A bulletproof, air-conditioned, diamond-covered, $3.2 million suit? Even James Bond would drool over this. Not that it would matter; it’s also waterproof. Naturally. Read more…
Visit site:
The $3.2 Million Bulletproof, Diamond-Studded Suit With a Built-In A/C
Nerval’s Lobster writes “Spotify wants to change the perception that it’s killing artists’ ability to make a living off music. In a new posting on its Website, the streaming-music hub suggests that songs’ rights-holders earn between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream, on average, and that a niche indie album on the service could earn an artist roughly $3, 300 per month (a global hit album, on the other hand, would rack up $425, 000 per month). ‘We have succeeded in growing revenues for artists and labels in every country where we operate, and have now paid out over $1 billion USD in royalties to-date ($500 million of which we paid in 2013 alone), ‘ the company wrote. ‘We have proudly achieved these payouts despite having relatively few users compared to radio, iTunes or Pandora, and as we continue to grow we expect that we will generate many billions more in royalties.’ But does that really counter all those artists (including Grizzly Bear and Damon Krukowski of Galaxie 500) who are on the record as saying that Spotify streaming only earns them a handful of dollars for tens of thousands of streaming plays? Let’s say an artist earns $0.0084 per stream; it would still take 400, 000 ‘plays’ per month in order to reach that indie-album threshold of approximately $3, 300. (At $0.006 per stream, it would take 550, 000 streams to reach that baseline.) If Spotify’s ‘specific payment figures’ with regard to albums are correct, that means its subscribers are listening to a lot of music on repeat. And granted, those calculations are rough, but even if they’re relatively ballpark, they end up supporting artists’ grousing that streaming music doesn’t pay them nearly enough. But squeezed between labels and publishers that demand lots of money for licensing rights, and in-house expenses such as salaries and infrastructure, companies such as Spotify may have little choice but to keep the current payment model for the time being.” Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read More:
Spotify’s Own Math Suggests Musicians Are Still Getting Hosed
alphadogg writes “A music industry group is warning some 50 website that post song lyrics that they need to be licensed or face the music, possibly in the form of a lawsuit. The National Music Publishers Association said Monday that it sent take-down notices to what it claims are 50 websites that post lyrics to songs and generate ad revenue but may not be licensed to do so. The allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm developed by a researcher at the University of Georgia.” The “complicated algorithm” (basis statistics using Excel and Google) is described in the NMPA’s “Undesirable Lyric Website List.” Anyone remember lyrics.ch? Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read the original:
Music Industry Issues Take Down Notices to 50 Major Lyrics Sites
The BBC’s Natalie Donovan breaks down the £8 that one pays for a music CD in the UK : 30% to the label, 17% to the retailer, 13% to the artist, 8% to manufacturers, 7% to distributors, and 5% on “administering copyright.” The rest appears to be eaten by taxes.
View original post here:
You buy a music CD. Who gets what?
If you haven’t been able to convince publishers your life would make for an awesome comic book, and can’t draw more than a crude stick figure facsimile of yourself, you can thank the imaging researchers at the Kanagawa Institute of Technology in Japan. They’ve created a fun system that can automatically generate manga-style comics starring anyone striking a pose in front of its camera. Read more…
Originally posted here:
You No Longer Need To Be an Artist To Appear In Your Own Comic Book
Last night, Star Wars: Episode VII cinematographer Dan Mindel announced that the J.J. Abrams-directed movie will be shot on 35mm film, as opposed to digital video. The decision symbolizes the changing of the guard from the reign of George Lucas, and hopefully adds some much-needed vigor to the beloved franchise. Read more…
See the original article here:
The New Star Wars Will Be Shot on Film, Which Is Probably Great
A Second Circuit Appeals Court judge has handed down a landmark fair use decision in Cariou v. Prince . Prince, a collagist, remixed some of Cariou’s photos and sold them for large sums. Cariou argued that the new works were not fair because Prince did not create his collages as a comment on the original (one of the factors judges can consider in fair use cases is whether the new work is a commentary or parody). The lower court agreed, and ordered destruction of the show catalogs and a ban on hanging the new works. But the appeals court overturned, and held that a use can be fair even when it doesn’t comment on the original. “We conclude that the district court applied the incorrect standard to determine whether Prince’s artworks make fair use of Cariou’s copyrighted photographs,” writes Judge B.D. Parker in the decision, which was released this morning. “We further conclude that all but five of Prince’s works do make fair use of Cariou’s copyrighted photographs. With regard to the remaining five Prince artworks, we remand the case to the district court to consider, in the first instance, whether Prince is entitled to a fair use defense.” “This decision absolutely clarifies that the law does not require that a new work of art comment on any of its source material to qualify as fair use,” attorney Virginia Rutledge told A.i.A. by phone this morning after a preliminary survey of the decision. “This is a major win for Prince on at least two counts,” NYU art law professor Amy Adler told A.i.A. via e-mail. (She consulted on the case but was speaking for herself.) “The court decided that artwork does not need to comment on previous work to qualify as fair use, and that Prince’s testimony is not the dispositive question in determining whether a work is transformative. Rather the issue is how the work may reasonably be perceived. This is the right standard because it takes into account the underlying public purpose of copyright law, which should not be beholden to statements of individual intent but instead consider the value that all of us gain from the creation of new work.” Richard Prince Wins Major Victory in Landmark Copyright Suit [Brian Boucher/Art in America] ( Thanks, Tim ! )
Read the original:
Fair use decision: remixing is legal even when there is no intent to comment or parody original work