A Case Study in IP arising in Art/Science Performance Research and Transdisciplinary Collaboration
A Case Study in IP arising in Art/Science Performance Research and Transdisciplinary Collaboration
A Case Study in IP arising in Art/Science Performance Research and Transdisciplinary Collaboration
Author: Josie E. Davis
Date: November 15, 2012
In this paper, I will discuss the projects and practice of the art/science research collective Davis & Strathmann. I will use Davis & Strathmann as a sample case study in transdisciplinary, collaborative, practice-based performance and design research with a unique history of unresolved trademark and intellectual property conflicts between members. I will consider the history of two projects, Sink and Hunter/Symbiosis, as an example of work conceived by the author and developed as part of a collective mobile exchange between the U.S. and Argentina and, later, as part of a six-week art/science residency at the Helen Riaboff Whiteley Center at Friday Harbor Laboratories. I will focus on the expertise of the collective in audio and media production, performance and critical studies, visual design and specifically, on the application of these practices toward the field of art/science research.
Issues arising from shared practice including divergent views on the role of performance as documentation, mutual access to photography and media archives, process versus product, ethics and professional discourse, and transparency are examined in the context of these works, with attention to the dissemination of the collective and role of the author in retaining artistic ownership of image rights, concept application, and administrative access. In particular, this study will examine a series of unresolved IP challenges facing the author over a period of two months following the end of the residency at Friday Harbor Labs including the abuse of online administrative permissions, exploitation, irresponsive behavior toward the collective identity, threats of legal action and IP misconduct in regard to the exhibition of future work, subversive efforts to deface fundraising platforms, and the withholding of media for personal gain. Furthermore, this study will examine the actions by both members that contributed to these issues, how certain actions may have been avoided, and steps currently taken by the author to prevent the recurrence of IP conflict and to protect future stages of these and additional works. In closing, the study will offer suggested actions for how these lessons can be observed and utilized by transdisciplinary collaborations seeking to avoid IP conflict in their respective field.
In 2010, the author (Davis) began a two year transnational collaboration (her creative partner will herein be referred to in the context of “the collective” or “the collaboration”) that later dissolved in response to an unresolved dispute over the joint-authorship of work. This dispute coincides with the presiding and, increasingly common in SEAD, issue of intellectual property rights. Without practical communication platforms, cross-disciplinary environments lack the common ground needed to sustain innovation ”” this paper reevaluates these and other issues, focusing on how a rise in distrust can be resolved through sustainable and efficient research practices. I will place this conversation in the context of two projects, Sink and Symbiosis, addressing the relationship between process and product, success and failure. Finally, I will address roadblocks, strategies, and approaches for conflict resolution and an overall understanding of copyright and trademark rights as they apply to individuals working jointly in the creative domain.
II. THE COLLECTED WORKS ”” PROJECTS
What is interactivity, I thought, but expertise in structuring and restructuring complex and shifting relationships; what is parallel processing but expertise in handling multiple simultaneous events, skillfully choreographing continuous and interruptible tasks; what in the cybernetic and surveyed body/self but one that can sustain integrity with blurred boundaries and even multiple bodies and identities as in the case of childbearing? (Richards 1996: 259)
The Collective’s first experiment, Hunter-Symbiosis, responds to the need to “explore a new body” (Richards 1996:258) through the performance and documentary-analysis of human-microbial relationship. The project sought out the inherent and emerging social pathologies erupting from what could at best be coined the symbiotic collision of two dissimilar organisms or acts, and the resulting performances belonging to such type of gesture.
The relationship between “disciplinary formations, disciplinary subjects, and their objects of study” (Kirshenbalt-Gimbaltt 1999: 47) informs and challenges preconditioned behaviors of normalcy in an economy of social contagion evolving from this symbiotic threshold. Davis sought to disarm and engage the audience in public space by examining the absurdity of “living-with”: documenting her relationship with a mycelial growth (herein referred to as “Hunter”) as a prosthetic extension of the artist’s body. As in a multitude of performance works, the public space functions as an arena for spectacular interpretation, where the audience is an active participant in the determination of work that is both art and science.
