free art license - opinions wanted

[deanlinkous]

Should a free art license specify where the original can be obtained in the case of modifications? If someone modifies my work then distributes it then I want my name to stay in the license/copyright file as the creator but not sure why it would need to specify where my original work can be found. Maybe I stopped offering the original but still want variants/modifications to live on. Of course you could require distribution of the original but that may be a bit much.

Should a good free art license have a printing clause that says if the artwork is printed and the artwork itself does not contain a copyright/creator notice then no further notice is required?But if someone prints it, then someone else scans it then they would not have any idea about the rights or the license without copyright/creator on the artwork. I mean you can tar up a license/copyright files with a digital work but cannot with a printed work.

Should all artwork, have layered *source* files and one of those layers contain copyright/creator information? What about printing....again?

Should artwork have a crop section that contains copyright/creator info and that has to be distributed but is allowed to be cropped for display purposes?

Any thoughts/opinions are very much welcome. Please feel free to point out any other issues that are relevant to this issue.

[aysiu]

There are different kinds of free licenses you can use at Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/license/) for images.

Are you thinking of creating a new one?

[deanlinkous]

Not impressed with CC due to all the variations and some vague-ness in them.
Yes, I am thinking of creating yet another free license. :D I cannot seem to find one that provides a perfect fit.
I want freedom for my artwork, I want some rights protected, but I do not want those rights to interfere with usage....

[lyceum]

Should a free art license specify where the original can be obtained in the case of modifications? If someone modifies my work then distributes it then I want my name to stay in the license/copyright file as the creator but not sure why it would need to specify where my original work can be found. Maybe I stopped offering the original but still want variants/modifications to live on. Of course you could require distribution of the original but that may be a bit much.

Yes


Should a good free art license have a printing clause that says if the artwork is printed and the artwork itself does not contain a copyright/creator notice then no further notice is required?But if someone prints it, then someone else scans it then they would not have any idea about the rights or the license without copyright/creator on the artwork. I mean you can tar up a license/copyright files with a digital work but cannot with a printed work.

Good question. If printed, there should be aome indication of the licence or where to read the copyleft.


Should all artwork, have layered *source* files and one of those layers contain copyright/creator information? What about printing....again?

That should be up to the artist and depend on the licence.


Should artwork have a crop section that contains copyright/creator info and that has to be distributed but is allowed to be cropped for display purposes?

Is should be SOMEwhere, as to where, again, up to the artist and the licence.


Any thoughts/opinions are very much welcome. Please feel free to point out any other issues that are relevant to this issue.

Good questions! I could see some real debates over it.

[deanlinkous]

Originally Posted by deanlinkous View Post
Should a free art license specify where the original can be obtained in the case of modifications? If someone modifies my work then distributes it then I want my name to stay in the license/copyright file as the creator but not sure why it would need to specify where my original work can be found. Maybe I stopped offering the original but still want variants/modifications to live on. Of course you could require distribution of the original but that may be a bit much.

Yes

Yes to which? :) Should original source ALWAYS be included or just a reference about where to obtain teh source. What if I passed-away and my website was taken down. Should no-access to the original source invalidate the license for modifications, effectively limiting any future mods of mods?

How to provide freedom of usage, protect rights, provide for modifications and so forth....????

[lyceum]

Yes to which? :) Should original source ALWAYS be included or just a reference about where to obtain teh source. What if I passed-away and my website was taken down. Should no-access to the original source invalidate the license for modifications, effectively limiting any future mods of mods?

How to provide freedom of usage, protect rights, provide for modifications and so forth....????

I think yes to a point to the origanal source, or the person that does the modification should be able to give a copy of the origanal work. I like the idea of saying, "this is what they did, and this is what I did to their work". I think they should have to provide a way of getting the origanal rather than depending on the origanal artist (who may go broke) to keep their website up. At the same time, if the origanal artist does not care and just wants their name to be seen, then there should be a lcense for that too. Freedom is about options, not just openness :)

-edit-
Just wondering. are you an artist, or working on a license, or just making conversation?

[deanlinkous]

Great point! So maybe a optional clause to either include original work and/or where to get original. Or someone who modifies it has to host the original. Still a bit sticky dealing with that. Hmmm...

[deanlinkous]

What about if someone creates an illegal or obscene derivative of your work, how do you release your own liability as the original creator?

[lyceum]

Great point! So maybe a optional clause to either include original work and/or where to get original. Or someone who modifies it has to host the original. Still a bit sticky dealing with that. Hmmm...

I like the hosting idea myself, as it is artist helping artist. Sounds like you are writting a license. Let me know when you get it working. I would love to read it, being an artist myself.

[deanlinkous]

I like the hosting idea myself, as it is artist helping artist.
Sounds like a winner to me! Since that way modifcations are guaranteed life as long as something is out there - regardless if it is the creators site or not! Yea, tired of trying to twist a license into something proper for artwork! :D THANKS!

[lyceum]

What about if someone creates an illegal or obscene derivative of your work, how do you release your own liability as the original creator?

That is the troulbe I found with FOSS when I first go into it. As far as illegal, I would need you to be more spasific. If it violates the license they could not display it any ware and a court should be able to issue it destroyed. One catch, in art class I was always told that if you change 7 things, it is now your origanal art work. (I am not a lawyer, so I do not know how true that is). As for obscene, again the seven changes rule, and also if it is to make fun of the art work, it is leagal. You see that is art all the time. But the origanal artist cannot be held liable for the illeagal activaties of someone that missuses their origanal work, if that is what you are refering to.

[lyceum]

Sorry, one more thought...

You may want to see if you can get this moved to the Art & Design area to get more artists looking at it. I am sure they would like to check out a new license, even if just to check it out. And I would like to see a good "FOSS" logo art license, if you could bring that into it.

[deanlinkous]

As far as illegal, I would need you to be more spasific.
Illegal, offensive, infringing others copyrights sort of illegal...
I guess the license should just say that the original creator is only responsible for his original creation and not any future modifications.

Define "changes"? :)

IMO a free art license makes the 7 change rule (never heard of it myself) kind of pointless. No need to call something your own when it is free to use. I guess someone could argue that if they change it then it becomes their work and they are free to use whatever license they choose. That is another great point...and tough one to work around.

I guess it would have to do with a "recognisable part of the original" maybe?

Maybe I should give up now....:(

[Adamant1988]

I use the CC attribution-derivatives. (You can do whatever you want with this, just put my name on it somewhere)

[deanlinkous]

You may want to see if you can get this moved to the Art & Design area to get more artists looking at it. I am sure they would like to check out a new license, even if just to check it out. And I would like to see a good "FOSS" logo art license, if you could bring that into it.
Didn't know there was a Art & Design section.

AYSIU make it so please.... :D

[lyceum]

Illegal, offensive, infringing others copyrights sort of illegal...
I guess the license should just say that the original creator is only responsible for his original creation and not any future modifications.

Define "changes"? :)

IMO a free art license makes the 7 change rule (never heard of it myself) kind of pointless. No need to call something your own when it is free to use. I guess someone could argue that if they change it then it becomes their work and they are free to use whatever license they choose. That is another great point...and tough one to work around.

I guess it would have to do with a "recognisable part of the original" maybe?

Maybe I should give up now....:(

I would not give up, as the 7 changes rule is the past. This is a way to help artists help eachother. Yes, it may be posible to get around it (just like the GPL at times) but it could be good for the future. Look at how the creative commons license is changing music.