Free-culture movement

Last updated
Lawrence Lessig, an influential activist of the free-culture movement, in 2005 Larry lessig etech05 050317.jpg
Lawrence Lessig, an influential activist of the free-culture movement, in 2005

The free-culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others in the form of free content [1] [2] or open content [3] [4] [5] without compensation to, or the consent of, the work's original creators, by using the Internet and other forms of media.

Contents

The movement objects to what it considers over-restrictive copyright laws. Many members of the movement argue that such laws hinder creativity. [6] They call this system "permission culture". [7]

The free-culture movement, with its ethos of free exchange of ideas, is aligned with the free and open-source-software movement, as well as other movements and philosophies such as open access (OA), the remix culture, the hacker culture, the access to knowledge movement, the copyleft movement and the public domain movement.

History

Precursors

In the late 1960s, Stewart Brand founded the Whole Earth Catalog and argued that technology could be liberating rather than oppressing. [8] He coined the slogan "Information wants to be free" in 1984 [9] to against limiting access to information by governmental control, preventing a public domain of information. [10]

Background of the formation of the free-culture movement

In 1998, the United States Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which President Clinton signed into law. The legislation extended copyright protections for twenty additional years, resulting in a total guaranteed copyright term of seventy years after a creator's death. The bill was heavily lobbied by music and film corporations like Disney, and dubbed as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Lawrence Lessig claims copyright is an obstacle to cultural production, knowledge sharing and technological innovation, and that private interests – as opposed to public good – determine law. [11] He travelled the country in 1998, giving as many as a hundred speeches a year at college campuses, and sparked the movement. It led to the foundation of the first chapter of the Students for Free Culture at Swarthmore College.

In 1999, Lessig challenged the Bono Act, taking the case to the US Supreme Court. Despite his firm belief in victory, citing the Constitution's plain language about "limited" copyright terms, Lessig only gained two dissenting votes: from Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens.

Foundation of the Creative Commons

In 2001, Lessig initiated Creative Commons, an alternative "some rights reserved" licensing system to the default "all rights reserved" copyright system. Lessig focuses on a fair balance between the interest of the public to use and participate into released creative works and the need of protection for a creator's work, which still enables a "read-write" remix culture. [6]

The term "free culture" was originally used since 2003 during the World Summit on Information Society [12] to present the first free license for artistic creation at large, initiated by the Copyleft attitude team in France since 2001 (named free art license). It was then developed in Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture in 2004. [13]

In August 2003 the Open Content Project, a 1998 Creative Commons precursor by David A. Wiley, announced the Creative Commons as successor project and Wiley joined as director. [14] [15]

"Definition of Free Cultural Works"

In 2005/2006 within the free-culture movement, Creative Commons was criticized by Erik Möller [16] and Benjamin Mako Hill for lacking minimum standards for freedom. [17] Following this, the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" was created as collaborative work of many, including Erik Möller, Lawrence Lessig, Benjamin Mako Hill and Richard Stallman. [18] In February 2008, several Creative Commons licenses were "approved for free cultural works", namely the CC BY and CC BY-SA (later also the CC0). [19] Creative Commons licenses with restrictions on commercial use or derivative works were not approved.

In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation described their definition of "open", for open content and open knowledge, as synonymous to the definition of "free" in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works", noting that both are rooted in the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition. [20] Therefore, the same three creative commons licenses are recommended for open content and free content, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0. [21] [22] [23] The Open Knowledge foundation additionally defined three specialized licenses for data and databases, previously unavailable: the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL), the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY) and the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL).

Organizations

Creative Commons logo Cc.logo.circle.svg
Creative Commons logo

The organization commonly associated with free culture is Creative Commons (CC), founded by Lawrence Lessig. CC promotes sharing creative works and diffusing ideas to produce cultural vibrance, scientific progress and business innovation.

Student organization FreeCulture.org, inspired by Lessig and founded 2003. The Building blocks are a symbol for reuse and remixing of creative works, used also as symbol of the Remix culture. Free Culture dot org logo.png
Student organization FreeCulture.org, inspired by Lessig and founded 2003. The Building blocks are a symbol for reuse and remixing of creative works, used also as symbol of the Remix culture.