Materials & Methods
The experiment recorded the growth of four mycelial sub-types on a 1/8″ malt agar growth medium: P. ostreatus (blue and white oyster), Hericium erinaceus (lion’s mane) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast). Each sub-type was selected based on the following considerations: (1) widespread and reproducible growth within a 2-3 week time frame (2) aesthetic appeal (3) hazards to human health (respiratory and immune), as open studio facilities led to the inevitable influx of bacteria. Under these conditions, the project was viewed as a pilot – an experiment supporting further investigations: oyster mushroom sub-types proved the most adaptable and widespread, with fuzzy white growth patterns marked by red, blue, purple and green “splotches” of bacteria. Runs extended from 3 ”” 14 days.
Malt agar was used as a growth medium and as a protective coating between Hunter and Davis. When transferred to the body (cheekbone, torso, left arm and hand), the agar dried into a transparent film layering the skin but not entirely visible to the spectator. To this effect, Hunter became a reflection of the spectator’s own comfort in developing a relationship with (each other) and the work. The relationship was defined as everything and nothing ”” a performance, an infection, bad make-up, an open wound. While this could be coined as an early “success”, Davis has since considered additional methods for growing Hunter directly on the body with and without a growth medium.
The experiment concluded on June 12-13 with a two-day photo shoot and performance at a local farmer’s market and three additional locations across the Island. As vendors and Island residents interacted with Davis, this fear of not-knowing became a kind of viral social contagion. Davis treated the “situation” as normal and challenged the spectator to do the same, focusing her attention on commonplace activities like shopping for vegetables and talking with locals. Particular attention was paid to the gesture: purchases, shaking hands, hugs, tasting food samples, physical exchanges driven by the desire to “fit in” that amplified the performance. The team shot between 1,500 and 2,000 still life portrait (unedited) of Davis and Hunter at sites including the market: a private and locally owned pond; the floor of an unfurnished concrete basement; and portraits of Davis and Hunter in the studio at the labs.
Living-with can be understood as an awareness that the [said] object is a construct of both affect and emotion and is therefore an agent of desire:
“I’m having a lot of difficulty naming the organism ” [I]t feels strange, talking [to something]. Because, as I said before, it isn’t a plant or an appendage ” [I]f I name something, we become affiliated in a domestic, human way. We are present.” (Davis 2012)
Davis describes her relationship to Hunter as an emotional attachment evolving between the (1) remote object/subject (2) nurturing/maternal caregiver/child/sibling and (3) spouse-domestic agent (2012). Davis treated the studio “lab” space as both home and work – sharing meals, reading the paper, listening to the radio, checking temperatures and humidity rates, running the autoclave, indulging in a dance party ”” actions that, on any given day, might be a way to nurture or pass the time. These actions reflected growing sentiments between Davis and Hunter and the simultaneous discord felt between participating members of the Collective, an issue that is discussed later in the context of diverging processes and outcomes in the work.
What does it mean to re-produce objects of function and is it worth exploring a relationship to the utilitarian as an object of decay? To what extent is our universal relationship to the object defined by permanence and function? The construction of an over sized acoustic “instrument” through which the spectator shares in the temporary decay of the object, Sink put these and other relationships into question. More architectural modeling than a performance in space, Sink is an investigation of both temporality and function in utilitarian design and acoustics. Early conversations wrapped around how and where to place the work and how landscape and ecology shaped the acoustic and conceptual drive of the piece. Both urban and coastal sites were considered, inviting the audience to intrude or stumble upon the work through the unexpected.
Materials & Methods
Ecovative Design® (see the company website http://www.ecovativedesign.com) is an advanced start-up design and manufacturing firm specializing in the supply and demand of biodegradable household mycelium products. In 2011, the firm expressed an interest in the project; leading to a two year engagement and site visit during which both teams discussed the short and long-term logistical measures behind the fabrication of gallery models and scalable designs. Production and modeling of Sink, was halted in June 2012 due to the unanticipated two-week shipping delay of over 40 cubic feet raw materials from New York to Washington. Resulting in 10 days of non-refrigerated conditions, the materials were overheated and environmentally distraught when arriving at the studio with less than a week remaining for the experimentation, design, manufacturing, and shipment of two models back to Chicago. (Davis/Ecovative, pers. comm.). Regardless of the circumstances, the residency provided ample time to flush out designs and test early stage fabrication. Wood pallets and PBC piping were recycled and fabricated to create internal casings, molds, and frames. The two models in part reflected the subtle thematic and design deviations between the two artists: a tube or vessel channeling bodies and sound through an entry/exit; plumbing fashioned after bull kelp; a larger than life acoustic instrument. Davis has since enrolled in an architecture seminar at the University of Illinois Chicago exploring new tools and design options for the piece.
