[open-heritage] Contemporary Artists CC outreach project
Primavera De Filippi
pdefilippi at gmail.com
Mon Sep 24 14:52:45 UTC 2012
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Sarah Stierch <sstierch at wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Hi there,
> I have some responses inline:
> On 9/22/12 4:56 PM, Primavera De Filippi wrote:
> Hi Sarah, thanks for following up with that !
> One important thing that we need to figure out is how long of a document
> do we want it be ?
> ie. a one page flyer or a more substantial doc that properly explains the
> what, the how and the why's (I'd personally rather go for a short document,
> or maybe a short paper-version and a longer online version ?)
> I was hoping for a booklet, similar in style to the WMF year in review or
> why you should edit Wikipedia booklets we have, or I suppose if all else
> fails, a one pager. We'll just be limited on how much artwork or creativity
> we can put into it.
Ok let's go for a booklet, but let's make sure we can have it ready by the
15 of december (anniversary of CC) so that it can be handed out by the
affiliates all over the world :)
> Ideally, it would be a document that we do not have to print, but that
> we just provide as an online resource for anyone to print it whenever the
> need arises.
> For instance, we plan to organize a contemporary art exhibition for the 10
> years of Creative Commons, along with a call for artists to submit their
> works under an open license - so that document would be perfect for this :)
> For me, and I believe for artists and museum professionals, having a hard
> copy is more important than having a document on one's computer or online.
> I tend to read things in my hand faster than I do read things attached in
> documents or linked to me in emails. I also know I'm not the only cultural
> professional who is that way, and same with artists (but, perhaps this is
> just my experience - and keep in mind that is almost ten years of
> experience in working closely with artists).
> I think having both is extremely important. Whether it's for a gallery
> owner to hand out directly to an artist they are considering working with,
> or an artist picking up at a free arts conference from someone's table, or
> someone being linked to it online. Recently, I co-wrote the American
> Association of Museum's TrendsWatch Report. We were originally going to
> keep the document an online PDF document only, but the demand by museum and
> gallery professionals to have a hard copy was strong, so, we chose to have
> a printed collection of them do distribute at our national conference.
I completely agree about the fact that it should be printed, but I dont
think we need to worry about who will print it. I see it more like a
resource that we make available for anyone who would in interested in
handing it to people during a particular event (e.g. a gallery owner, an
art conference organiser, or the CC affiliates themselves ;)
> I also don't want us to make this completely CC centric - there is also
> the http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en - Free Art License, which, when
> thinking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which Harry cited
> in his keynote!), specifically article 27 (
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a27), which cites:
> - (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural
> life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
> advancement and its benefits.
> - (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and
> material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
> production of which he is the author.
> tends to touch on that right in a different way than CC BY SA/A. Of
> course, it's a bit more restrictive, but, I'd rather provide the artist the
> rights than others the rights over their artwork.
Sure, we dont want it to be cc-centric, the Free art licence is perfectly
fine too (we are currently working on confirming its compatibility with
cc-by-sa). the licences are just a tool, what we want is explain to
contemporary artists what are the benefits they could derive from the use
of free licences (depending on the one they chose). we should thus provide
a list of available licences for artists, and their respective advantages
> A good guide we can also use is :
this guide is great, but we should try and produce something much more
simpler that that ( i think :)
> Or do we just keep it:
> CC BY A
> CC BY SA
> Public Domain
> So we need to figure that, aspect out, too.
shall we organise a skype call in the following days to determine the plan
of action ? :)
although there are still only 3 people volunteering in the pad, maybe let's
wait for some more?
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
> >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-glam