Who shares code with artists?

21 Jul Who shares code with artists?

There has always been a slight tension between ad agencies and artists and the line between borrowing and stealing, even before all this “new media” business. Visual artists, graphic designers and animators have had their methods and styles borrowed or stolen for decades. This borrowing or stealing is nothing new, it is just new for this particular art form. The current version of this tension has been discussed in various articles and talks, notably Golan Levin’s “New Media Artists are the Unpaid R&D of Ad Agencies.”

I’ve worked at an experiential design company in Brooklyn called Fake Love for three years, and we do a lot of commercial work, as well as art works. We are a small crew of about twelve, with three in-house developers including myself. Almost every project we have done has used some degree of open source software or hardware, and we understand and appreciate open source’s role in supporting a large part of our industry and livelihood. I wouldn’t have the awesome job I have without open source artist tools – period. It’s no surprise then that we’re big into sharing as much as we reasonably can to give back to the community that helps us so much. We’re still learning how to give back in different ways, and we still have a lot to learn ourselves. Luckily, we’re not alone at all, and there are tons of amazing production companies/agencies/collectives/studios doing fantastic jobs of sharing stuff too.

Github is a website where individuals and organizations can publicly or privately collaborate on coding projects, and share the fruits of those projects with others. There are other sites that do this, but Github is the most widely used at the moment. I compiled this list of organizations that post some of their code to Github – I did this to create a resource and to highlight a list of companies posting at least a little bit of the code they work on day to day:

Company/Agency/CollectiveGithub Link
Adafruithttps://github.com/adafruit
AKQAhttps://github.com/akqa
B-Reelhttps://github.com/B-Reel
Barbarian Grouphttps://github.com/thebarbariangroup
Barbarian Group/Cinderhttps://github.com/cinder
BBDOhttps://github.com/BBDO
Breakfast NYhttps://github.com/breakfastny
CLOUDShttps://github.com/CLOUDS-Interactive-Documentary
Deep Localhttps://github.com/deeplocal
Digitashttps://github.com/digitashttps://github.com/digitas
Dpt.https://github.com/morethanlogic
Dreamworkshttps://github.com/dreamworksanimation
Fake Lovehttp://github.com/fakelove
Fieldhttps://github.com/field
Framestorehttps://github.com/framestore
Googlehttps://github.com/google
Google Creative Labshttps://github.com/googlecreativelab
Google Data Artshttps://github.com/dataarts
Havas Worldwidehttps://github.com/MadSciLabs
Helios Interactivehttps://github.com/HeliosInteractive
Hellicar and Lewishttp://github.com/hellicarandlewis
IDEOhttps://github.com/ideo
IDEO Digital Shophttps://github.com/ideo-digital-shop
Intel Perceptual Computinghttps://github.com/IntelPerceptual
LAB at Rockwell Grouphttps://github.com/labatrockwell
Legworkhttps://github.com/legworkstudio
Local Projectshttps://github.com/local-projects
Microsofthttps://github.com/msopentech
Midnight Commercialhttps://github.com/MidnightCommercial
MPC Digitalhttps://github.com/mpcdigital
Otherlabhttps://github.com/otherlab
Pixarhttps://github.com/PixarAnimationStudios
Potionhttps://github.com/Potion
Psy Ophttps://github.com/Psyop
Razorfishhttps://github.com/razorfish
Red Paper Hearthttps://github.com/redpaperheart
Sapienthttps://github.com/sapient-global
Sapient Nitrohttps://github.com/sapientnitro
Second Storyhttps://github.com/secondstory
SparkFunhttps://github.com/sparkfun
Stimulanthttps://github.com/stimulant
Stopphttps://github.com/stopp
TBWAhttps://github.com/tbwa
The Rumpus Roomhttps://github.com/therumpusroom
Vidvoxhttps://github.com/Vidvox
Warp Records/Unit 9https://github.com/warprecords
YCAM Interlabhttps://github.com/YCAMInterlab
Your Majestyhttps://github.com/Your-Majesty

These sampled companies vary wildly in size from half a dozen people to large global corporations. These are also just companies that I am aware of that do something vaguely artistic with code, I did a little bit of research but it can be hard to track down exact Github pages. If someone thinks someone should be added to the list, please get in touch with me – or add your own links to this public Google Spreadsheet. You can also see a list of agencies sorted by “stars” – Github users can “star” repositories that they find useful, so it provides a bit of a metric for who is providing useful code – link here

It’s important to note that sharing code isn’t the only way to keep the community healthy. Some companies aren’t particularly good at the code sharing aspect, despite having a Github. A public Github alone doesn’t get you a “I did the right thing” pass. Some shared code is old, poorly documented, sparse, or such a niche application that it would hardly be useful to anyone else without putting more time in to figure out what it does (and if it even does it well). Let’s also be clear that sharing an entire project that you made for a client can rarely be useful to a large audience. In my experience, most projects in this realm are made on tight timelines and leave little time for proper organization and cleanup.  The best parts of the project may be tucked away in a single class that would be more useful as a tool or individualized example that you break out after the fact. All this sharing step takes is a little time and planning. In addition to sharing code, as noted in Golan’s talk, it is also very important to reach out to artists, to credit them, to cite them and perhaps most useful – to pay them.