II. Issues and Action
Sink and Hunter-Symbiosis offer an integrated approach to the cross-humanities and sciences; not only in the concept and fabrication of transdisciplinary practices but in reevaluating methods of communication best suited for making these kinds of projects a success. This paper will now address selected roadblocks encountered by the author and proposed methods for action: (1) improving communication and trust via [trans]national and -disciplinary research practices (2) “product” versus “process” driven decision making and the dissemination of the collective approach (3) fundraising ethics and crowd-source platforms (4) joint-ownership and IP image use rights and (5) web transparency and permissions.
Transnationalism fosters cross-disciplinary engagements and in-depth perspectives between individuals and groups in the arts, sciences, and humanities to which the localized collaboration is otherwise not exposed (Salter and Wei 2005). Sink and Hunter-Symbiosis evolved from a discourse between two members who at the time lived in the U.S. (Chicago) and Argentina (Buenos Aires), respectively, generating a two-year chain of emails, chats, skype calls, design sketches, and other. Issues arose as these “non co-present methods” (Salter and Wei 2005) off set the reality that the collective had only met once in passing whereas the bulk of the collective development occurred online. Davis re-located to Chicago later in 2012, although face-to-face methods for communication did not mirror the efficiency of the mobile relationship already in place. In other words, the collaboration suffered something similar to a long distance e-couple meeting for the first or second time in real-time and space. Without the ability to communicate effectively in real-time, the varied perspectives and preferences for design resulted in a complex, under-realized and overly conceptual collaborative framework:
“Fundamental challenges facing communities of interest are found in building a shared understanding of the task at hand (which often does not exist upfront, but is evolved incrementally and collaboratively) ” Members of communities of interest need to learn to communicate with and learn from others who have a different perspective and perhaps a different vocabulary for describing their ideas. [They need to] establish a common ground and a shared understanding.” (Ernesto Arias 1996) (Salter and Wei 2005)
The Collective assumed their shared practice by combining disciplinary and theoretic expertise not limited to audio production, visual design and multi-media fabrication, performance and critical race studies, public art, and the voice; art/science practices not withstanding. Hunter-Symbiosis was developed as live performance but, more importantly, a multi-media documentation poised for exhibition (museum, gallery, web portfolios, etc). All components of the work from equipment rental to blogging contributed to this anticipated outcome. Similarly, Sink was, at its earliest invention, a literal “sink large enough to sing inside of,” (Davis/Greenleaf 2009) while evolving into a scalable acoustic “instrument.” But is the success of a collaboration quantifiable only by these kinds of linear results or, rather, by a series of [learned] failures and processes from which the result is achieved:
“The work on ‘sink’ in Friday Harbor was, in some ways, a documented failure, while my understanding of ‘Symbiosis’ is now infinitely more resolute …. more importantly, things happened ” [T]he success is in the result of everything I didn’t plan.” (Davis 2012)
Judith Thomsen Klein suggests that “Transdisciplinarity is simultaneously an attitude and a form of action.” (Klein 521 2004). In other words, both the desire for action and the act itself must be present in order for research to be considered a success. But how does a collaboration create work that may or may not collectively “synthesize” in order to reach a cohesive means to an end (All Collaboration 2010, Klein 2004: 519-523). In other words, how deeply embedded are we in the work we make? Residencies in particular require the emotional and physical commitment of the individual in building trust and performing a common goal: “[C]ollaborative residencies are much like living with your significant other, and that is to say, do you really want to live with someone so soon?” (Davis 2012). Davis’ investment to each project intensified as communication within the collective became increasingly vague and tense. Davis believed that the abbreviated timeframe with regard to materials offset the pressure to produce [said result] and to focus instead on 1) presenting high quality documentation and exhibition of Hunter-Symbiosis and 2) crafting and reevaluating a cohesive design and fabrication strategy of Sink that could be applied to forthcoming proposals. (De Jong 2010). The residency and the months preceding were self-documented by Davis through low-resolution photography, blogging, sketches, extensive journal entries, and video/hand held audio clips in a relationship that is both a product of conception and an experimental act (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1999). Without any particular goal in mind, these “outtake” archives reflect the increasing dysfunction within the collective while exhibiting Davis’ emotional attachment to the work and the desire to interact with residents and researchers – prompting further investigations within each project:
Undertaking to perform the experiment remains highly valuable, investigative study, acting on a trial basis. It will become obvious that getting the experiment to work demands a great deal of embodied capabilities, many of which are no longer known at all well. Therefore success in repeating the trial depends above all on the improvisational work and knowledge of the researcher ” gestural knowledge in doing the experiment represents a resource in its own right, which complements the usually static representations of past practices like historical texts and material objects. Doing the experiment, and recognizing the troubles encountered in getting it to work, creating an awareness of the behavior of the historical experimenter and the practices, possibly unarticulated, which are indispensable for the performance of the experiment. (Sibum 1995: 28)(BKG 1999: 49)
In other words, the risk involved is in the capacity of a team to perform and embrace the unknowns in an act that translates concept and more importantly, does.
