So I now that I am getting deeper into coding art projects, I am beginning to think about how to make a living doing it. To make in the art world, you need to make a name for yourself using your projects (ideally, of course, there is also a ton of bullshit involved). Up til now, I have released all software that I have written under the GPL since I firmly believe that all software should be free. But now I am thinking that there might need to be one minor caveat for some art projects: the credit clause.
I know all about the old BSD license and the problems with it, that is why I am in a quandary about this. I am creating projects that anyone could download and set up and, if released under the GPL, claim complete credit for. So I am thinking of releasing them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
So my particular question lies is trying to figure out what harm will come of releasing art code with an Attribution clause. I believe that some harm is inevitable, but I think it my be a necessary comprimise.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I know all about the old BSD license and the problems with it, that is why I am in a quandary about this. I am creating projects that anyone could download and set up and, if released under the GPL, claim complete credit for. So I am thinking of releasing them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
creative commons is not directly intended to be used for source code, but actually i'd say because it's an art projects, it's a good idea to use it here.
i actually plan to do the same.
So my particular question lies is trying to figure out what harm will come of releasing art code with an Attribution clause. > I believe that some harm is inevitable, but I think it my be a necessary comprimise.
well what harm? interaction? or rights? it depends on how you want others to use that code art/art code.
creative commons gives the artist more autonomy of decision, but open source licenses give you possibly more and less canalized interaction with other artists.
.hc
hmm i think i'd be interested in a art code/code art mailinglist if something like that is out there ...
has anyone of you read Andreas Leo Findeisen s speach from the Ars Electronica?
regards, michael
[Hans-Christoph Steiner]->[[PD-ot] Art: To GPL or not to GPL?]->[03-12-15 11:21]
| |So I now that I am getting deeper into coding art projects, I am |beginning to think about how to make a living doing it. To make in the |art world, you need to make a name for yourself using your projects |(ideally, of course, there is also a ton of bullshit involved). Up til |now, I have released all software that I have written under the GPL |since I firmly believe that all software should be free. But now I am |thinking that there might need to be one minor caveat for some art |projects: the credit clause. | |I know all about the old BSD license and the problems with it, that is |why I am in a quandary about this. I am creating projects that anyone |could download and set up and, if released under the GPL, claim |complete credit for.
i dont get it. i thought the gpl was kinda saying: take it, do whatever you want with it as long as your product is rereleased _under the same license_ and _all original author information is left intact_ (unless your changes are so massive it counts as a differnt thing already).
so how could anyone claim complete credit for your work without violating that license?
| So I am thinking of releasing them under the |Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. | |So my particular question lies is trying to figure out what harm will |come of releasing art code with an Attribution clause. I believe that |some harm is inevitable, but I think it my be a necessary comprimise.
I read:
So I now that I am getting deeper into coding art projects, I am beginning to think about how to make a living doing it. To make in the art world, you need to make a name for yourself using your projects
agreed but
(ideally, of course, there is also a ton of bullshit involved). Up til now, I have released all software that I have written under the GPL since I firmly believe that all software should be free. But now I am thinking that there might need to be one minor caveat for some art projects: the credit clause.
[...]
So my particular question lies is trying to figure out what harm will come of releasing art code with an Attribution clause. I believe that some harm is inevitable, but I think it my be a necessary comprimise.
I think this depends on what you are creating, the GPL clearly states that if you do not distribute binaries to 3rd parties you have absolutely no obligsation to share the source. Most media/code art projects are notoriously unsellable anyway (I'm not so sure what distribution means in fact, if I use GPL code in an installation for others to look at, did I distribute a binary ?) it's hardly a problem to just keep the sources to yourself. The more pressing issue IMO is that in the 'art world' if you are working in a field that seldomly yields a tangible artefact (as opposed to pretty oil paintings) your credit is entirely based on the reception of your work and not on gallery sales (better switch to acrylic for the duration of the hype, it dries quicker >;-> ) and then it's totally unimportant if other people have access to your cvs and clone your work (they'll hopefully be identified as the freeloaders they are) but on the other hand wouldn't you just love to see more interesting digital art being inspired by your work, building up on it while still being original ?
I think this is one ot the great advantages and opportunities of digital cultural production, and the art market is hardly any more ready for the paradigm shift introduced by somewhat new channels and technologies of distribution than the major content industries, the legal system, the patent office ....
take care, and stick to the GPL ;)
x
Hallo,
CK hat gesagt: // CK wrote:
The more pressing issue IMO is that in the 'art world' if you are working in a field that seldomly yields a tangible artefact (as opposed to pretty oil paintings) your credit is entirely based on the reception of your work and not on gallery sales
First: I am no artist, at least not a professional one. ;)
But is my impression correct, that media art isn't really sold, but more done for hire? Like, some institue comes along and tells someone: Please make us an impressive installation, and we pay you.
