installations were equally a challenge for this royalty system, which stems from an artistic-economical perspective deeply rooted in the 19th and early 20th century. Usually one has to pay for a piece for each performance. If for instance an installation contains a piece, which is automatically repeated - does each repetition count as an individual performance? 
> 
> This was certainly negated under two perspectives: (a) since a composer gets in the GEMA framework more and more per individual performance of a piece the more his pieces in general are performed, this would have undermined the old way of insuring that a composer who gets performed often gets more per individual performance than one who does not get performed often Ö and (b) no presenter would have put up installations, since the royalty payments are mandatory (enforced by law) - the payments would have blown any budget. So a way was created to deal with this situation - to ensure that a sound installation would not jeopardize the old system on the one hand, and so that installations would be put up by presenters (which certainly was not why GEMA found a way).
> 
> I had a similar interesting problem with GEMA when I published a CD-ROM with a musical/graphical piece by Kiyosho Furukawa at ZKM. The music on that CD_ROM was algorithmically created as one played the graphics. I wanted the composer to get paid by GEMA - and in Germany you can only publish music like on a CD_ROM if it has the GEMA stamp. So, how was GEMA going to evaluate a piece of music, which did not last a specified duration (one of their criteria for categorizing a piece,  was algorithmically created on the fly but depending on the actions of the user/visitor/explorer, and had a non-definable number of independent voices (another criteria in their catalog). In my long exchanges with them it was quite clear, that they had no idea what I was talking about. (I don't quite remember the outcome - but the CD_ROM "Small Fish" was published.)
> 
> 
> May I repeat a point I already made previously in this forum: if we look into the music domain we may discover many issues, which are new to the more visual arts but have been dealt with in music for quite a while. I think there are many common perspectives, since music has a long tradition as time-based and ephemeral art of the moment; and electronic and algorithmic tools have been applied in the field for 100 years.
> 
> Johannes
> 
> 
> 
> Johannes Goebel
> EMPAC
> http://www.empac.rpi.edu
> 

-- 
-- http://chinabone.lth.bclub.org.uk/~saul/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager