4 ms·

What a damned foolish patent. "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work" http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ http:/

by lhnn 15y ago

What a damned foolish patent. "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work" http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ Some hipster artist ("hipster" being an appropriate word here) sues a successful implementation of an offshoot of an idea he had 8 years ago, and then says, "As an artist myself, I feel that KickStarter may be hurting artist by focusing on 'donating money' rather than celebrating the artist for what they do. Their model does not build fan relationships but just continually asks for handouts." What a jerk. It's been said here before, but it's worth hitting again: "Ideas are a dime a dozen."

jonathanjaeger 15y ago
Patent complaining aside, that quote is off too. The point of Kickstarter is not to ask for handouts, but to offer incentives/rewards/pre-orders based on the amount you donate. If you don't like what you get for what you pay or donate, then choose a different tier or don't give any money.
- enjalot 15y ago
  Or you want to see something happen but you only want to donate if everyone else does. They hack the tragedy of the commons, and it's been enough for me to support a couple projects.
  - jonathanjaeger 15y ago
    Good point. A lot of people come to Kickstarter because of Kickstarter and not because they want to donate to a friend who linked to their project from elsewhere.
iamdave 15y ago
I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been unpopular almost every time I've asked it: Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same mentality and resistance to new revenue models that's turning so many people off to the music and movie industries. Passion for the rhyme can be cheapened by feedback, and I think that's exactly what's happening with these 'artists'. They're looking at what other people are doing, seeing that it doesn't line up with how they think the industry should work, and then pull these statements out of their arses that it's killing their livelihood.
- ralphsaunders 15y ago
  Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross. 99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it. That said, kickstarter certainly doesn't fit in that category, if anything it brings more paying work to designers/artists.
  - iamdave 15y ago
    * There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.* I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are? I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for the client) manner should mean the demonizing of an industry that allows a company to pick what they want, considering they're paying for it to represent their brand.
    - ralphsaunders 15y ago
      I guess the first reason that springs to mind is that spec work is of poor quality. Most designers - I can't speak for artists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they shared a similar sentiment - look at products and think about how they could be improved. To see a company not only facilitating poor quality work, but for it to also be pleased with the result is rather... depressing, really. Another is that encouraging people to work for free is rather questionable. Arguably it's preying on people who might be rather desperate for money when their time would be better invested in other things. But most of all, is that the term 'designer' now includes people who produce that poor standard of work as well as, for example, the very talented people who work at Apple. It cheapens the term, and I think that's a lot of the reason you see new job titles appearing regularly from within the industry - a "user experience" designer didn't really exist 2 years ago and it basically means "generalist" or "designer". A lot of clients evaluate design based on aesthetics, which is obviously only half of the solution. It can be very difficult to differentiate yourself from the 'designers' who churn out lots of ill thought through work, especially if you're new in the industry and you don't have lots of client experience to write about.

by lhnn 15y ago

jonathanjaeger 15y ago

Patent complaining aside, that quote is off too. The point of Kickstarter is not to ask for handouts, but to offer incentives/rewards/pre-orders based on the amount you donate. If you don't like what you get for what you pay or donate, then choose a different tier or don't give any money.

enjalot 15y ago
Or you want to see something happen but you only want to donate if everyone else does. They hack the tragedy of the commons, and it's been enough for me to support a couple projects.
- jonathanjaeger 15y ago
  Good point. A lot of people come to Kickstarter because of Kickstarter and not because they want to donate to a friend who linked to their project from elsewhere.

iamdave 15y ago

I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been unpopular almost every time I've asked it: Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same mentality and resistance to new revenue models that's turning so many people off to the music and movie industries. Passion for the rhyme can be cheapened by feedback, and I think that's exactly what's happening with these 'artists'. They're looking at what other people are doing, seeing that it doesn't line up with how they think the industry should work, and then pull these statements out of their arses that it's killing their livelihood.

ralphsaunders 15y ago
Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross. 99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it. That said, kickstarter certainly doesn't fit in that category, if anything it brings more paying work to designers/artists.
- iamdave 15y ago
  * There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.* I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are? I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for the client) manner should mean the demonizing of an industry that allows a company to pick what they want, considering they're paying for it to represent their brand.
  - ralphsaunders 15y ago
    I guess the first reason that springs to mind is that spec work is of poor quality. Most designers - I can't speak for artists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they shared a similar sentiment - look at products and think about how they could be improved. To see a company not only facilitating poor quality work, but for it to also be pleased with the result is rather... depressing, really. Another is that encouraging people to work for free is rather questionable. Arguably it's preying on people who might be rather desperate for money when their time would be better invested in other things. But most of all, is that the term 'designer' now includes people who produce that poor standard of work as well as, for example, the very talented people who work at Apple. It cheapens the term, and I think that's a lot of the reason you see new job titles appearing regularly from within the industry - a "user experience" designer didn't really exist 2 years ago and it basically means "generalist" or "designer". A lot of clients evaluate design based on aesthetics, which is obviously only half of the solution. It can be very difficult to differentiate yourself from the 'designers' who churn out lots of ill thought through work, especially if you're new in the industry and you don't have lots of client experience to write about.