This wouldn't be that much different from the way, some open source software developers earn their money. You gain reputation while working on, say, the Apache webserver and then someone, who needs to setup a customized webserver, asks you to do that, for money.
At least that's how I earned open source money once...
ciao
I read:
But is my impression correct, that media art isn't really sold, but more done for hire? Like, some institue comes along and tells someone: Please make us an impressive installation, and we pay you.
I think this is by no means a practice exclusive to media art, contemporary composers pay their rent by writing commissioned pieces, conceptual artists go on (slightly paid) residencies and produce documentation about their work. Even a lot of fine arts people that are regarded as highly successful are commisioned by museums to make a sculpture and probably make most of their living income by teaching or giving lectures.
This wouldn't be that much different from the way, some open source software developers earn their money. You gain reputation while working on, say, the Apache webserver and then someone, who needs to setup a customized webserver, asks you to do that, for money.
I guess these two things have more in common and are less different (at least on a economical level) then one might think at first. see http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html
take care,
x
The label "Frank Barknecht" hathe been affixed to this message,
But is my impression correct, that media art isn't really sold, but more done for hire? Like, some institue comes along and tells someone: Please make us an impressive installation, and we pay you.
Lots of stuff gets sold. A lot of us do commission stuff. Ideally, you don't do commissioned stuff and have the luxury of doing whatever you want and getting paid for it. I know it doesn't work this way for most bands, most artists make "bread and butter" cash from commissions, etc...
The reason I said, previously, that "I'm not sure your projects mean diddly-squat" is because, for the most part, this whole thing is about money and contacts. If you meet the right people and have the cash... you can go pretty far with relatively little talent... Pay the best engineers, buy the right songs... pay the right people to say the right things about you and you've got it made. {If they say the right things for free... you're doing even better. If they mean it you're making art...}
Much of this is changing now that we have the net and getting published is no longer a huge problem... Still, folk don't have the time to research every artist out there. Most folk are still reliant on word of mouth and criticts to tell them where to point their browser. The more folk pointing browsers your way... the better you're going to do. {This assumes a reasonable level of quality, which, given what digital tools are capable of... is not all that difficult to achieve.}
At a real, artistic level... I think the work is the only thing that matters... I think that those of us that are serious are interested in success at that level more than any other. I doubt any of us is averse to getting rich though...
You write software... Ideally, I'm sure you want to turn out exceptional work at an exceptional price, get recognized, get rich, make great innovations, etc, etc...
...At 4 in the morning, when you're trying to get the "megawatt gizmo" to make megawatt gizmo sounds and stop putting out sludge when you turn the knob past 2.5... I doubt any of the above matters.
This wouldn't be that much different from the way, some open source software developers earn their money. You gain reputation while working on, say, the Apache webserver and then someone, who needs to setup a customized webserver, asks you to do that, for money.
{It would seem I've gotten off track. :}}
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
So I now that I am getting deeper into coding art projects, I am beginning to think about how to make a living doing it. To make in the art world, you need to make a name for yourself using your projects (ideally, of course, there is also a ton of bullshit involved). Up til now, I have released all software that I have written under the GPL since I firmly believe that all software should be free. But now I am thinking that there might need to be one minor caveat for some art projects: the credit clause.
old-school artists will eventually not put a credit clause or not even mention you as the software author ( that's an authorship part of the art work to me )
my advice, just work with people aware of this new situation because, even with a different license, it won't help so much.
cheers, sevy
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
So I now that I am getting deeper into coding art projects, I am beginning to think about how to make a living doing it. To make in the art world, you need to make a name for yourself using your projects
I'm not sure your projects mean diddly-squat.
(ideally, of course, there is also a ton of bullshit involved). Up til now, I have released all software that I have written under the GPL since I firmly believe that all software should be free. But now I am thinking that there might need to be one minor caveat for some art projects: the credit clause.
I know all about the old BSD license and the problems with it, that is why I am in a quandary about this. I am creating projects that anyone could download and set up and, if released under the GPL, claim complete credit for. So I am thinking of releasing them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
So my particular question lies is trying to figure out what harm will come of releasing art code with an Attribution clause. I believe that some harm is inevitable, but I think it my be a necessary comprimise.
I just read the rest of this thread {which, strangely enough got filed into my inbox rather than my pd-ot folder.}
My question would be... why bother?
Why don't you just do the thing put it up on the web, copyright it and use it as promotion. There's a hell of a lot more money to be made out here...
My opinion... art's kind of gpled in the first place... interesting ideas get absorbed back into the art world... {folk can't actually help it {unless you've made no impression at all {in which case you need to do a bit more studio time.}}} College kids the world over will be mimicking your stuff {if it's any good} within a few days. You get a window so that you've got some time to make a profit... if it's really good you get your name in the books... {maybe get rich.}
There is always this... http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html
I'm not quite sure what the "old school artist" comment is supposed to mean.