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

[RTaylor]

The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
>
>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.

 There are folk doing this already. Do a search at google or check
some artsy type linux groups.

>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.

 What's the difference? The one should probably come packed
in the same box as the other.

 {You can't copyright ideas in the first place. Only implementations
of the same. {Or the means by which they are conveyed}}

>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.  

 Boston Pops are more professional than this.  {I think... I really don't know
anything about them}  I don't see why anyone would have problems with
giving you credit in the first place. I'm sure that where an author is listed
that they'll put your name there.

>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.

 What are you afraid of?

>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/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>PD-ot mailing list
>PD-ot at iem.at
>http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
>


-- 
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}