iCommons Supports Open Video
Elizabeth S., Brooklyn, New York (United States) · 7/4/2009 04:36

Public Domain (http://www.icommons.org/publicdomain)

iCommons is proud to be one of the co-organizers of the upcoming Open Video Conference, and one of the founding members of the Open Video Alliance. The goal behind the event is to bring together an international coalition of educators, entrepreneurs, technologists, policymakers, activists, advocates, remixers, artists, academics, and others in support of openness in video. It will take place on June 19-20 in New York City at NYU Law School.

In doing so, we’re looking to launch an international movement for open video, and see the conference as only a starting point in the broader push for cultural engagement and freedom of expression in online video. If you’d like to get involved, get in touch at conference@openvideoalliance.org.

So, what exactly is open video?

Open Video is a broad based movement of video creators, technologists, academics, filmmakers, entrepreneurs, activists, remixers, and many others. When most folks think of “open,” they think of open source and open codecs. They’re right—but there’s more to Open Video than open codecs. Open Video is the growing movement for transparency, interoperability, and further decentralization in online video. These qualities provide more fertile ground for independent producers, bottom-up innovation, and greater protection for free speech online.

YouTube and other online video applications are rightly celebrated for empowering end-users; however, online video lacks some of the essential qualities that make text and images on the web such powerful tools for free speech and technical innovation. Email, blogs, and other staples of the open web rely on ubiquitous and interoperable technologies that have low barriers to entry; they are massively decentralized and resistant to censorship or regulation. Video, meanwhile, relies on centralized distribution and proprietary technologies which can threaten cultural discourse and innovation.

Open Video is about the legal and social norms surrounding online video. It’s the ability to attach the license of your choice to videos you publish. It’s about media consolidation, aggregation, and decentralization. It’s about fair use. In short, it’s about a lot of things, and that’s why this conference is going to be so exciting!

Stay tuned to the Open Video Conference blog and Twitter account for further updates.

We’re looking for companies or foundations or communities who may be interested in either being general sponsors (platinum, gold, silver or bronze) or funding individual elements of the event (e.g. a lunch or wifi or welcoming drinks etc).

Remember, this is an incredibly important event where people from over 50 countries get together to discuss the future of the Internet in education, culture, business and science. Find out more here.

Yet another feature of this year’s iCommons Summit will be the film-screening event, to be held on the evening of 14 June. We are looking for films that are either CC-licensed free culture works, or challenge the boundaries of copyright law. Priority will be given to recent releases or works that are yet to be premiered. Due to the limited screening time we have available, we will not be screening films longer than an hour.

We invite you to suggest films or videos that fit the above criteria, and that you would like to see screened at the iSummit. If you’re a filmmaker yourself, feel encouraged to propose your own work. Add your suggestions to the iCommons wiki, here.

Please note that the total screening time is two hours, and we will only be able to screen works in digital formats from a computer or DVD player.

The deadline to add suggestions to the wiki page is Saturday 29 April.

The selection of the films to be screened at the event will take place as a public discussion on our IRC channel (#icommons), on the freenode IRC server (irc.freenode.net) at 16:00 GMT on Saturday 4 May.

Now this is not to say our online interactions are not appreciated ‘ without our community and the technology that glues us together, we would not be able to do even half of what we do - but let’s face the fact that at the end of the day, meeting in person is a type of ‘Prodigal Son’ experience. I suppose this is why the iCommons Summit is the highlight of our commons efforts every year. In fact ‘community’ is what we here at iCommons, are all about. That’s why the presentations at the Digital Freedom Expo were of such interest to us ‘ we could find out more about the workings of other communities around the world.

For example (Jimmy Wales pointed this out in his presentation), did you know that from 5 December 2005, 13 922 articles have been added to the Wikia project, ‘Muppet wiki‘? That’s a whole lot of enthusiasts devoted to contributing to the wealth of knowledge about Muppets. As Jimmy said, the strength of Wikipedia is invested in the communities who contribute to them, not necessarily the technology. The benefit here is in the social interaction or process. And when it comes to a whole lot of people interacting on such a huge platform, the key to success is trust. Jimmy commented that he needs to hold on to the assumption that most people want to be helpful, and based on that assumption, and through this culture of trust, a strong community bond can be created, as is evident through Wikipedia’s success.

Talking about community building, though with many more facts and figures, and graphs, was Rishab Ghosh who presented his findings on the economics of open source software, based on the paper titled the ‘Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector in the EU“. Rishab had a huge amount of information to present, thankfully the paper can be downloaded for more detailed reading, but there were two interesting points he made.

