The work is used everywhere; what is the artist's share?
1949The past, rebuiltDeadline · Within 60 days, before the next exhibition agreement
Reconstruction of the past
The date of the source material is 1949-01-01. Only the stated texts of that period are used as background; the three situational premises and the later branching are invented. Actual outcomes later known, amended systems, or success stories are not used as facts in the initial input. This is a modern retrospective question construction, not a claim that people of that time made this decision.
The question to decide
Sales of reproductions and reuse have grown for a work that became popular through public exhibition, but the contract has no clear procedure for confirming the return for that use or the artist's wishes. Negotiating and settling each use costs even small users money. Through what follow-up use agreement should the shared enjoyment of the work and the creator's share be connected?
Who decidesFictional public art contract meeting
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The reconstructed exhibition shows works with public funds, but after the works became popular, sales of reproductions and other uses increased. Decision deadline: within 60 days, before the next exhibition agreement.
Reconstruction of the past as of 1949-01-01 · Revenue from reusing a work that became famous through a public exhibition does not go back to the artist. A newly built fictional case using the principles of documents from that era as material. The institutions, people, figures, and events are not records of real decision-making.
- Premise 1The reconstructed exhibition shows works with public funds, but after popularity grew, sales of reproductions and other uses increased.
- Premise 2The original contract set only the exhibition fee; consideration for later uses and confirmation of the artist's intent are unclear.
- Premise 3Negotiating each use lets the artist participate, but creates procedural costs even for small users.
Where it holdsCultural access, the creator's share, and reuse
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The scope of use actually included in the original agreement
- Unknown 2The degree to which later uses can be recorded and settled
- Unknown 3The context of expression the artist wants to protect beyond revenue
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will establish 「the scope of use actually included in the original agreement」, and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will establish 「the degree to which later uses can be recorded and settled」, and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will establish 「the context of expression the artist wants to protect beyond revenue」, and re-judge if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Reproductions given away for free were used to advertise a paid product at another event.
The artist stated that some reuse is unwanted even if there is payment.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
When play becomes the center of life, who has the right to change the rules?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.The record of this question
- Question
FSP-PLAY-28· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
9fad0745c765a3920e23a980e96b9b373ef0b2d65525db5fa4ec15c383abb1e7- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON