The $1000 Seastead Design Contest
-
Dear SketchUcators!
We at the The Seasteading Institute (TSI) have just kicked off a $1,000 3-D modeling contest. It is a chance for you to design something quite unusual. An excerpt from the contest description:
"The Seasteading Institute (TSI) is looking for creative and talented designers to construct a seastead using 3-D modeling software. A seastead is a floating platform that allows people to permanently settle the ocean as they do land. Professional naval engineers have already designed a bare platform. What you build on the platform is up to you. It may be a hospital, a casino, a residential community, a cricket stadium, or something entirely different. Be creative!
Winning designs will be rewarded with cash prizes up to $1000, be featured on the TSI website, in our press materials (we’ve already been featured in Wired and on Slashdot), and on our merchandise."
The deadline is May 1st, 2009.
For a detailed list of prizes and official rules, please see: http://seasteading.org/interact/design-contest
-
So... here's the kicker on this one.
All entries must be submitted under the Creative Commons Attribution license. Among other things, this means that TSI (or others) may use or modify your model, including for commercial purposes, but they must give you credit for your work.
-
Yeah, I saw that too. Here is a (multi language) "abridged Creative Commons Attribution license" and here is the full version.
So it's a kind of "lottery"- except you don't buy the tickets for money but invest work (and experience, creativity, art, your spent college/university years etc...) for a "hope" for a grand.
BTW can you name the ever winners of lottery games?
-
Right. They own everything that is submitted.
-
Would be fairly easy to render the .skp file useless, though. Not really in the spirit of the competition though.
-
Hello,
@double espresso said:
Right. They own everything that is submitted.
Actually, the opposite is true. The Seasteading Institute doesn't own submitted models. Nobody does. Entries are under the Creative Commons Attribution license which means anyone can copy and modify the models under the condition that the original creator, the contestant, is rightfully credited. This is very different from someone owning it.
I haven't seen any contest involving a submitted product where the rights to the content aren't either given exclusively to the contest holder or is under a public domain license. We chose the latter.
- Lasse
-
@fimp said:
Hello,
@double espresso said:
Right. They own everything that is submitted.
Actually, the opposite is true. The Seasteading Institute doesn't own submitted models. Nobody does. Entries are under the Creative Commons Attribution license which means anyone can copy and modify the models under the condition that the original creator, the contestant, is rightfully credited. This is very different from someone owning it.
I haven't seen any contest involving a submitted product where the rights to the content aren't either given exclusively to the contest holder or is under a public domain license. We chose the latter.
- Lasse
While you may not outright own the submitted models you and anyone else who wants to can appropriate the work for their own gain as long as they 'credit' the original creator.
As far as I am concerned it is up to the individual to choose whether they want their submission(s) to essentially become part of the public domain. -
I'm sorry but at this moment I'm too lazy to read the competition's submission requirements. I'm assuming somebody has and might know the answer to my question. Do you actually have to submit the model -- or just presentation images like most competitions?
If it's just images I don't see the big deal. Others are quite unlikely to use your images anyways. It is likely they'd just be used to promote the Seasteading Institute's goals which is reasonable and expected.
The competition sounds kind-a fun.
Regards, Ross
-
Also the model - in eithr skp or 3ds format.
-
Thanks Csaba
Maybe Lasse can explain why they think they need the model. Generally I'd say well composed images / panels communicate better than the actual model. Submitting just images keeps the artist in control of how the model is presented. I assume this is a DESIGN competition about ideas and not a 'modelling' competition. There is a difference in that if I were just submitting images I would focus my modelling on what I wanted to communicate -- I would not model things I did not intend to show. The model can be staged for presentation. When it is the model itself being reviewed it suggests the technical aspects & completeness of the model come into play -- and it inherently becomes less about ideas.
-
Hi,
@unknownuser said:
While you may not outright own the submitted models you and anyone else who wants to can appropriate the work for their own gain as long as they 'credit' the original creator.
True. But it's worth noting that The Seasteading Institute is a nonprofit organisation so it's not like we are going to make money off your creation. And since the contest is about modeling a pretty unusual structure it is unlikely that anyone else than The Seasteading Institute wants to use it.
@unknownuser said:
Maybe Lasse can explain why they think they need the model.
We require the model to be submitted because we expect we want to use it later. Might be for virtual tours, as part of a 3D city consisting of multiple platforms or real-life models. So much more can be done with the actual model than with just a set of images.