It is also possible that both members of the collaboration fell on opposite sides of the “trust continuum” (see All Collaboration “Building and Sustaining Trust”). As is an issue in many collaborations whose early stage development is defined by distance and/or discipline, each participant held strong preferences for how to build a slow and steadfast ”” but trustworthy ”” relationship. Collaborations are defined by the individual pooling of talents, past experiences and future goals (All Collaboration). As is the case here, trust does not always develop overnight, and any number of activities can be cause to remove the individual from collective accountability and invite distrust into the collaboration.
One of these acts is the subversive and unpronounced termination of a fundraising campaign launched by the Collective in the spring of 2012. In June 2011, the collective received joint 501c3 status through the fiscal agent Fractured Atlas, stating that the two artists would likely pursue additional collaborations in the future and therefore profit from a wider net of funding options. (Hubbard, e-mail messages to author, May 2011). The following year, the team planned and launched a month long Kickstarter campaign to supplement additional project expenses for the work described in this paper. If used correctly, crowdfunding saves costs and alleviates many of the small tensions and administrative “to-do’s” on a long list of deadlines by generating funds from vast numbers of people with a common interest in helping a charity, creative, or software-savvy project reach its goal. However, the outcome of this type of funding is unpredictable to say the least, either in the amount of money raised or the credibility of a design (see HongKiat.com on “Crowdsourcing: Pros, Cons, and More”).
Three days before the end of the campaign, the Davis received a series of emails announcing the retraction of funds by nearly half of all major donors. (Davis/Kickstarter admin pers. comm.). While the nature of both projects had changed course, Davis maintained daily and weekly updates on facebook, twitter, Kickstarter, youtube, and the website to ensure that audiences understood the purpose and application of funding as things progressed. The retractions led to the failure of the campaign and the eventual termination of the collaboration after Davis personally funded all remaining project expenses. In weeks following, her collaborator proved overwhelmingly irresponsive – any attempts at communication and resolution were ignored (in regard to the failed campaign, image editing and hard copy transfer, budgets, studio wrap up, etc.). Davis later received an email dismissing any history of the collective:
This may come as a surprise to you, but our residency was never a collaboration [”] In response to your last email ” I asked all of my friends and colleagues to retract their contributions [”] I documented my concerns, which were with regard to my own ethics ”. As to the images I am not giving them to you. I will address the legal and logistical details when I examine my project, hopefully during the spring of 2013. (email to Davis, July 16 2012).
Without proper written agreements, any form of shared ownership in property and image use is an uphill battle. During and immediately following the performance of Hunter-Symbiosis, the photographer (whose name remains anonymous) transferred nearly 2,000 high-resolution digital images to a ‘shared’ hard drive, at which time Davis was not present. Davis has since been prohibited from viewing, editing, and accessing any of the aforementioned images, a conflict prompting this publication.
Copyright Law states, “[T]o establish co-ownership of the photograph copyrights, the defendants must show that ‘the parties intended to be joint authors at the time the work was created [and] . . . that [their] contributions to the works were independently copyrightable.'”[xxix] (US Copyright 2012 and see also, Filler 2007). In the simplest terms, a work can have multiple owners (“tenants in common” ”” see also Stanford Copyright & Fair Use) if two or more people contribute to making the work. But authorship and ownership of an image are in many ways implicit. Authorship is defined as 1) the first owner of copyright 2) the creator of the work or 3) the employer of the person making the work i.e. commissioner (see Stanford University Libraries).
