💾 Archived View for splint.rs › art_licences.gmi captured on 2024-05-12 at 15:12:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-03-21)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I regularly see indie artists posting some great images, and encouraging open-source-adjacent use, but messing up the latter completely.
Just to clarify:
Legally speaking, a licence sort-of *is* a wish for how people might use your work, but artists can't craft that kind of use. They say 'this is open', or 'can be used for commercial purposes, just give credit', or something equally vague.
If this means the art can be used under CC-BY 4.0, then that means I can use it with my work, which uses the GNU Public Licence (GPL). However, if they meant something more along the lines of CC-BY 3.0, then I cannot use it with my GPL product.
Licensing laws let companies craft agreements longer than *Hamlet*. I am not exaggerating.
Individuals cannot use these laws. The best we can do is grab an existing, tried-and-tested licence, and slap it on, just like we use people pre-made pizza, rather than raise a cow.
These little notes put me in a horribly awkward situation. One artist might start out with 'use as you like, CC-BY-SA 4.0' (which is great, until they add), 'do not use for animal cruelty, Nazi propaganda, or stealing from old ladies', or something equally reasonable-sounding. And now I need to explain why this is *not* reasonable. See how awkward they make things?
The first problem comes from interpretation. If I use an image in a fantasy book, I may include orcs. And some versions of orcs have a touch of racist propaganda to them. So does this mean my use is 'problematic'?
Nobody wants an answer to this question when doing a project. They want the question not to arise in the first place. They want to work, free from the concerns about theoretical people's theoretical interpretations.
The second problem comes with incompatibility. We can give out a licence saying 'this work exists, to be copied and shared, free from the shackles which bind corporate art, useable only by rich people who can afford lawyers who studied Art History'...but to then add a restriction, which immediately makes you wish you had a lawyer to call, means the licence only serves to confuse people.
The third problem I have to bring up (but not the last problem remaining) is that the injunctions do nothing. Racists gonna racist. Let me illustrate the point you may already have understood (the illustration is CC0).
The artist made the famous two wolves image ('you have two wolves inside you') had his art used by all sorts of sellers, grifters, and reposted in meme-format by 'alpha males'.
The artist made the famous two wolves image
'Alpha males'...
'Nuff said.
If the 'OC - plz don't steal' sign couldn't stop anyone selling his art, then a 'no Nazis allowed' certainly wouldn't have helped keep his image from turning into N-Chan propaganda.
It's basically impossible to email these artists with 'I love your stuff, just one small question - the bit about not using this to promote white nationalism - are you open to negotiation on that point? Because I like freedom, you see...'.
I'm not sending that email.
But I will say, 'I can't afford a lawyer, could we keep things simple?'. I will ask every artist who feels happy when they see their images used, remixed, and adapted, into project that also allow remix and adaption, that their images will remain caged unless they can use standard licences.
And finally, if anyone wants recommendations, I will recommend, and summarize, two licences for open-source art.
* And if you use this licence, then remember to add.your.name.
* I have not the faintest idea if you want 'ClockFilcher68' to go into my credits page. Leave your name, and say 'give credit to X, which is what I call myself, and what you should call me in the credits section'.
* I don't need your legal name - I just need an *unambiguous* name.