The technical quality of the model is not important for the competition. The two main criteria are aesthetics and personality. Aesthetics in the sense of which model that is the most visually appealing and enticing. Personality as in showing the best sense of human influence or presence (people walking, smoke coming out of a chimney, a colorful sign in front of a business, etc.) But it must of course be a complete model and not only work from one angle.
- Lasse
-
Okay Lasse, don't take us wrong also no offence on anyone's side - some things are just not clear on the site you linked to.
-
I think "intellectual property rights" will always be touchy. As long as it is made abundantly clear that you are in essence giving up this right, or at least the right of someone else to manipulate your creation, and you consent ( in this case by entering) Then so be it.
However what does happen is a lot of people who feel strongly about this probably won't participate. I don't know if there is another work around to this issue though. -
I suppose that my issue with any 'contest/competition' of this type is that the participants are relinquishing all 'rights' to their creation. If you submit a painting, photograph, song composition, short story etc., to a competition, the rules are usually that the 'creation' remains the property of the creator and dependant on the intent of the competition, the winning entries may be subject to certain usage issues. What I don't understand is why in this case the entrants are expected to give up their design rights. Why not just state that the submitted design rights, with the exception of the winners remain the property of the designer.
I'm not questioning the integrity of the Seasteading Institute, it just seems like a lot to give up for the designer.
-
Sounds interesting, Lasse (Norsk or Dansk?). I think I might have a go at it. I'm not clear on one thing though- your website explains that any added structures must be built on top of the trusses, but it appears the guywires would penetrate the added structure causing major planning problems. The layout of the guywires (horizontally radial) in the downloaded skp model appear to differ from those of the image on your website (lateral). The guywires in the skp model make it pretty much impossible to build anything on top of the trusses and lateral guywires (as in the image) make it extremely difficult to design anything other than a series of unconnected towers with fairly small footprints. Can you clarify please?
-
excerts from an earlier dialogue with the contest host in the form of a chat with jackson.
.......
Answer to Jackson's question:An example of a change like this in the sample design is how the suspension cables connect to convex, vertical beams which in turn attach to the four support pillars, rather than having the suspension cables attach directly to the four support pillars themselves."
Jackson's probable response:
Well yes, I see thankyou, although those changes are structural not cosmetic...who did the engineerig on the new beams?...I quess you are saying there is a lot of flexability.
James real answer:
You're right in that "cosmetic" is probably not the best word choice in the rules, as it is a structural change, albeit a relatively minor one. We're OK allowing a little structural flexibility, as it's realistic to expect a little customization for the first few clients who invest in building one of these anyway. How much customization is obviously a little harder to define, which is why we included the example image and have the e-mail address for questions.
The modified beams were designed by an architect consulting with the marine engineering firm who designed the platform.Perhaps a phrase like "significant structural changes" would be better. We'd welcome your feedback. I'm cc'ing Lasse, our contest administrator, on this e-mail.
Thanks,
James Hogan, Director of Operations
The Seasteading Institute
http://www.seasteading.org -
Looks like Seastead will get alot for $1000. Licensed under CCL, so they pay for the winner and the runners up but get to see hundreds of different concepts and models that they can actually use in whole or in part so long as they credit the creator.
edit: they do seem like good guys, interestingly one of the founders used to work for Google.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/02/tech/cnettechnews/main4769336.shtml -
-
Getting back to the conceptual/apolitical side of the contest, this reminds me a little of a project I did with some friends at uni when I was going though a very "conceptual" phase.
We proposed an art gallery, communal studios, performance spaces which would be built 4 storeys up, spanning between several buildings effectively roofing a large loading bay, but which could only be accessed via multiple private apartments on the 4th floor to which it was connected. High Bullsh*t, and purely theoretical I know, but the idea was to blur private space, public space and communal space and also to explore the legal boundaries of the relative liberty we are afforded in our own homes (smoking, nudity, building regulations, etc) compared to that allowed in public spaces and buildings.... and no, we did not get naked for the presentation. -
Hi Jackson,
I don't have the expertise to answer your questions, but I'll make sure they are forwarded to the engineering company which designed the platform for us. When I have their reply, I'll post it here in the thread.
- Lasse (which is dansk
- Lasse (which is dansk
Advertisement