Aug
1
2006
Thinking Inside the Box
posted by admin, 4.26 PM
filed Under: Uncategorized
filed Under: Uncategorized
Angel De Franganillo is a 22 year old animator and designer living in Barcelona, Spain. 
His work tends to be tinged with darkness, so it’s not surprising that he lists Tim Burton, Radiohead and Vincent Gallo as his favorite artists on his deviantART website.
His most recent work is called ‘The Box,’ which was animated in Flash, with help from Photoshop and Final Cut.
Much of his other work could be better described as motion graphics, which comprises the majority of his 2005 reel. His blog started last month, but he’s already filled it with updates about his many passions.
No tag for this post.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:04 pm
VERY nice. And creepy too.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:01 am
Very Thanks for this comment
Sorry for the dead video… its no longer in youTube… but can see here http://www.antiheroe.com/thebox
bad times for youtube… http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/20/youtubes_new_policy_.html
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Hola!, muy bueno tu trabajo…me gusta mucho la estética que le has dado. Yo hice un par de capítulos de una serie, con una animación muy parecida, con trazo tembloroso, y sobre fondos muy simples con textura de fondo.
Muy bueno…espero ver más cosas tuyas!.
KHRIS
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Jennifer Nielsen, Marketing Manager for YouTube, posted a follow-up that restores two very important lines from the user agreement not quoted in the article:
1.) “For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions.”
2.) “The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.”
Apparently the new language is necessary to allow third parties (Cold Hard Flash, for instance) to link to YouTube content.
Great work, by the way. Very eerie.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Not so bad times for Youtube and your concernes, antihero…
I looked into this this morning. Problem with quoting a legal document or a contract is that it can invariably be quoted out of context as appears to have happened here. When I read the original snippet, the first half of it sounded pretty much like standard requirements in order for someone to be able to have the right to broadcast your work (the important word you need to look for in this case is ‘non-exclusivity’) and the second segment sounded like cover for programme functionality (you get an option to share your film with others who can then do stuff with what you share I believe, I have this function switched to ‘no thanks’).
I asked YouTube for some clarity on the situation and they directed me here…
http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=al0Sb4gNaB8
Anyway, I hope that makes things a little clearer for people and puts peoples minds at rest. It certainly did for me.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:39 pm
sorry to repeat on you, Mister Copeland…you beat me to it by seven minutes it would appear.