Firstly, through the study, Rishab found that the skills gained by being involved in FOSS projects could compensate for the lack of a formal degree or training, as employers highly valued the skills acquired through the collaborative process integral to this community where one learns by doing, such as mastering how to work in a team, and management skills. This is an interesting observation, as we see that people too are at the heart of sharing information in FOSS projects, and that this community is seen as a place for learning and developing skills, and through this collaboration better training can take place that is, very importantly, valued by future employers.

Secondly, in terms of innovation, Rishab discovered that industry saves over 36% in software research and development investments. Rishab highlighted an interesting example of how Nokia saved ‘�900 million on the development of the Nokia N770 by using an open source platform for these handheld devices, which are neither smart phones, nor laptops nor PDAs, but are ‘versatile wireless devices’. Nokia used the Maemo development platform, and as stated in the report: ‘the software is available to third parties under the FLOSS licenses corresponding to each package, and Nokia encourages others to use and improve it, expecting that it ‘will result in a feature rich, mature and well-supported software base that could evolve as a de-facto standard for Linux handheld via the open source process.'’

Nokia used the power of collaboration to launch a product that was experimental and risky, it saved on research and development costs, but also focused on developing other innovations (such as a clear colour display, an important feature of the tablet) ‘ the device was a hit and sold out quickly in the US and Europe. And that’s thanks to a huge amount of individuals, organisations and companies who came to the party - numbers revealed if Nokia had undertaken this project on their own, internally, it would have taken under 12 000 person years to develop. It may seems that Nokia is the only winner in this example, or maybe not? As was explained in the report, Nokia’s contributions on Maemo have now also benefited other FLOSS users ‘ especially in areas where Nokia has expertise, such as Linux Bluetooth functionality. Rishab’s example is also a very important one as it shows how FLOSS is being used as a Research and Development substitution mechanism.

So, in both the Wikipedia and FLOSS communities, it’s a matter of share and share-alike, but most importantly, for the benefit of research, development, and human knowledge. Back to the streets of Cape Town, we were overwhelmed with the support at our Bring ‘n Braai ccSalon at the Armchair Theatre. It was fantastic to meet the people who are part of the iCommons community on a local level, perhaps some day soon there will be studies done on how we interact and get projects done. In the meantime, let’s keep sharing our stories through this website, let’s keep chatting through e-mails and Skype conversations, and let’s keep hitting that ‘enter’ button to build a stronger community based on trust, in the pursuit of free knowledge, culture and education.

Photographs:
Larry and Heather at the Digital Freedom Expo, by Lucio K, CC BY 2.5
Jimmy Wales at the Digital Freedom Expo, JC Bukenya, CC BY 2.5
Some of the iCommons staff members at the Digital Freedom Expo, by Lucio K, CC BY 2.5

OK Folks,

Schmatler and Waldhead are back again with some more words of wisdom on why we think people contribute to open source software projects and whether we can take lessons from this and apply it to other forms of creativity. In case you missed our introduction you can check it out here.

Now, why, you might ask, are we spending our valuable time writing about why people freely give away the fruits of their hard work, and then give away the fruits of our hard work to - you? One of the main reasons is that we dig it - it’s fun to sit down, debate, discuss, disagree, and go through the whole process of producing these articles. It’s not really work - it’s more like a hobby for us.

And that’s exactly what writing software feels like for many of the geeks who share their code in open source software projects. In fact, Waldhead is one of them, and he will sit in front of that machine for hours and hours on a beautiful late summer Sunday evening like yesterday (just a hypothetical example, of course), simply because he enjoys it so much. The pay-off for him lies in the process itself, not in the compensation he receives for the result of his work - in this case the
software he is working on.

If you look at flickr.com (or any of the other photo sharing websites) it seems that people feel the same way about other things, like taking photos. Ever since the invention of the camera people have taken photos. In the past, these were captured on film and then printed so we could re-visit moments we had experienced or take a second look at a view we had enjoyed. Most people did not take pictures because they were looking to get rich - they took pictures because they enjoyed it - not like a job, but like a hobby. It’s the same way today, except we’ve fast-forwarded to a world where photos are information goods (remember the first article we wrote) and can be sent around the internet and you realise the huge number of people who take photos for fun. On flickr alone, there are currently around 30 million photos that are available under Creative Commons licences. While most of these photographers do not want anyone to use their photos commercially, they do not mind if you download, print, modify or share them. They already got their kicks from taking and having the photos, but sharing them only makes it better.

Related to the hobby argument, is something that people often refer to as the “scratching an itch” theory. A few years ago, Eric Raymond wrote one of the first articles about open source development processes called The Cathedral and the Bazaar (which has been referenced by pretty much everyone discussing the subject since then, so we thought we would go with the flow and reference it too!)

In the article he said that many open source projects started with the need to scratch an itch. Since we all know that computer geeks live on pizza and coke and rarely sleep or shower (Waldhead is, of course the big exception, he does not like coke) we feared that Eric was making an inappropriate comment about personal hygiene. However, Eric was using it as a metaphor for developing a software application that the developer needs him, or herself (which means that we can take full credit for turning it into an inappropriate comment about personal hygiene).

In other words, when Waldhead comes up with a super new idea for a piece of software he would like to use but can’t find that software anywhere (or it exists but in a proprietary form, or it is written in a programming language he doesn’t like, or it only runs on a certain operating system) he starts to itch. Like when someone puts that trick itching powder down the back of Schmatler’s shirt or shorts (was that you Waldhead?!?) and the only way to alleviate the pain is for him to scratch like mad - in this case that’s done by writing that piece of software yourself. Once the itch has been satisfied the next step is to wonder if other people might have the same itch, and so by giving the software away they won’t have to do any scratching themselves. Or one might find a group of people ‘itching’ to work on the same problem together and this leads to a group scratch of people collaborating on solving it. Even better, sometimes a bunch of people have a similar itch, but they can’t reach that one particularly itchy spot on their back (you might not know how to program a particular kind of feature), but someone else can reach it, and scratching together turns out to be a lot more fun and produces great results, faster.

Now, you might think it is a little more difficult to apply the ’scratching an itch’ metaphor to taking photos, since software usually serves a practical purpose and we just argued that many people take pictures not for practical reasons, but mostly because they enjoy it. However, if you think about the itch more broadly, then taking a photo (or making a piece of music, painting a picture, writing a story) is just like scratching a creative itch you might have. Humans want to express themselves and be creative, and outlets for this creativity range from writing software to taking photos with many other forms of expression in-between.

Admittedly, this week’s article has been a bit hippie-hobby-good-vibes-and-sunshine (and body odour), but don’t worry! Next week we can turn back to the darker side of the human psyche and look at self-promotion and maybe a bit of attention seeking as reasons for creating and sharing. Of course neither of these apply to your hosts in any way. With best regards,

“Oh well, at least its over now”
“What are you talking about, it’s only just beginning!”
“Oh why are we doomed to suffer? And why are those people watching voluntarily?!”

Your hosts,

Schmatler & Waldhead

Photograph: ‘Local dog scratching’, Josh Russel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Photograph: ‘Turning the tables’, Janesdead, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Photograph: ‘There’s no time like show time’, by Sel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Over time, many models were conceived, adapted, modified and maybe abandoned altogether until the models most fit to match the applicable copyright regimes (and physical distributions limitations) were widely adopted. Because CC was introduced more recently, it has to tackle the challenge of developing viable business models that align well with its underpinning philosophy, while at the same time provide an acceptable alternative to traditional models.

The Western approach to create, market and distribute content was largely influenced by the mass production phenomena that dominated the rise of industrial nations in the previous century. This, in turn, has resulted in the creation of a hit culture where success is measured by the number of copies sold and where the labels exerted significant power over authors and artists. Consequently, profits were largely appropriated by the labels, and not by the original creators of the artistic works. In other parts of the world where these media supply chains were less developed than in the West, artists had to creatively search for appropriate business models that align with their local contexts. In exploring possible business models to promote the commons, much can be learned from a comparative study of other models around the world.

Dr. Nagla Rizk, a professor of economics at the American University of Cairo (AUC), has been doing research into the dynamics of the music industry in the Arab world. Her studies proved to be significantly different from the way things are done in the West. In her research, Dr. Rizk examined the Arab music business through data collection, interviews and qualitative analysis. The research has revealed interesting insights that explain the co-existence of a strong gift culture and a thriving music industry. Many Arab artists make their works available for free on the internet and tolerate ‘piracy’ of these works to a certain degree. Although there are IPR regimes and legislation in almost every Arab country, domestic piracy rates are estimated at 50% in Egypt and about 25-50% in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ‘ so enforcement of these copyright laws is what really matters. Dr. Rizk found that this type of distribution channel functions mainly as a ‘reputation’ device by increasing artists’ popularity. Artists can then capitalise on their popularity by conducting live performances, ranging from wedding parties to large concerts.

