I'm a CC0 fan, that's not really a secret. Not all of my work is CC0, but some is, and more will probably be so in the future. For those unfamiliar, CC0 is a license outlined by Creative Commons that states that no rights are reserved. That means, whatever media under this license can be reused without attribution, for any case, without the need to pay fees or anything. It's up for grabs. It sounds crazy, but I think it can lead to great art, where ideas can be reused and built upon more quickly and without guilt or hesitation.

Like a lot of folks, I first learned about CC0—at least in regards to NFTs—when I discovered Nouns. I even made a nouns extension called Noun Soup. Nouns is leveraging CC0 to create a community driven brand that will probably become the one of the most identifiable NFTs out there, if they aren't already. They're doing this by encouraging, and funding, projects to reuse their art, ethos and ecosystem. This, so far, that has only made them more successful. The community continues to grow, and their exposure continues to expand. They're accomplishing this by not holding onto their IP with a tight grip, but by making what is theirs, everyones.

I would like to think this is possible in non-pfp/fine art as well, not to say that Nouns isn't fine, it is, but their goals are different than that of an individual artist. Their trademark glasses make any extension easily identifiable in a way that other digital art might not be, unless you are XCOPY, who famously made all their non-collaborative work CC0, and whose work is very identifiable by their iconic style and well, fame.

While a CC0 pfp project may be trying to expand their brand, I think the goal of the artist is to contribute something more to the pool of art at large. By making your work public domain, it makes it a possible component of a larger conversation, allowing great art to exist in a way that would never have happened if it didn't become open source. Whether you're contributing the stems or the re-contextualization of them, you're creating something that wouldn't be possible if this sharing wasn't part of it.

It can, however, be a little scary and confusing for an artist to decide to make something CC0. Will collectors be turned off by this? Don't I need to keep the copyright so people don't just rip me off and steal any potential success I could have with this work? Perhaps, but I like to think—as do many CC0 proponents—that if someone else takes your work and gets it more exposure, then that exposure will eventually come back to you, and hopefully bring more value to your collectors as well.

The thumbnail image at the top of this article is a test output of my project Obliques, which remixes some art from Marc Maurer's Parallels collection on objkt. That image is created by manipulating the raw image created by Marc, which is just above this paragraph. While it's easy to see that it is a reference, this wouldn't be as easily possible without CC0, at least as quickly. I didn't have to ask for permission, and that meant experimenting with this random idea had less friction to come into being. I just did it, and I didn't have to worry about throwing it away for some licensing reason.

Now, it's true, I'm friends with Marc, so after the fact I did send it to him for feedback and blessing, but ultimately I didn't need to do that. It would've been enough that I was motivated by an appreciation of his work, and could see it re-contextualized in a new format. His use of the CC0 license was encouragement enough. I know that when I use the CC0 license, I hope people use it in their work.

It's not theft if it's given away.

Ultimately, I'm hoping that by doing this, more eyes get back on Marc's work, and honestly, that a few of his fans might discover my work, but ultimately I'm just delighted that I got to create something new, from something that I loved. Ideally, it helps us both grow as artists.

Obviously, some folks don't share the same ideals, and may blatantly copy-mint CC0 work, with the only intention of profiting off other people's work. While shitty, it's still an endorsement of sorts, and hopefully, attention still gets directed back to the original artist. And let's be honest, people are going to be shitty regardless of the license, if they are shitty to begin with.

My main argument is that the good outweighs the bad, and that people are generally not shitty, and will try to give attribution to the original artist, even if the license doesn't require that. Just by existing, CC0 encourages me to look at art with that license a different way. Can I reinterpret this? Do I have anything to add or reflect on this? They used this license, so they must want someone to remix it. Maybe that is me, maybe not. Whatever comes of that analysis, the friction has been reduced, and the possibility becomes greater that something new may be created out of it by merely being CC0.

Art has always been a conversation, and it is nearly impossible that any particular piece of art doesn't reference other art, or is inspired by it in some way. Leo Steinberg wrote, "All art is infested with other art." I couldn't agree more, and I'm not saying that CC0 is going to save art; it doesn't need saving... but I do think it gives license to let art infest more organically, literally.

Obliques goes live September 22, 2022. I'm releasing under my alt account, cc0x0x0, which is reserved for exclusively reinterpreting other CC0 work. I'm hoping to release more projects like this, so if you find (or create) art that is CC0 and begging for a reinterpretation, please send it along. I'd love to see it and if it triggers something in me, then I'd love to let it infest my work.

Obliques, is also CC0, so please... feel free to take anything from it, even the sample iterations. You don't have to tell me that you use it, or attribute it back to me (or Marc)... but tbh I'd love to see whatever comes of it... so tag me on one of my twitter accounts if so inclined.