QuestionCopyright.org is another organization whose stated mission is "to highlight the economic, artistic, and social harm caused by distribution monopolies, and to demonstrate how freedom-based distribution is better for artists and audiences." [24]

QuestionCopyright may be best known for its association with artist Nina Paley, whose multi-award-winning feature length animation Sita Sings The Blues has been held up as an extraordinarily successful [25] example of free distribution under the aegis of the "Sita Distribution Project". [26] The web site of the organization has a number of resources, publications, and other references related to various copyright, patent, and trademark issues.

The student organization Students for Free Culture is sometimes confusingly called "the Free Culture Movement", but that is not its official name. The organization is a subset of the greater movement. The first chapter was founded in 1998 at Swarthmore College, and by 2008, the organization had 26 chapters. [27]

The free-culture movement takes the ideals of the free and open-source software movement and extends them from the field of software to all cultural and creative works. Early in Creative Commons' life, Richard Stallman (the founder of the Free Software Foundation and the free software movement) supported the organization. He withdrew his support due to the introduction of several licenses including the developing nations (retired in 2007) [28] and sampling licenses. [29] Stallman later restored some support when Creative Commons retired those licenses.

The free music movement, a subset of the free-culture movement, started out just as the Web rose in popularity with the Free Music Philosophy [30] by Ram Samudrala in early 1994. It was also based on the idea of free software by Richard Stallman and coincided with nascent open art and open information movements (referred to here as collectively as the "free-culture movement"). The Free Music Philosophy used a three-pronged approach to voluntarily encourage the spread of unrestricted copying, based on the fact that copies of recordings and compositions could be made and distributed with complete accuracy and ease via the Internet. The subsequent free music movement was reported on by diverse media outlets including Billboard , [31] Forbes , [32] Levi's Original Music Magazine, [33] The Free Radical , [34] Wired [35] [36] and The New York Times . [37] Along with the explosion of the Web driven by open source software and Linux, the rise of P2P and lossy compression, and despite the efforts of the music industry, free music became largely a reality in the early 21st century. [38] Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Creative Commons with free information champions like Lawrence Lessig were devising numerous licenses that offered different flavors of copyright and copyleft. The question was no longer why and how music should be free, but rather how creativity would flourish while musicians developed models to generate revenue in the Internet era. [39] [40] [41]

Reception

Skepticism from Richard Stallman

Initially, Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman did not see the importance of free works beyond software. [42] For instance for manuals and books Stallman stated in the 1990s:

As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

Similarly, in 1999 Stallman said that he sees "no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software". [43] Other authors, such as Joshua Pearce, have argued that there is an ethical imperative for open-source hardware, specifically with respect to open-source-appropriate technology for sustainable development. [44]

Later, Stallman changed his position slightly and advocated for free sharing of information in 2009. [45] But, in 2011 Stallman commented on the Megaupload founder's arrest, "I think all works meant for practical uses must be free, but that does not apply to music, since music is meant for appreciation, not for practical use." [46] In a follow-up Stallman differentiated three classes: works of practical use should be free, works representing points of view should be shareable but not changeable and works of art or entertainment should be copyrighted (but only for 10 years). [47] In an essay in 2012 Stallman argued that video games as software should be free but not their artwork. [48] In 2015 Stallman advocated for free hardware designs. [49]

Vocal criticism against the free-culture movement comes from copyright proponents.

Prominent technologist and musician Jaron Lanier discusses this perspective of free culture in his 2010 book You Are Not a Gadget . Lanier's concerns include the depersonalization of crowd-sourced anonymous media (such as Wikipedia) and the economic dignity of middle-class creative artists.

Andrew Keen, a critic of Web 2.0, criticizes some of the free culture ideas in his book, Cult of the Amateur, describing Lessig as an "intellectual property communist". [50]

The decline of the news media industry's market share is blamed on free culture but scholars like Clay Shirky claim that the market itself, not free culture, is what is killing the journalism industry. [13]

The free art movement is distinct from the free culture movement as the artist retains full copyright for the work. The free art movement is the practice of artists leaving art in public places for the public to remove and keep. The artwork is usually tagged with a notice stating it is free art, and either with the artist's name or left anonymously. The movement was reinvigorated by British street art practitioner My Dog Sighs coining the term "Free Art Fridays". [51] Clues to the location of artworks are sometimes left on social media to combine treasure hunting with art. [52]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free software</span> Software licensed to be freely used, modified and distributed

Free software, libre software, or libreware is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

The free software movement is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedoms to run, study, modify, and share copies of software. Software which meets these requirements, The Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software, is termed free software.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open-source license</span> Software license allowing source code to be used, modified, and shared

Open-source licenses are software licenses that allow content to be used, modified, and shared. They facilitate free and open-source software (FOSS) development. Intellectual property (IP) laws restrict the modification and sharing of creative works. Free and open-source licenses use these existing legal structures for an inverse purpose. They grant the recipient the rights to use the software, examine the source code, modify it, and distribute the modifications. These criteria are outlined in the Open Source Definition.