Right now, a lot of artists don’t explicitly ask for money for the creations they share – typically on good faith. Artists and agencies work in their own economies, and when the work between them overlaps there needs to be awareness of those differences. The currency of these sharing artists is time, the current of agencies is money. To support the producers of the sharing economy, they can provide citations and sometimes money. It can be rough out there for a principled artist who doesn’t do commercial work but loves to share their code and methods regardless. In a way, it’s a risk artists are taking. Their carefully crafted code built for an honest and compelling artwork can both further the field for other struggling artists, and be used in a goofy stunt to sling sugar water.  Of course even if other artists use this carefully crafted code, they can make a piece of shit artwork just as easily an agency can make a piece of shit campaign. The difference is who gets paid for it, how much they got paid for it, the credits and the promotion that comes out of it. I’ve seen the budgets for some of these commercial projects, and they far eclipse the typical amounts you’ll see available for other comparable artworks. A tiny fraction of these massive budgets can be set aside to pay artists for their work.

One way artists can guide the usage of their work is by applying specific licenses to their work as a modest (and occasionally legally binding) request of “This is the way I would like my work to be used in the future.” As it is now, many of these licenses that artists apply are fairly lenient and don’t always make a distinction between their use in commercial or non-commercial work. Most just ask that you give attribution or share back what you built with the community. Of course, it may not always stay this way.

A big part of making sure this open and free environment remains open and free falls to the responsibility of the agencies, production companies, collectives, studios who are using and profiting from the code and technical developments made by independent artists. Much of the industry’s future relies on artists going through school or training to build the tools that may be used in tomorrow’s experiences – it’s likely that the artists will want to see that path as being able to provide a sustainable living. At the moment there is more money, stability and human resources available to these larger companies. Returning to the opening point –  borrowing and stealing from artists has been going on for decades, but for the same amount of time organizations and individuals have also had the option to find a way to do the right thing.

————————————————–

Thanks to Kyle McDonald, Golan Levin and Dan Moore for providing input on this writeup.

  • paulcarvill

    It’s also important for companies who are publishing software on GitHub or other public code-hosting site to ensure they have selected an appropriate license to publish it under. Far too many people and organisations publish code with no license at all, not understanding that merely publishing the source code does not make it available for reuse and/or derivative works. One casual survey estimates that up to half of all GitHub repos have no easily identifiable copyright licensing information.

    However GitHub, for example, makes it very easy to select a license when you create a repository. But it does not impose a default license. As a result the default status of unlicensed code on GitHub is as “copyrighted material”, with the legal restrictions on reuse that involves — under copyright law, code without a license cannot be legally shared, as the default for copyrighted materials is that all rights are reserved.

    Here is a great extract from infoworld.com — http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/github-needs-take-open-source-seriously-208046 — which clarifies the issue completely:

    “Brian Doll, GitHub’s VP of Marketing, confirmed this arrangement is intentional:

    Code without an explicit license is protected by copyright and is by default All Rights Reserved. The person or people who wrote the code are protected as such. Any time you’re using software you didn’t write, licensing should be considered and abided.

    Ironically, this situation exists because the founders of GitHub want to ease code sharing. They were worried that selecting a license for a new project was so difficult that requiring new project initiators would be a barrier to the adoption of GitHub. But completely ignoring the issue is just as bad, because it exposes every participant in an unlicensed GitHub project to the risk that subsequently, license terms will be imposed that they don’t like and and would not have accepted at the inception of the project.”

  • Steve Varga

    Hi Blair,

    This is a great resource!

    Could you please add Potion (https://github.com/Potion) to this list when you get a chance? I added it to the public Google doc as well.

    We currently share the source code for our entire open source framework (poCode), and we are soon releasing a number of work in progress Cinder libraries that may be of interest to others.

    Also the comment below makes a great point, and we are currently evaluating our licensing (or lack there of in some cases) to ensure that others are free to use it.

    Thanks again, this is an awesome list!

    • laserpilot

      Done – its in there! thanks! I’ve been trying to check the google doc and update this one, but i’ve fallen behind a bit

  • ed wong hao

    i used to sit next to blair… so ha

  • Timesquid

    This is very informative, and inspiring, thank you!