Live performance constitutes the lion share of the Arab artists’ income. Dr. Rizk reported figures of US$ 40 000 per wedding for star artists, and an average of US$1 000 for less famous singers or small bands. These figures translate into a ratio of performance income to sales of copyrighted materials averaging 4.5 for superstars and 13.2 for underground artists.

The richness in social culture in the Arab world and the density of social ties and networks are also significant factors that have led to the emergence of these alternative business models. In these socially rich environments, one cannot refuse to copy a CD for a friend or a relative simply because that would violate copyright laws. Actually, in the context of the Arab world, copyright laws may be perceived as disruptive to social norms. Dr. Rizk concludes with a few recommendations to tap into these naturally supportive business models to formalise the commons in the Arab world. She calls for more flexible IPR regimes to support the evolution of the business models that have stood the test of time, and to prevent any disruption to the market dynamics that may arise from implementing Western copycat approaches without thoughtful consideration of local contexts.

Two initiatives that would support these developments, were mentioned by Dr Rizk. The first is the Arab Commons project to promote a CC culture and encourage Arab intellectuals and artists to release their works under flexible copyright terms. The second initiative is the bi-monthly free concert SOS Music Festival held in Cairo for the sole purpose of promoting underground musicians, as they do not receive the attention of big labels. Another promising initiative is the ‘Kawalees Masr‘ (literally translated as ‘Backstage Egypt’) release, this is a compilation of songs from underground musicians, distributed free of charge in Egypt to promote the participating bands.

Dr Rizk argues that the models that emerged in the Arab music industry pay justice to creators by balancing the powers of distribution. There are lessons that can be learned from these models, and from other such models from around the world.

See, Larry Lessig and Jimmy Wales, internet visionaries and all round party animals will be the guests of honour at a party that is kind of a salon, kind of a creative swap-meet, kind of a showcase. In South Africa we like to call these kinds of events ‘braais’. Which is like a barbecue, but with a lot more attitude and bigger flames.

As well as Jimmy and Larry, local bands Cabins in the Forest and Closet Snare will show off their skills, and DJ Whispa, the winner of the South African leg of the SafroBrazilain remix contest will take to the decks, as well as his Brazilian twin, Lucio-K, who will be winging his way out from Rio de Janeiro to perform as well.

Think you can handle that? Well handle this: a Freedom Toaster will also be on site at the party, so South African creators can upload, download, remix and share any and all creations be it art, music, text or code.

Date: 20th April, 2007
Time: 20:00, sharp, mate.
Place: The Independent Armchair Theatre, Lower Main Road, Observatory, Cape Town.
Bring: Yourself, your creations, your wallet.

It’s going to kick’�.

Hello iCommoners,

Your hosts Schmatler and Waldhead checking in with the start of a discussion about why people contribute to open source software projects and whether the factors that motivate them to collaborate and share can be applied to other creative endeavours. As you can see from the picture to the left and our adopted names, we don’t want this taken as hard science even though we might occasionally be citing academic articles or adding a bit of our own empirical research. We’re opinionated and we are planning to lean quite far out of our comfortable theatre booth occasionally, but we like to think that these are informed opinions seeing as we work in the open source software field and also have interests in other forms of creativity like music, film, art etc. We want to get a dialogue going that relatively non-geeky people can follow, and perhaps even inject a bit of humour along the way.

There is some useful research on why people contribute to open source software projects, but we are aware that in some cases there will be a paradigm mismatch and that not everything from the software world applies - this is where you creative commons types involved in other fields come in. We will present what we think are motivating factors for sharing based on our software experience and we will try to extrapolate from these to other creative arts, but if you have other thoughts or disagreements we are open to these, bring ‘em on.

Before we jump into the details though, we need to briefly mention the two foundations that underpin the kind of sharing and collaborating we are speaking about here. Firstly, we are dealing with information goods. Information goods can be stored, manipulated and sent around as digital files - like music (e.g. mp3’s), books (e.g. PDF’s), software, etc. What distinguishes them from other goods, is that they are “non-rival”, which means Schmatler can give Waldhead an electronic copy of a song he wrote, without loosing his original copy - in the end both Schmatler and Waldhead have a copy of the song (which, given Schmatler’s musical talents might not necessarily be a good thing). That means sharing information goods is very different from sharing sandwiches (ask Schmatler to share his sandwich with Waldhead and you’ll see just how different). Secondly, more people are getting access to computers and the Internet, which means more people have the tools to produce music, make films, write books and share them electronically with the whole Internet at very low cost. This means there is all of a sudden a much larger community of potential creators and users.