Creative Commons (CC) is an American non-profit organization and international network devoted to educational access and expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share. The organization has released several copyright licenses, known as Creative Commons licenses, free of charge to the public. These licenses allow authors of creative works to communicate which rights they reserve and which rights they waive for the benefit of recipients or other creators. An easy-to-understand one-page explanation of rights, with associated visual symbols, explains the specifics of each Creative Commons license. Content owners still maintain their copyright, but Creative Commons licenses give standard releases that replace the individual negotiations for specific rights between copyright owner (licensor) and licensee, that are necessary under an "all rights reserved" copyright management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free music</span> Music in the public domain or under a free license

Free music or libre music is music that, like free software, can freely be copied, distributed and modified for any purpose. Thus free music is either in the public domain or licensed under a free license by the artist or copyright holder themselves, often as a method of promotion. It does not mean that there should be no fee involved. The word free refers to freedom, not to price.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creative Commons license</span> Copyright license for free use of a work

A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work". A CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that the author has created. CC provides an author flexibility and protects the people who use or redistribute an author's work from concerns of copyright infringement as long as they abide by the conditions that are specified in the license by which the author distributes the work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free Art License</span> Type of free content license

The Free Art License (FAL) is a copyleft license that grants the right to freely copy, distribute, and transform creative works except for computer hardware and software, including for commercial use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open-source hardware</span> Hardware from the open-design movement

Open-source hardware consists of physical artifacts of technology designed and offered by the open-design movement. Both free and open-source software (FOSS) and open-source hardware are created by this open-source culture movement and apply a like concept to a variety of components. It is sometimes, thus, referred to as FOSH. The term usually means that information about the hardware is easily discerned so that others can make it – coupling it closely to the maker movement. Hardware design, in addition to the software that drives the hardware, are all released under free/libre terms. The original sharer gains feedback and potentially improvements on the design from the FOSH community. There is now significant evidence that such sharing can drive a high return on investment for the scientific community.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free Beer</span> Open source beer

Free Beer is a beer brand collaboration between students of IT University of Copenhagen and the artist collective Superflex initiated in 2004. The recipe of the beer is published under a Creative Commons license, granting others the right to freely use and distribute it.

Open-source religions employ open-source methods for the sharing, construction, and adaptation of religious belief systems, content, and practice. In comparison to religions utilizing proprietary, authoritarian, hierarchical, and change-resistant structures, open-source religions emphasize sharing in a cultural Commons, participation, self-determination, decentralization, and evolution. They apply principles used in organizing communities developing open-source software for organizing group efforts innovating with human culture. New open-source religions may develop their rituals, praxes, or systems of beliefs through a continuous process of refinement and dialogue among participating practitioners. Organizers and participants often see themselves as part of a more generalized open-source and free-culture movement.

License compatibility is a legal framework that allows for pieces of software with different software licenses to be distributed together. The need for such a framework arises because the different licenses can contain contradictory requirements, rendering it impossible to legally combine source code from separately-licensed software in order to create and publish a new program. Proprietary licenses are generally program-specific and incompatible; authors must negotiate to combine code. Copyleft licenses are commonly deliberately incompatible with proprietary licenses, in order to prevent copyleft software from being re-licensed under a proprietary license, turning it into proprietary software. Many copyleft licenses explicitly allow relicensing under some other copyleft licenses. Permissive licenses are compatible with everything, including proprietary licenses; there is thus no guarantee that all derived works will remain under a permissive license.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free content</span> Creative work with few or no restrictions on how it may be used

Free content, libre content, libre information, or free information is any kind of functional work, work of art, or other creative content that meets the definition of a free cultural work, meaning "works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose." Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the definition of free cultural work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free-software license</span> License allowing software modification and redistribution

A free-software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are usually prohibited by copyright law, but the rights-holder of a piece of software can remove these restrictions by accompanying the software with a software license which grants the recipient these rights. Software using such a license is free software as conferred by the copyright holder. Free-software licenses are applied to software in source code and also binary object-code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyleft</span> Practice of mandating free use in all derivatives of a work

Copyleft is the legal technique of granting certain freedoms over copies of copyrighted works with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works. In this sense, freedoms refers to the use of the work for any purpose, and the ability to modify, copy, share, and redistribute the work, with or without a fee. Licenses which implement copyleft can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, scientific discoveries and even certain patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GNU Free Documentation License</span> Copyleft license primarily for free software documentation

The GNU Free Documentation License is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project. It is similar to the GNU General Public License, giving readers the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities, the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.

