Yancey Strickler

But it is just another way of framing how you think about your work.

I know in visual art context, fractional ownership is not a regular thing at all.

And a gallerist will...

lose their mind if you suggest that, something that should happen.

But in music and in film, in music and film and in publishing, this is exactly how it works.

This is exactly how it works.

So in film, people create very convoluted shell structures that are completely opaque, that hide where money is flowing.

In a world where a film could just be an A-corp, then you could have a single ownership table that would show who owns what, how things should function.

It could be transparent and clearly understood by everybody.

Or in the case of music, this is where a musician, rather than say just selling the rights to a catalog and then a label puts it out, you can create joint ventures where they own things together and

money gets split.

This is how a lot of the music industry runs today, but inefficiently.

So in those industries, that is the way things work.

They don't work that well.

The terms tend to be tilted against artists, like authors get 12% of the royalty from a major publisher, about that from a major label too for music.

And yeah, so it allows for collective investment into a project and collective rewards to come out of it, which is how most culture industries function.

Another practical example of what you could do with an ACORP, certainly health insurance is a really big one.

Another one would be, I've spoken to many artists who are very late in their careers and are thinking about estates or how their work is managed after the fact.

And in many cases, it's going to go to their children who actually don't care about the art.

They like the money, but they don't care about the art.