We have come up with the following as the major reasons why people contribute to open source software projects, and over the next few months we will be looking at each of these in more detail and discussing how (and in some cases if) these apply to other forms of creativity:

• Scratching your own itch (we won’t ask where it’s itching)
• Hobbies (bring out that secret stamp collection!)
• Self-promotion (look at me, I am awesome)
• Attention seeking (please look at me, I really really am awesome)
• Financial remuneration (I want to see the cash first!)
• Improving skills (who needs a university degree anyway?)
• Harnessing other people’s input (the African concept of ubuntu)
• Altruism (don’t look to Schmatler and Waldhead for inspiration here, we are cold-hearted, cynical old grumpers)
• Ideology (I said: IDEOLOGY!!!)

If anyone out there on the commons feels that we have left something out, feel free to comment on this article and let us know.

Of course people typically don’t get involved for just one of these reasons, it’s usually a combination of them. For simplicities’ sake we will be looking at them more or less individually in the next few articles ‘ to keep the thoughts in digestible bite-sized pieces and to avoid writing an article that scares off those with short attention spans. So, on that appetite-inducing note we’re going to leave with a quote from our Muppet friends…

‘This show is awful!’

‘Terrible!’

‘Disgusting!’

‘See you next week?’

‘Of course’

Schmatler and Waldhead

Photograph: ‘There’s no time like show time’, by Sel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

According to Barnes, changing capitalism to address these problems is a long-term project (30 to 50 years). Central to this premise is the reality of the commons. The main danger to the commons is enclosure, which benefits a few and takes from many - for instance, taking water from a river or lake and dumping pollutants after an industrial process. Barnes sees a need to expand the number of variety of commons that already exist - or could, given sufficient public will and legislative changes. Some of the common resources include those in nature (forests, the air, and water) but also the radio spectrum, aspects of culture and knowledge, an equitable health care system, the internet, and social security. He devotes a large part of the book to explaining how these might work, their relation to corporations, and the need for birthrights for people in various commons. On a small scale the Alaska Permanent Fund is a good example of a variation on a land trust. Residents of the state get an annual payment from the payments into the state coffers by the oil companies drilling on Alaskan land. In 2006 the sum was $1106.96.

I enjoyed the chapter on sharing culture because a theme of my work since 1990 has been the desire to digitize and spread all sorts of digital information and works. This is being carried on in different places, notably by the Internet Archive, collectives in Europe and Asia (some of whom believe intellectual property is an oxymoron), and various ‘open’ projects supported by foundations like Hewlett, Sloan, and the Open Society Institute. The underlying infrastructure to store and move this information is based on the internet, ever cheaper storage options (hard drives, optical discs) and low cost access to these resources. The unlicensed public spectrum has become extremely popular in the countries where it is legal, wi-fi is just one example of this spectrum commons.

Just as I was reading the chapter on “Building the Commons Sector” I was wondering what Second Life would be like were it not a commercial enterprise run by a dot com. What if it were more like Burning Man where different rules apply to those participating. Barnes talks about his son playing Sim City and wonders what Sim Commons would be like. His diagram of the new commons sector included managed global commons, lists of national, regional, and local ones, as well as open cultural commons. His final chapter encourages each of us to get involved, and I think back to my own work from the late 80’s to the mid-90’s with electronic community networks which I called “electronic greenbelts” alluding to the no-build zones in urban areas that were, in effect, commons even though nobody was grazing sheep. These were not entirely successful, but they did pave the way for involvement in other projects for public access and the current wave of municipal and rural wireless networks being deployed.

I hope this book is read and critiqued, especially by social activists who are critical of capitalism. I look forward to their reactions.

Barnes and his publisher agreed to distribute a free version of this new title, yet they hope it will be a commercial success through the sales of the hardback version. Certainly, it is cheaper to download the PDF file, skim it on screen, but to read the whole version, most will prefer reading a printed format and not on a PDA or mobile phone or even a large LCD screen. More information at the Capitalism 3.0 website.

Pictures: Anti-capitalism for sale, by Cody Simms, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

These illustrations are made possible thanks to an incredibly supportive company based in Japan, called Loftwork. Every month we work closely with a Loftwork illustrator, to conceptualise and create a cover that is eye-catching, yet thought provoking and relevant. These images are donated to the commons by Loftwork, under a CC Attribution licence, so please feel free to reuse and remix them.

