Free Culture

Require Attribution, Allow Commercial, Share

I will be licensing most of my art back catalogue and new work under a Creative Commons license. For obvious reasons I will not license work that is derived from found images. I will also not license work that is not easily edited or sampled, or commissioned work if requested not to. I will provide graphic units, palettes and preparatory work as well as finished work where possible (I’ve been watching a lot of Disney DVDs recently as well as always having enjoyed sketchbooks).

I’m doing this to solve problems of production and distribution that I have always faced with my work, and because I believe that it is culturally worthwhile, indeed that it is the only way for art of any cultural value to go.

The License I’m considering is “Require Attribution, Allow Commercial, Share And Share Alike”. Coincidentally I believe this to be the closest to the GPL.

“Require Attribution” because this adds value for me in terms of publicity, contact and feedback.

“Allow Commercial” because this allows other people to get direct value from the work as well. By not precluding any use of the work, commercial or otherwise, this may encourage use of the work, encourage distribution (adding value by Require Attribution), and encourage derived work (ensuring that the value grows).

“Share And Share Alike” because this is what I would like from other people’s work. I’d love to be able to download, photograph, sketch or copy people’s work, take the idea and run with it (“plussing” to use a Disney term) without the yawn-inducing politics of appropriation. As more and more people start plussing thanks to open art, more and more work will be created that builds on the work of others, growing value rather than extracting it by stunting or duplicating forgotten art from a generation ago.