<i>Free Software, Free Society</i> Selected essays of Richard Stallman

Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman is a collection of writings by Richard Stallman. It introduces the subject of history and development of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation, explains the author's philosophical position on Free Software movement, deals with the topics of software ethics, copyright and patent laws, as well as business practices in application to computer software. The author proposes Free software licenses as a solution to social issues created by proprietary software and described in essays.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Definition of Free Cultural Works</span> Project to define free content

The Definition of Free Cultural Works evaluates and recommends compatible free content licenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Software categories</span> Groups of software

Software categories are groups of software. They allow software to be understood in terms of those categories, instead of the particularities of each package. Different classification schemes consider different aspects of software.

A free license or open license is a license which allows others to reuse another creator’s work as they wish. Without a special license, these uses are normally prohibited by copyright, patent or commercial license. Most free licenses are worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and perpetual. Free licenses are often the basis of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding projects.

A public license or public copyright licenses is a license by which a copyright holder as licensor can grant additional copyright permissions to any and all persons in the general public as licensees. By applying a public license to a work, provided that the licensees obey the terms and conditions of the license, copyright holders give permission for others to copy or change their work in ways that would otherwise infringe copyright law.

References

  1. ↑ "What does a free culture look like?". Students of Free culture. Archived from the original on 2021-04-27. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
  2. ↑ "What is free culture?". Students of Free culture. Archived from the original on 2021-04-27. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
  3. ↑ The Alternative Media Handbook by Kate Coyer, Tony Dowmunt, Alan Fountain
  4. ↑ Open Access: What You Need to Know Now by Walt Crawford
  5. ↑ Open Content - A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licences by Wikimedia Deutschland by Till Kreutzer (2014)
  6. 1 2 Larry Lessig (2007-03-01). "Larry Lessig says the law is strangling creativity". ted.com. Retrieved 2016-02-26.
  7. ↑ Robert S. Boynton: The Tyranny of Copyright? Archived 2009-02-28 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times, January 25, 2004
  8. ↑ Baker, Ronald J (2008-02-08), Mind over matter: why intellectual capital is the chief source of wealth, John Wiley & Sons, p. 80, ISBN   9780470198810 .
  9. ↑ "Edge 338", Edge, no. 338, archived from the original on 2019-07-02, retrieved 2011-04-23.
  10. ↑ Wagner, R Polk, Information wants to be free: intellectual property and the mythologies of control (PDF), University of Pennsylvania, archived from the original (PDF essay) on 2017-09-22, retrieved 2016-05-07.
  11. ↑ Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. New York: Penguin. p. 368. ISBN   9781101200841 . Retrieved March 15, 2014.
  12. ↑ WSIS (2001). "PCT WORKING GROUP EVENT" Archived 2013-07-29 at the Wayback Machine
  13. 1 2 Quart, Alissa (2009). "Expensive Gifts", Columbia Journalism Review, 48(2).
  14. ↑ David A. Wiley (30 June 2003). "OpenContent is officially closed. And that's just fine". opencontent.org. Archived from the original on 2003-08-02. Retrieved 2016-02-21. I'm closing OpenContent because I think Creative Commons is doing a better job of providing licensing options which will stand up in court.
  15. ↑ Creative Commons Welcomes David Wiley as Educational Use License Project Lead by matt on creativecommons.org (June 23rd, 2003)
  16. ↑ Erik Moeller (2006). "The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License" (PDF). Open Source Jahrbuch.
  17. ↑ Benjamin Mako Hill (June 29, 2005). "Towards a Standard of Freedom: Creative Commons and the Free Software Movement". Mako.cc. Retrieved 2011-12-03.
  18. ↑ Definition of Free Cultural Works. Freedomdefined.org (2008-12-01). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  19. ↑ "Approved for Free Cultural Works". 2008-02-20.
  20. ↑ Open Definition 2.1 on opendefinition.org
  21. ↑ licenses on opendefinition.com
  22. ↑ Creative Commons 4.0 BY and BY-SA licenses approved conformant with the Open Definition by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (December 27th, 2013)
  23. ↑ Open Definition 2.0 released by Timothy Vollmer on creativecommons.org (October 7th, 2014)
