Difference between revisions of "Case Studies/Sita Sings The Blues"
(→License Usage) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|importance=High | |importance=High | ||
|quality=A-Class | |quality=A-Class | ||
| − | |Description= | + | |Description=Sita Sings the Blues is a musical, animated personal interpretation of the Indian epic the Ramayana released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license. |
|Quote=I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up [...] a Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist! | |Quote=I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up [...] a Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist! | ||
|Quote_Attribution=Nina Paley | |Quote_Attribution=Nina Paley | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
'''Sita Sings the Blues''' is an animated feature-length film from Nina Paley. It has achieved wide levels of success, both commercially and in press, without the help of traditional press methods or large studio backing. Released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license, the film is a prime example of 'open-source cinema'. | '''Sita Sings the Blues''' is an animated feature-length film from Nina Paley. It has achieved wide levels of success, both commercially and in press, without the help of traditional press methods or large studio backing. Released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license, the film is a prime example of 'open-source cinema'. | ||
| − | You can read more about the film at the | + | You can read more about the film at the . |
== License Usage == | == License Usage == | ||
| − | '''Sita Sings The Blues''' is released under a [ | + | '''Sita Sings The Blues''' is released under a [CC Attribution-Share Alike license], a decision Paley came to after her experience trying to license Annette Hanshaw's music. |
| + | [http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html '''Sita Sings The Blues''' FAQ] | ||
== Motivations == | == Motivations == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
Paley describes her motivation for using a CC BY-SA license at length in her featured interview at [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14760 creativecommons.org]: | Paley describes her motivation for using a CC BY-SA license at length in her featured interview at [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14760 creativecommons.org]: | ||
| − | + | ||
I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up. It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the Public Domain via privatized derivatives (just try making your own Pinocchio). I didn’t want some corporation locking up a play or TV show based on Sita. They are certainly welcome to make derivative works, and make money from them; in fact I encourage this. But they may not sue or punish anyone for sharing those works. | I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up. It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the Public Domain via privatized derivatives (just try making your own Pinocchio). I didn’t want some corporation locking up a play or TV show based on Sita. They are certainly welcome to make derivative works, and make money from them; in fact I encourage this. But they may not sue or punish anyone for sharing those works. | ||
<br /><br /> | <br /><br /> | ||
I looked to the Free Software movement as a model. The CC BY-SA license most closely resembles the GNU GPL, which is the foundation of Free Software. People make plenty of money in Free Software; there’s no reason they can’t do the same in Free Culture, except for those pernicious “non commercial” licenses. A Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist! | I looked to the Free Software movement as a model. The CC BY-SA license most closely resembles the GNU GPL, which is the foundation of Free Software. People make plenty of money in Free Software; there’s no reason they can’t do the same in Free Culture, except for those pernicious “non commercial” licenses. A Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist! | ||
| − | |||
== Profit Breakdown == | == Profit Breakdown == | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
* Revenue from Central Cinema in Seattle which showed the film: $4,000 | * Revenue from Central Cinema in Seattle which showed the film: $4,000 | ||
* Grand total: $55,000 | * Grand total: $55,000 | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:USA]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:03, 25 October 2012
I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up [...] a Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist! — Nina Paley
Overview
Sita Sings the Blues is an animated feature-length film from Nina Paley. It has achieved wide levels of success, both commercially and in press, without the help of traditional press methods or large studio backing. Released under a CC Attribution-Share Alike license, the film is a prime example of 'open-source cinema'.
You can read more about the film at the .
License Usage
Sita Sings The Blues is released under a [CC Attribution-Share Alike license], a decision Paley came to after her experience trying to license Annette Hanshaw's music. Sita Sings The Blues FAQ
Motivations
Paley describes her motivation for using a CC BY-SA license at length in her featured interview at creativecommons.org:
I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up. It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the Public Domain via privatized derivatives (just try making your own Pinocchio). I didn’t want some corporation locking up a play or TV show based on Sita. They are certainly welcome to make derivative works, and make money from them; in fact I encourage this. But they may not sue or punish anyone for sharing those works.
I looked to the Free Software movement as a model. The CC BY-SA license most closely resembles the GNU GPL, which is the foundation of Free Software. People make plenty of money in Free Software; there’s no reason they can’t do the same in Free Culture, except for those pernicious “non commercial” licenses. A Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist!
Profit Breakdown
- Total donations from people who appreciate her giving out free content: $23,000
- Profits from her online store which sells merchandise and DVDs: $19,000
- Theatrical distribution revenues: $3,000 (out of total box office tally of $22,350)
- Additional DVD distribution: $3,000
- Broadcast television distribution: $3,000
- Revenue from Central Cinema in Seattle which showed the film: $4,000
- Grand total: $55,000