So, while the name ‘Loftwork’ does ring a bell, we know they’re from Japan, and we know they provide iCommons with a fascinating front cover every month - but what is Loftwork actually about, and who drives this organisation? Well, this month we found out more about Chiaki Hayashi, a visionary businesswoman, commons supporter, and co-founder of Loftwork.

1. To begin - what is Loftwork?

Loftwork is a leading creative agency in Japan with more than 7 000 registered creators, including web and graphic designers, illustrators, photographers and fine artists.

With such a wide network, Loftwork offers a creator-matching service for companies who are in need of artists for their projects. We manage the creator-matching process through a database, where Loftwork staff can search for suitable creators with various search options, arranged by price range, portfolios, work reference and artists’ capability with certain software. Loftwork also provides various creative solutions.

2. What motivated you to start Loftwork?

In 1999, I was living in New York, working as a business reporter for a Japanese newswire service. When I did research about eBay, I was so impressed by its business model. Matching people’s needs, particularly over the internet, generates new value for goods, and that sounded so wonderful to me. When I thought of the market in Japan, I realized that we were missing opportunities there for providing creative works. Thus, I decided to found Loftwork with my friend in 2000.

3. How did you gather the many creators - illustrators, designers and artists, under Loftwork’s wings?

As we were just a tiny venture company, we didn’t use any advertising, but expanded our network only through word-of-mouth communication. Loftwork focuses on the benefits for creators, avoiding any non-core business opportunities such as putting ads on the site.

I believe that this attitude has gained us trust from our creators. Now 7,400 professional creators are registered.

4. That is an interesting approach, as I think many would consider advertising as ‘core’ to their business ‘ tell us more about this model.

Our focus is to provide useful information and tools for creators. That focus sometimes creates conflicts with advertisers. Traditionally adverts should be placed in the best position on the website, but we believe creators’ latest activities deserve this spot. In addition, by not accepting adverts on our site, we can concentrate on providing information that is valuable for creators.

5. What motivated you to adopt CC licences for use by Loftwork?

One of the big issues to overcome when dealing with creators’ work is copyright. Existing copyright law is too protective and complicated. On the other hand, no restrictions would mean putting creators in danger of getting ripped off. When I was trying to find a solution, I discovered CC. It is quite a practical option, which enables creators to distribute their works widely and become popular.

6. So how are the licences used?

As I mentioned previously, providing a secure place for creators’ activity is a good enough reason for Loftwork to adopt CC. We use CC for freely downloadable content for non-business clients from loftwork.com. However, we have a challenge to use CC for commercial, paid-for creations. If it works, CC would help us reduce costs for legal affairs. Loftwork will keep accommodating CC for both non-commercial and commercial creations, and using CC licences in the business field is our next hurdle.

7. Tell us about a current ’sharing’ culture amongst creators in Japan?

A good example of a remarkable sharing culture in Japan, is seen in the Manga field, which is a Japanese comic drawing style. “Comic Market” is held in Tokyo twice a year, where more than 400 000 people gather and share their amateur works (people call them “otaku’). Most of their works are remixes of popular Mangas. It is quite a unique sharing culture in Japan.

8. What is your background? Business or art? Or both?

Business. (You don’t want to see my drawings!)

Seriously, business people are complementary to creators because they are capable of dealing with what creators tend to overlook or just can’t seem to handle. Thus, Loftwork is not a “creators guild” but a “creators support unit”.

9. What do you think can be done to better unify the relationship between art and business?

We need to foster artists by letting them understand that art should be business - art flourishes not only through non-monetary activities, such as corporate philanthropy, but also by business activities such as art auctions, Mangas and such. If there is value to an artwork, it can be transformed into money. Thus, it’s not difficult to make business from art, like we have.

10. What has the process of creating the monthly cover illustrations for the iCommons Lab Report taught you? What value has it added to Loftwork?

Our activities were limited to Japan until we started these types of CC collaboration. At the beginning, we were worried that what we think is good might not be seen as such by the rest of the world. After providing three cover illustrations, we are getting more confident with our creations, and we are becoming more conscious of the commons out there.

Chiaki’s Favourites
Food: Strawberries
Artist: Fine artist Yayoi Kusama
Holiday destination: New York
Friday evening activity: Drinking, eating and dating
Hobby: I love reading books so much!

Photograph: Chiaki Hayashi, by chiaki0808, CC BY 2.0