“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. [102(b)].” (US Copyright 2012). While Davis conceived of both works, this does not guarantee ownership: Davis is now in the process of reviewing over two years of documents with an IP attorney to claim joint-authorship with her former collaborator, a right which was taken for granted (see also Copyright Law Sect. 106: Exclusive rights in copyright works). Davis is motivated not only by accessing the images but in understanding and learning from her mistakes so as to prevent future damages and misuse. As the primary subject of the photograph, Davis is aware that at no point in time can the image(s) be displayed (reproduced, exhibited, etc) without her permission (Davis/Davis, pers. comm..). Additionally, The Illinois Trade Secrets Act defines misappropriation as the “disclosure or use of a trade secret of a person without express or implied consent by another person” (Sec. 2b). In other words, the act or threat of action (as might be seen in the display of Hunter-Symbiosis web or print images in exhibition or, let’s say, as work samples in a grant proposal by a former collaborator ”” misappropriation gives 5 years for filing such a claim) with regard to the knowing misuse of property for gain.
So how can we prevent this kind of conflict and loss, looking ahead so work is created for the benefit of everyone involved? The mistake is in disregarding written agreements, as is otherwise a baseline precaution in most professional collaborations and a standard procedure in almost all of the author’s former and ongoing collaborations. Written agreements ”” contracts – are not only a way to outline the team’s individual contributions and goals, they are a non-threatening and preventative legal aide that can be used at any point down the road if and when things get muddy.
The final issue involves how to effectively link the private and public domain while fostering transparency in the workplace ”” openly communicating the agenda and challenges of collaboration through shared documents and images. The website for the Collected Works was designed as a transparent online domain where audiences could participate in unedited conversations informing the work. In doing so, the collective exposed readers to issues facing each project while simultaneously advocating for solutions.
Over time, informal domain securities prompted the abuse of passwords and web permissions. Davis first granted and later removed all web permissions after her collaborator became irresponsive to emails looking to tie up loose ends and to address how and if the collaboration would continue. [He] further responded by redirecting the web address and removing the title and various content for the website. This is significant considering the lack of compromise and the fact that [he] held no administrative permissions or authority to access any online accounts belonging to the author at the time. Davis edited the site to its previously published state, changing all account information (passwords, emails, etc) for the site and linked domains, in addition to blocking her collaborator on professional and social networking accounts. Sponsorship with Fractured Atlas was terminated and reissued in 2012 supporting the work of Davis as a sole proprietor.
III. SUGGESTED ACTIONS
In order to move forward in the field, individuals seeking out new collaborations must understand their rights to the work being produced. This is the responsibility of the individual as much as the collective; future projects and practices by the author rely heavily on the exploration of intellectual property in addition to contract negotiation between transdisciplinary institutions and programs. As SEAD practices are adopted into the broader fields of the humanities (cultural, visual and performing arts in particular), it is important to note how relationships between discipline are communicated in reaching a shared goal: museums curator who showcases work is on a different schedule than privately owned developers or architects involved in funding or design; a researcher might be at odds with a less analytical team of artist-in-residents. Regardless, it is this overlap in discipline that prompts ingenuity and nurtures a future of shared communication platforms. The suggested actions listed below draws upon issues and lessons described in the paper above, summarizing the immediate need for transdisciplinary teams to work through conflicts of interest so as to educate others on the future of effective performance research.
Obstacle #1: As shown above, communication in transdisciplinary collaborations can suffer from a failure to establish common ground (shared interest), particularly when working between long distances over time.
Suggested Action: Invite DESIGNERS to create mobile apps and interactive workshops in e-communication and conflict resolution.
Obstacle #2: Many SE-AD participants are unaware of their rights to an image as author, owner, or subject, and are therefore subject to trademark violation.
Suggested Action: Prevent intellectual property and trademark violation against ARTISTS, SCIENTISTS, DESIGNERS, EDUCATORS, HUMANITIES SCHOLARS, and ENGINEERS by reviewing current work (if violated) with an IP attorney to determine a course of action. Develop written agreements between ARTISTS, SCIENTISTS, and HUMANITIES SCHOLARS outlining the goals and objectives of ongoing collaboration and research.
Suggested Action: Provide contract templates to EDUCATORS and DESIGNERS for publication and download on opens source websites and integration into core curriculum.
Suggested Action: That NATIONAL ACADEMIES and EDUCATORS create a network of transcontinental conferences addressing the rights and prevention of IP.
Suggested Action: Maintain archives of work produced by ARTISTS, DESIGNERS, ENGINEERS, STUDENTS, EDUCATORS regardless of “quality.” Make use of available documentation, contacts and resources, and knowledge to help you and your project move ahead.
