'Her Morning Elegance' Artists Create Elegant Reason To Buy

from the use-the-unlimited-resource-to-sell-the-limited-resource dept

Thu, Dec 16th 2010 1:16am — Nina Paley

In 2009, Oren Lavie shared this beautiful stop-motion animated video for his song Her Morning Elegance:

So far it's been viewed over 16 million times on Youtube. How does an artist convert all of that popularity into cash? In this case, by offering a limited edition of ONE print of every single frame of the movie, signed and numbered, for sale. According to the gallery website, 335 prints have sold so far, leaving 1761 available out of 2096 total. The earlier a collector buys a print, the wider the choice of images are available to them. From the site:

Her Morning Elegance music video has become a Pop Culture phenomena and the most successful stop motion video ever, nominated for the 52nd Grammy Awards.
It was assembled from 2096 still photographs that were shot and sequenced to create the sense of movement.

After going from stills to motion the artists have decided to break the video down into its original photographs, printed in physical form and exhibited in galleries worldwide. Today you can own one of these prints and have a fraction of the video itself in your home.

These single edition signed and numbered photographs are offered directly by the artists. We invite you to visit to the gallery and choose your favorite.

Like the video, this model is elegant in its simplicity. Clearly something like this will only work for a very popular video. But I've heard complaints that "popularity means nothing" if a work is free - this shows that isn't true. Another thing I like about this business model is it gives purchasers a very strong connection to the work. It's CwF + RtB at the same time.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: her morning elegance, oren lavie, reaso to buy

48 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:19am

This video is not available in your country (Germany).
The artist (or record label) is still doing something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nina Paley (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:12am
  
  Germany
  "Sita Sings the Blues" is apparently banned in Germany's youtube, too. Apparently some corporation is filing fake takedowns in Germany. Sad. In "Sita's" case it's Sony, who has no copyright over the Hanshaw recordings in Germany, but gets to censor whatever they like anyway. PITA to get it fixed though - QuestionCopyright.org is trying to get a legal intern to work on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:15am

Neat video if you like dark humor
Nice video. Artistically, it's very NYC-ish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:31am

So far $87,000 dollars in for a video that probably cost that much to design, layout, and actually make, not to consider the cost in time and effort by the musician to create the music. We won't even discuss the costs of producing the prints and the time and effort required to sign and number them.

Net, the artist probably would have been better off working at Starbucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:14am
  
  Re:
  yeah now that every single one they sell from now on is 100% profit. not to mention the fact that their name is spreading and they will obviously have more work and get more recognition as they go.
  
  So does RIAA give you a company car? Just curious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Average Techdirt poster:
    
    "Every person that disagrees with Techdirt's agenda works for the RIAA or is a troll".
    
    Average non-regular Techdirt visitor that sees those posts:
    
    "These nerds need to stop sniffing so much glue."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I don't have a point, so I'm going to start talking about Kool-Aid."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vivaelamor (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Average Techdirt poster:
      
      "Every person that disagrees with Techdirt's agenda works for the RIAA or is a troll".
      
      Presumably this puts me above average? You're so kind to me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:35am
  
  Re:
  NICE! And they still have 84% of the photos to sell. That's 84% net profit! That's only about $545,000.
  
  I definitely would want to work in a Starbucks that pays me over half a million dollars.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fatty, 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:54pm
  
  Re:
  I assume the promotional value that this video created for the artist is to be completely ignored?
  
  What about all the videos that are *given away* for free? Where do I buy individual portions of Katy Perry videos?
  
  I think it's a great idea to get some money out of something that's generally given away anyways.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:45am

ONLY $87,000
Except that this artist is now widely recognized, and is presently being commissioned to do art, which they presumably enjoy more than being a coffee clown.

You are missing the point, and tricking yourself into only measuring value in dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 5:02am
  
  Re: ONLY $87,000
  Economics is the important unlying point of the TD post. You know, "from the use-the-unlimited-resource-to-sell-the-limited-resource dept". The key question here is the developing of a business model to support the art.
  
  But there is so much here that shows it really isn't working. The video is from 2009, and while Grammy nominated, that was for last year. That buzz is already gone away. In all of that, 16 million online views, the grammy nomination, and all that comes with it, they were able to generate $87,000 gross and likely less than half of that net in 2 years. Further, and this is key, considering that 2000+ prints were made and only 335 sold, I am guessing that the net so far is close to zero, because they are barely made it up to their costs.
  
  As business models go, it isn't even successful on a level similar to minimum wage. As an idea, it is sort of cute and interesting, but it shows that 16 million views on youtube hasn't really turned into anything important on the bottom line.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:20am
    
    Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
    Show me a long lasting (legitimate) company would made a profit in it's first year. in the first 2 year? 3? 4? 5? Anyone who starts a business knows you wont make a profit the first year and very few see a profit the second year. the only companies I saw make any real profit within the first year died out quickly (within 2-3 years) because their business model was set to burn the company out quickly.
    
    now I state this because this is in the terms you are working with. Do I feel creating art is the same as running a business? Not really. To make money off your art, yes a little. I think they are doing it right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
      We are discussing the business of art, the ability for an artist to make enough money from their art to keep making art, rather than having to work some other job.
      
      It is hard to compare an artists actions to a "normal" business, because the models are different. The artist's actions are immediate and them completed, and for the most part subject to the long tail effect is very short order. That is to say that the vast majority of commercial activity around an artists work is typically when it is first released, not years later (at least until they die). Long tail would suggest that the public's interest in this particular work has already waned, that the prime time for sales related to the work is already gone past.
      
      A normal business (say a store) continued to stock new merchandise and continues to offer people a reason to come in, looking for the new stuff as well as old.
      
      At this point, there is little indication that there is any profit from the venture, rather a low sales number, a large inventory of unsold work, and a prime market that is long since past it's time. TD's main man can explain to you the basic supply and demand issue that is at work here, the demand is way lower than supply, effectively rending the works without market price, because there are too many available compared to demand. Had the artist made only 100 piece available, they would be sold out and likely at much higher prices - profitable. Instead, the market is flooded and demand isn't there to absorb it. Those who bought the pieces can only hope that the other 1700 or so plates are destroyed, in order to have some sort of market price for their overpriced "art".
      
      So no matter what, the basic rules of business apply.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - azuravian (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:34am
    
    Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
    Multiple other factors seem to be left out here. First, the article mentions that the prints are displayed in galleries worldwide. I'm not an art gallery expert, but I would assume they usually pay an artist for this. Second, you are discounting any extra income that may have been generated by the video itself, such as increased record sales (which I'm aware are unlimited) and increased tickets/prices for performances. Most artists spend however much they feel necessary for producing a music video with no hope of making that money back directly. The hope is that the video increases awareness. In this case, it not only did that, but the artist was able to turn the video directly into extra income.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
      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. If they sell a piece, they get a cut of the sale price (in some cases up to 50% for lesser known artists). 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
    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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
    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 2009 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ron Rezendes (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
        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?" - if it was a week ago that $87k looks like a great start, even if it was six months ago it's a nice bump to the revenue stream - but you only state the fact that the video is from last year. How very short sighted of you.
        
        "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."
        
        Wow - REALLY? 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?
        
        Your myopic views and narrow-mindedness are one of the main problems artists are dealing with these days when the old school media companies try to bottom line every project on a stand alone basis, rather than view the ever increasing music/art market that doesn't necessarily care if the gatekeeper EVER gets paid for not actually having the talent to produce something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
        Ron, the video (and the still for it) were produced in 2009 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.
        
        $87,000 is nice. 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. Holding it up as a great model of cwf/rtb is laughable, because if there was truly huge demand after 16 million youtube views, all of the images would be gone.
        
        That isn't the case.
        
        If you did this in any other business and had 70% unsold inventory, you would look like a fool (and you would be going out of business).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
    I think selling stills is an interesting idea, but the numbers so far show just how difficult it can be turning exposure into sales.
    
    16 millions views = 335 sales. And given that that are only 2096 prints available, there is a built in scarcity that hasn't resulted a rush to snatch them all up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:39am

Another movie did the same thing
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 2011. Their poster even includes the name of everyone who paid the $1 to get a frame of the movie they made. It was a genius way to fund a film honestly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:49am
  
  Re: Another movie did the same thing
  At $1 a frame, they have some hope. They priced it low enough to be open to most people. However, at $350 a frame, they likely would have gone begging.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transbot9, 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:46am

Y'know...
If someone can't make money off popularity, they are a terrible business person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:09am

How do interesting merch offerings excuse and offset piracy?

Oh that's right, they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  How do more restritive copyright laws help reduce filesharing?
  
  Oh that's right, they don't.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    a world were people can and will freely copy
    Your complacent attitude towards the current enviroment is opening yourself up for some real agony when the situation changes.
    
    Pretending that the landscape is going to forever be as it is now is not a wise idea.
    
    You'll see. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. 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." - Robert A. Heinlein, Life-Line, 1939
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      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?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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?
        
        P.S. 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....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you can't see that DPI for content is on the horizon, then you're remarkably naive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you think that will be able to reliably detect infringement you're remarkably naive.
        
        Also, "on the horizon" is somewhat inccorect as I know for a fact that at least some ISP do DPI to a certain extent already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is already DPI for numerous things at most ISPs.
        
        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. Whoops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, DPI naturally does not help enforce copyright outside of the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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. (more interesting is that they will pay for such things as tech support and coding work on the kernal, making this an example of programmers who actually make money from a freely copyable product)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        These domain seizures are window dressing. More than likely to prep and alert people that the status quo is ending.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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. If you truely understood just how many works exist and the complex issues involved in sorting that all out in the context of the massive volume of filesharing/streaming video/download sites you'd see that this is something that won't be resolved anytime soon. 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. One thing that you need to realize is that if you remove the illegal downloads from the interwebs those who can't afford to buy all the media they want won't magically be able to come up with the money for it and those who just plain want free music/software/other will just have to get it through legal means or through the "darknet"
        
        The upside to all this is if they did stop all illegal downloading they'd finally understand that having their copyrights infringed is not the same thing as having stuff stolen from them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        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?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:55am

Artificial scarcity
That business model is still based on artificial scarcity.

They are making 2096 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 2096 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re: Artificial scarcity
  Scarcity is only an issue when there is sufficient demand to absorb the production. Otherwise, it is just over production.
  
  If all 2096 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Markus (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:57am

On an unrelated topic...
Kudos to you Nina for your "The Middleman" reference, even if it was unintentional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rochrist, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:44am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  You can download the video for free if you like; I just did. Did you mean to ask why they're not releasing the source photographs? Maybe it didn't occur to them. Maybe there's not much interest in a non-autographed print. Maybe the artist isn't TechDirt and doesn't follow "the techdirt doctrine".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]