Currently the Wasteflake Project is a labor of love. We have set up the Wasteflake Project Shop through Cafepress and hope to have items with archaeological and other scientific illustrations for sale.
You know, if you change your license to be hybrid, you'll be able to sell the stuff that gets written on the blog. You could self-publish it on http://lulu.com, for instance.
A hybrid license is something like creative commons. Except CC either flat out prohibits commercial use or gives blanket permission for all use including commercial. A hybrid license recognizes that these two markets are very different from each other. It says "You can copy and modify freely for personal use or non-commercial redistribution under the same terms as this license... but if you profit from copies or derivatives of this work then the authors get a royalty."
Actually, all CC licenses stipulate that the copyright holder can waive any of the clauses... and the hybrid model just takes it on step further and spells out under which conditions the copyright holder will waive these clauses without prejudice, and how much the copyright holder will expect to be compensated. If WasteFlake is selling stuff that got written on WasteFlake, it's probably much simpler-- you deduct the operating expenses of the site from the book profits, and if there's anything left over (hah) you call together all the contributors of content and say "Okay, we can send each of you a check for $1.50 (or whatever it winds up after getting divided by however many people have been active members) or you can just vote to reinvest it or give it away to charity"
It's more than just a question of money. People need to experiment with further refinements of the creative commons model so that it can make further inroads against the traditional we-own-your-soul copyright model.
--f1r3br4nd
(Please, please delete this if it's off topic to this page... I won't be offended. The thing about the wiki medium is I'm never sure if I'm butting into a private dialogue/monologue)
Tis entirely appropriate to comment on this here. It's interesting to toss around ideas of how to handle intellectual property — how to respect the creators, give them credit, give them part of any income, allow them some control over how it's used; and at the same time, encourage the widest dissemination of new ideas and encourage others to build on those ideas.
And if you're interested in copyright and copy wrongs, you might be interested in this:
"Collage as Cultural Practice seeks to examine interventionist collage practices in all media, with an emphasis on the social, political, and legal implications of this method of appropriation. The conference, taking place March 24–26, 2005, at the University of Iowa, will interrogate the political and social dimensions of collage as a practice that enables oppositional commentary across the cultural spectrum...."
--Kristin
You know, if you change your license to be hybrid, you'll be able to sell the stuff that gets written on the blog. You could self-publish it on http://lulu.com, for instance.
A hybrid license is something like creative commons. Except CC either flat out prohibits commercial use or gives blanket permission for all use including commercial. A hybrid license recognizes that these two markets are very different from each other. It says "You can copy and modify freely for personal use or non-commercial redistribution under the same terms as this license... but if you profit from copies or derivatives of this work then the authors get a royalty."
Actually, all CC licenses stipulate that the copyright holder can waive any of the clauses... and the hybrid model just takes it on step further and spells out under which conditions the copyright holder will waive these clauses without prejudice, and how much the copyright holder will expect to be compensated. If WasteFlake is selling stuff that got written on WasteFlake, it's probably much simpler-- you deduct the operating expenses of the site from the book profits, and if there's anything left over (hah) you call together all the contributors of content and say "Okay, we can send each of you a check for $1.50 (or whatever it winds up after getting divided by however many people have been active members) or you can just vote to reinvest it or give it away to charity"
It's more than just a question of money. People need to experiment with further refinements of the creative commons model so that it can make further inroads against the traditional we-own-your-soul copyright model.
--f1r3br4nd
(Please, please delete this if it's off topic to this page... I won't be offended. The thing about the wiki medium is I'm never sure if I'm butting into a private dialogue/monologue)
Tis entirely appropriate to comment on this here. It's interesting to toss around ideas of how to handle intellectual property — how to respect the creators, give them credit, give them part of any income, allow them some control over how it's used; and at the same time, encourage the widest dissemination of new ideas and encourage others to build on those ideas.
And if you're interested in copyright and copy wrongs, you might be interested in this:
"Collage as Cultural Practice seeks to examine interventionist collage practices in all media, with an emphasis on the social, political, and legal implications of this method of appropriation. The conference, taking place March 24–26, 2005, at the University of Iowa, will interrogate the political and social dimensions of collage as a practice that enables oppositional commentary across the cultural spectrum...."
--Kristin