Obstacle #3: Funders often return to SE-AD professionals looking to validate the nature and ethics behind transdisciplinary practices.
3a. Suggested Action: Help FOUNDATIONS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND OTHER FUNDERS develop new funding categories with regard to cross-disciplinary methods. Also FOUNDATIONS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND OTHER FUNDERS should establish new criteria for peer-panels, review, and commissions supporting these kinds of forward thinking practices.
Obstacle #4: A transparent user experience can backfire if all members of a collaboration are not actively involved.
Suggested Action: Encourage DESIGNERS, ARTISTS, and INDUSTRY to discuss the reasons behind expanding your practice/project to a more transparent platform. Is it necessary and why, and who will be responsible? Assign clear administrative roles to each member of the team. Educate ARTISTS on open share design platforms (i.e. “open ideo”).
Obstacle #5: Many professionals are not exposed to trans-disciplinary practices until later in their careers.
Suggested Action: Place calls for STUDENTS and EDUCATORS to attend transcontinental residency, conferences, and programs. Encourage a core SEAD curriculum in secondary tier education.
Obstacle #6: SEAD professionals are often confronted with new and unfamiliar territory and methods of investigation, creating tension when flushing out new concept and vocabularies.
Suggested Action: STUDENTS, ARTISTS, DESIGNERS, HUMANITIES SCHOLARS, ENGINEERS be confident and mindful in the work methods you are creating. Develop simple solutions and agendas when presented with an unfamiliar area of expertise. Showcase your work for an outsider perspective. Set meeting points in your agenda to address the work as it progresses and to consider how these expectations are or are not being met.
Obstacle #8: Building and sustaining trust is a difficult task and can make or break a collaboration.
Suggested Action: That SEAD professionals and additional STUDENTS, EDUCATORS, and ADMINISTRATORS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS review associated methods for building trust in a collaborative environment with particular attention paid to integrity, internal confidence, and fairness.
References & Notes
1. Coburn, Calum. 2009. “Negotiation Conflict Styles.” The Negotiation Experts: Create Value.
2. “Collaboration: Building and Sustaining Trust.” All Collaboration: Connect, Collaborate, Create, April 28. Updated December 25 2010. http://allcollaboration.com/home/2010/4/28/collaboration-building-and- sustaining-trust.html
3. Copyright & Fair Use: Stanford University Libraries. 2010. “Copyright Ownership and Transfers FAQs.”
4. Davis, Josie E. 2012. “The Success of Failure: Was it everything you hoped for?” Project Blog, Last modified August 15. http://areyoucontagious.com.
5. De Jong, Bart. 2010. “Trust and Control in Teams.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam.
6. Filler, Stephen. 2007. “Collaborating on Photographs May Create Ownership Issues.” Photo Laywer: Information and News about Photography and the Law. February 14. http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/joint_authorship/
7. Illinois General Assembly. 2012. “Property (765 ILCS 1065/) Illinois Trade Secrets Act.”
8. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1999. “Performance Studies.” In The Performance Studies Reader, edited by Henry Bial, 43 ”” 51. Routledge.
9. Klein, Judith Thomsen. “Prospects for transdisciplinarity.” Futures 36 515-526. Accessed October 15, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007.
10. Parker, Vicki. 2012. “Know Your Rights as a Photographer or a Subject of Photography.” Hub Pages, October 18. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2239&ChapterID=62
11. Richards, Catherine. 1996. “Fungal Intimacy: The Cyborg in Feminism and Media Art.” In Clicking In: Hot Links to a Digital Culture, edited by Lynn Hershman Leeson, 258 ”” 263. Seattle: Bay Press. http://www.arts.rpi.edu/public_html/century/eao12/RichardsIntimacy.pdf
12. Salter, Christopher L., Xin Wei, Sha. “SPONGE: A Case Study in Practice Based Collaborative Art Research.” Creativity and Cognition 92 ”” 101. Accessed December 2010. doi: 10.1145/1056224.1056239.
13. Stevens, Darren. 2012. “Crowdsourcing: Pros, Cons, and More” Hongkiat.com: Design. Inspiration. Technology.
14. United States Copyright Office. 2012. “Can I Use Someone Else’s Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?” Last modified July 16 2012. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
15. United States Copyright Office. 2012. “Chapter 1: Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright.” Copyright Law of the United States. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf