5 ms·

Having moved in Deviant Art circles (some time ago, admittedly) I'd say one reason for the low price might be that, somewhat like Reddit, the core values of the

Having moved in Deviant Art circles (some time ago, admittedly) I'd say one reason for the low price might be that, somewhat like Reddit, the core values of the community make it challenging to monetize.

kijin 10y ago
Yep, it would be hard to get away with ugly, intrusive ads when your users are obsessed with aesthetics. I also can't imagine the print-selling business reaching the kind of scale that today's VCs would like to see.
- avian 10y ago
  > hard to get away with ugly, intrusive ads Deviantart has click-through ads that overlay the content on mobile and a big bright banner for registered users if they are using an adblocker. It seems they are already getting away with ugly and intrusive.
- pjc50 10y ago
  What the parent comment means is that there's a lot of cheesecake and not-quite-porn on DeviantArt. Although it's actually more censored in that regard than Reddit.
scrollaway 10y ago
Is it? dA is full of artists selling their art and users buying it. It's full of Patreons, donation buttons, etc. See Twitch for what successful monetization of this sort of audience looks like.
- lmm 10y ago
  A lot of that commerce happens in violation of copyright, and sometimes in violation of other laws too; it can fly under the radar when it's person-to-person but would be harder for the company to monetize. Is Twitch profitable? Have they had to face a serious copyright infringement lawsuit from a game maker yet?
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    That doesn't sound right. dA is the original source for a lot of the work being sold. I'm not familiar enough with the community to know if they're being used as a black market but I know for certain that lots of artists use it as a sales gallery.
    - lmm 10y ago
      > That doesn't sound right. dA is the original source for a lot of the work being sold. Right, but a lot of what's sold there is "fanart" that uses copyrighted characters etc.
      - jrockway 10y ago
        I'm not convinced that there has been sufficient litigation to show that fanart is actually copyright infringement. As I understand it, there's a district split on the issue and the Supreme Court hasn't said anything. The cases are also very old, mostly predating the concept of fanart. Most cases these days are predicated on whether or not something is fair use, but don't explore whether or not copyright was infringed in the first place. All in all, it's good for money to be poured in here, because it means the defense will have adequate legal resources to set the right precedent.
mbesto 10y ago
Unlike Reddit, it doesn't have financial backers who have produced a ridiculous narrative. (which is important btw, I work in M&A)

kijin 10y ago

Yep, it would be hard to get away with ugly, intrusive ads when your users are obsessed with aesthetics. I also can't imagine the print-selling business reaching the kind of scale that today's VCs would like to see.

avian 10y ago
> hard to get away with ugly, intrusive ads Deviantart has click-through ads that overlay the content on mobile and a big bright banner for registered users if they are using an adblocker. It seems they are already getting away with ugly and intrusive.
pjc50 10y ago
What the parent comment means is that there's a lot of cheesecake and not-quite-porn on DeviantArt. Although it's actually more censored in that regard than Reddit.

scrollaway 10y ago

Is it? dA is full of artists selling their art and users buying it. It's full of Patreons, donation buttons, etc. See Twitch for what successful monetization of this sort of audience looks like.

lmm 10y ago
A lot of that commerce happens in violation of copyright, and sometimes in violation of other laws too; it can fly under the radar when it's person-to-person but would be harder for the company to monetize. Is Twitch profitable? Have they had to face a serious copyright infringement lawsuit from a game maker yet?
- scrollaway 10y ago
  That doesn't sound right. dA is the original source for a lot of the work being sold. I'm not familiar enough with the community to know if they're being used as a black market but I know for certain that lots of artists use it as a sales gallery.
  - lmm 10y ago
    > That doesn't sound right. dA is the original source for a lot of the work being sold. Right, but a lot of what's sold there is "fanart" that uses copyrighted characters etc.
    - jrockway 10y ago
      I'm not convinced that there has been sufficient litigation to show that fanart is actually copyright infringement. As I understand it, there's a district split on the issue and the Supreme Court hasn't said anything. The cases are also very old, mostly predating the concept of fanart. Most cases these days are predicated on whether or not something is fair use, but don't explore whether or not copyright was infringed in the first place. All in all, it's good for money to be poured in here, because it means the defense will have adequate legal resources to set the right precedent.

mbesto 10y ago

Unlike Reddit, it doesn't have financial backers who have produced a ridiculous narrative. (which is important btw, I work in M&A)