After going to the summit as a person not so active in the community of creative commons, I now want to understand more about Icommons. I also want to say that going to the summit was a great experience for me. I met a great bunch of people that mostly had a good vision for the future. I learnt more than I could have imagined in a short space of time. Now I understand how the open source movement relates to the artist, thanks to everyone. The first thing I would like to know is this: Is Icommons a part of creative commons, or are they separate ? The reason I am looking at this, is this; I just canceled my membership with the collection society in Australia APRA; mainly due to the structure of the voting system and the blanket license control they have. The way that the voting system works is this, for every 500 dollars that an artist or publisher collects when your with APRA the artist/publisher gets an extra vote. You can get more information on my experience/ view of APRA at this link www.OPTapra.Net . After going to the summit I am (this is logical right) wondering how they decide who is on the board of Icommons. This is important to me as its going to effect the amount of input I am going to have in the process. The board of an organization partly define how things happen. Also I wanted to offer some thoughts about the introduction of the node. I partly like the way it works, although the name is a term that does not explain what it does; the artist wondering into the Icommons site might be confused. Another though is this: from my understanding of the node, it works this way. The more time that a person spends active within the Icommons site, the more voting status that person has. Is this the right way to go ? A lot of artists are to busy doing manual work to support their art. Where as educators and business people often have more time to develop projects and connection. The more power your node has, the more status the project has within Icommons. What are artists going to think of this system ? Something I noticed at the summit was this: their are few projects that seemed concerned with creating better conditions for the "self published" artist. Their seem to be a lot of projects revolving around the process of education, business and remixing content. Is this inline with the core of the cc philosophy ? How does the "self publishing" artist fit into the creative commons philosophy ? Where are the magic tools (that can be created) to help with my journey. The creative source is maybe left wondering alone, yet contributing. Many artists want to get off the corporate train bound for hell, they just need to know how. Where is the development, or incentives to develop projects that help the self published artist ? Where might the funding come from to develop these kind of projects ? What interest do educators, business people and the public (who remix and use content) have in the development of these tools? At a glance things might look as if Icommons is hatching the chicken before the egg. Artists need self assurance and support. I'm convinced that cc is the way to go. Thanks Creative Commons and Icommons.
tags: prague czech republic culture artist creative commons isummit thoughts 2007
|
send
printer-friendly version