  24. ↑ A Clearinghouse For New Ideas About Copyright. QuestionCopyright.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  25. ↑ Nina Paley at HOPE 2010. YouTube. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  26. ↑ The Sita Sings the Blues Distribution Project. QuestionCopyright.org (2009-09-15). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  27. ↑ Hayes, Christopher (2009). "Mr. Lessig Goes to Washington" Archived 2015-10-17 at the Wayback Machine , The Nation , June 16, 2008
  28. ↑ "Retiring standalone DevNations and one Sampling license". Creative Commons. 2007-06-04. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  29. ↑ interview for LinuxP2P (6 February 2006)
  30. ↑ Samudrala, Ram (1994). "The Free Music Philosophy" . Retrieved 2008-10-26.
  31. ↑ Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (18 July 1998). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. ISSN   0006-2510 . Retrieved 3 December 2011.{{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  32. ↑ Penenberg A. Habias copyrightus. "Forbes", July 11 1997. Forbes.com. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  33. ↑ Durbach D. "Short fall to freedom: The free music insurgency". Levi's Original Music Magazine, November 19, 2008. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  34. ↑ Ballin M. Unfair Use. "The Free Radical" 47, 2001. Freeradical.co.nz. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  35. ↑ Oakes C. Recording industry goes to war against web sites. Wired, June 10 1997. Wired.com. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  36. ↑ Stutz M. They (used to) write the songs. Wired, June 12 1998. Freerockload.ucoz.com. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  37. ↑ Napoli L. Fans of MP3 forced the issue. "The New York Times", December 16 1998. Nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  38. ↑ Alternate Kinds of Freedom by Troels Just. Troelsjust.dk. Archived on 2014-09-03.
  39. ↑ Schulman BM. The song heard 'round the world: The copyright implications of MP3s and the future of digital music. "Harvard Journal of Law and Technology" 12: 3, 1999. Archived 2012-04-09 at the Wayback Machine . (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  40. ↑ Samudrala R. The future of music. 1997. Ram.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  41. ↑ Story of a Revolution: Napster & the Music Industry. "MusicDish", 2000. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  42. ↑ Brett Watson (1999-02-10). "Philosophies of Free Software and Intellectual Property" . Retrieved 2016-02-24. Is Software special? [...] So restricting modification is not necessarily evil when it comes to "articles and books"? Or does he just mean that we aren't obliged to let others misrepresent us? Alas, no mention of restricting verbatim duplication. Even Stallman's story on "The Right to Read" does not address the issue directly, despite being about IPR issues other than software. It extrapolates a dystopian future from our current position and acts as a warning about current trends, but offers no comment on the status quo. [...] There is a striking lack of discussion from the usual leaders with regards to the application of copyright in areas other than software. Raymond is mute, and Stallman mumbles. They both seem to view software as a special case: Raymond tacitly, and Stallman explicitly.
  43. ↑ Richard Stallman -- On "Free Hardware" on linuxtoday.com "I see no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software." (Jun 22, 1999)
  44. ↑ Pearce, Joshua M. (2012). "The case for open source appropriate technology". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 14 (3): 425–431. Bibcode:2012EDSus..14..425P. doi: 10.1007/s10668-012-9337-9 .
  45. ↑ Stallman, Richard (2009). "Ending the War on Sharing".
  46. ↑ Boot up: Google and Facebook work on antiphishing tool, Richard Stallman on MegaUpload arrests, and more on The Guardian (January 30, 2012)
  47. ↑ Correcting The Guardian's paraphrase by Richard Stallman (Jan 22, 2012)
  48. ↑ Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad? on fsf.org by Richard Stallman "Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software." (May 31, 2012)
  49. ↑ Hardware Designs Should Be Free. Here's How to Do It by Richard Stallman on wired.com (03.18.2015)
  50. ↑ Keen, Andrew (May 16, 2006). Web 2.0; The second generation of the Internet has arrived. It's worse than you think. The Weekly Standard
  51. ↑ "Free Art Friday: A Global Art Movement Everyone Can Appreciate". Mic. 21 March 2013. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
  52. ↑ Roberts @donnovan_jade, Holly (7 April 2016). "Month-long art scavenger hunt, Free Art Movement, comes to Classic City". The Red and Black. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
Resources
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.