[PD-ot] Art: To GPL or not to GPL?

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Tue Dec 16 12:30:37 CET 2003


There are two pieces to this, one like the saxophone, which I have no 
problem putting out under the GPL for people to use however they see 
fit, like any other software 'tool'.  The other is like the score, 
which I also want to release as open-source.  This is the untested 
realm: open-source art.  I plan on releasing the source to everything I 
do, including the score, source samples, etc.  I have mostly dealt with 
the music realm where this is more clear cut.  Its the art realm that I 
am trying to figure out.

I don't want to write my own license for so many reasons, especially 
since there are great ones already out there, like the GNU GPL and 
Creative Commons licenses.  What I want to do is to be able to release 
the entire source to everything I do so that its more than just the 
conveyance of the idea that gets out there, but my actual 
implementation of that idea.  Art, as with basically everything else, 
is a process of building upon what others have done.  Now with digital 
art, artists can directly build on top of what's already there in the 
form of the actual files that made a given piece of art.  This means 
that the ideas can be more fully communicated.

My one issue is how to prevent unscrupulous use of work that is 
released freely.  If the score to a piece of music is released under 
the GPL, then someone, take the Boston Pops for example, could play 
that music without giving the composer credit, except for leaving the 
copyright intact on the score itself.  This is the crux of the issue.  
Since art is so much about building a name for yourself, credit is very 
important.  This is in many ways the same as writing free software, but 
I trust the art world far less than I do the software world.  And also, 
the ways in which software is distributed allows someone to find out 
the copyright info much easier than in a concert.

So I guess I am thinking whether the potential for abuse in the art 
world is big enough to warrant the problems caused by attribution 
clauses in open-source licenses.

.hc


On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 11:44 Europe/Brussels, RTaylor wrote:

> The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
>>
>> I think an example would more clearly explain what I am talking about.
>> Say I write some software that is central to a performance and the
>> performers have a commodity skill.  So if I release this project under
>> the GPL, someone could download the software, hire some people, and
>> perform the piece and call it their art, leaving all the Copyright
>> notices intact on the code, just not telling anyone about it.  This
>> wouldn't violate the GPL since they would be claiming credit for the
>> performance, not the software.
>
>  To some extent it would be their art. Just like the Boston Symphony
> Orchestra's art is their art. I'm not one of those folk that sees 
> things as
> being "all in the interpretation" but I do see it as having much 
> validity on its
> own. {Depending on just how much folk do put into it}
>
>  Why wouldn't they just call it a performance, acknowledge that it was
> written by you and make arrangements to pay you whatever fees and
> royalties are due you? That is a standard operating procedure, no?
>
>  Seeing as you're talking a bit of software though... folk don't 
> generally
> acknowledge the maker of their saxophones... I suppose it would depend
> on the role it played in the performance.

>> But I want people to build upon my idea just as I have built upon the
>> ideas of so many others, that is why I insist on releasing everything 
>> I
>> write as free software.  But I would like to get paid for my work so I
>> don't have to do other bullshit jobs.  The main funding stream that I
>> see for code/media art is getting paid to show your art at festivals.
>> I am currently finishing a stint at the Lille 2004 European Cultural
>> Capital festival and the level of sleaze and backstabbing is pretty
>> appalling.  This is what triggered this question: I could totally see
>> someone in a festival like this not wanting to pay to put on a piece,
>> so once they find out its GPL'ed, they just do it themselves, without
>> giving me even credit (while leaving the GPL copyright notices intact
>> with my name on them).
>
>  Is the value of this in the code itself or in the ideas conveyed? If 
> the
> software's simply a saxophone-like tool... I'd not worry about it... 
> I'd
> probably just go with the gpl by itself... If the software makes the
> statement... I think you may have a sticky wicket to ummm... "wicket"
> with {If you're going to GPL it {Tho' I've always had the impression 
> that
> was covered by the GPL anyway. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html }}.
> Why don't you just append whatever license with the stipulation 
> that... in
> order to use the software as a basis for further software folk need to
> give you credit?
>
> It does give you something legal...
>
>> The other side of the question is the troubles that the BSD 
>> attribution
>> clause caused.  Basically, as the software spreads the number of
>> attributions needed becomes large and unmanagable.  So I think the
>> comprimise would be to cover the instrument parts of the code under 
>> the
>> GPL, so people will develop it and make it better, while putting the
>> score and other performance aspects of it under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution Share-Alike license, then just hope that people will
>> actually want to pay me rather than just give me credit :).
>
>  Maybe you should just offer it for sale.
> You might specify that in your license as well.
>
>  {"This product is for sale. ...$39.00 a box."}
>
> -- 
> Could you be the one they talk about?
> Hiding inside, behind another door?
> Is it only happiness you want?
> Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-ot mailing list
> PD-ot at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
>

                                     http://at.or.at/hans/






More information about the PD-ot mailing list