Panel 5.4. Cultural Commons

Artistic ferments in contemporary art are particularly evident in informal artistic practices. These practices contribute significantly to artistic innovation (Sharon, 1979; Blessi et al., 2011), but also reshape spaces and communities, especially in formerly vibrant industrial areas (Grodach, 2011; Borchi, 2017; Zilberstein, 2019; Morea and Sabatini, 2023). Artists and creative professionals reimagine places in creative ways that often lack established reference models and, in some contexts, institutional support (Lenna et al., 2020). Following Ostrom's theory on the commons (1990/2012), artistic informal practices have been examined through the lens of the cultural commons, where communities collectively reclaim and redefine shared spaces through art (Borchi, 2018). Given that a cultural commons is defined by the confluence of three phenomena, namely culture, space and community (Santagata et al., 2011), this article explores how culture, space and community are developed, challenged and sustained in these practices.

In order to provide an empirical basis for the discussion of this issue, this paper analyses the case of 'Associazione Bastione', a group of independent artists based in Turin who began as squatters in Cavallerizza Reale, a historic building occupied by artists and cultural workers from 2014 to 2019. Despite a lack of support from the local government and the cultural ecosystem (nearby museums, the university, etc.), the artists developed practices of care for the space and the surrounding urban communities through artistic practices, initiating processes of urban regeneration.

The analysis can provide insights into how these practices can develop a common-oriented approach to culture prioritising long-term community engagement over short-term commercial profit, and thus creating cultural ecosystems that can adapt to change over time.

Work in the cultural sector is often marked by precarity and a general lack of financial stability. Artists and cultural workers face unstable working conditions, with limited public funding or support, leading to unsustainable practices. In contrast, making cultural work more social and sustainable requires shifting from a mindset of scarcity to one of abundance—both in resources and trust within the community.

With a collective of eleven professionals in and around film are currently developing Het Filmlokaal: a collective cinema in Rotterdam, NL, with which we propose an innovative approach to bridging this gap by applying the concept of the commons and its practical governance tools to cultural production. Drawing inspiration from Ostrom’s principles of governing the commons and sociocratic governance methods, we strive to create a model for how cultural spaces can be sustained through collective stewardship. By establishing a cinema as a commons, we challenge the scarcity-driven logic that dominates the cultural sector. Instead, we aim to create an environment where cultural workers and communities can collaboratively steward resources, whether in the form of programming, skills, or equipment. This co-governed, co-owned space addresses key social dilemmas in the creative industries, such as resource allocation, decision-making, and long-term sustainability.

Het Flimlokaal engages locals, filmmakers, and cultural workers to co-curate programs, share knowledge, and contribute resources. We also explore alternative financial models like pay-what-you-can ticketing and time-banking, ensuring accessibility while reducing financial strain. By cultivating trust and community, the cinema transcends traditional market-driven or state-funded models, moving toward a regenerative model of cultural commons.

This project will discuss the application of commons-based governance in the cultural sector, offering a practical case study that contributes to ongoing discussions on polycentric governance and collective action dilemmas. We hope this case study will enrich discussions on regenerating the commons in arts and culture.

Having long symbolised the inefficiency of shared ownership, the commons are re-emerging as an effective principle of social and cultural struggle against neoliberalism (). Our focus in this article, shifts from examining the internal dynamics of commons- organizing to understanding the sociopolitical context in which they emerge and the policy infrastructure that enables (or not) their existence and sustainability. We adopt a multi-case study approach to analyse the origins of the spread of commons vocabulary and practice in community-run cultural spaces in Naples, Marseille and Athens and discuss their relationship with policy. The choice of the cities is not accidental. First and foremost, our knowledge is grounded in previous fieldwork conducted within our respective geographies, where our understanding of the local context and language proficiency enables us to engage effectively with practitioners and relevant policy documents for our research. Secondly, while the selected cases (L'Asilo, Friche Belle de Mai, Communitism) may not be directly comparable, they are exemplary within their respective contexts. We identify three different policy attitudes towards the commons: conflict and dialogue, multiple avenues for policy co-development, and indifference that reveal fundamental issues related to the relationship between the commons and state authorities, such as antagonism, cooptation and mutual avoidance. We suggest that a pathway based on mutual trust, independence and adopting cultural rights can enable new collaborations between policymakers and activists.

INDICATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Avdikos Vasilis, Mina Dragouni, Martha Michailidou and Dimitris Pettas. 2024. “Rethinking
GLAMs as commons: a conceptual framework.” Open Research Europe, 3 (157).
Bertacchini Enrico, Bravo Giangiacomo, Marrelli Massimo and Santagata Walter. 2012.
Cultural commons: A new perspective on the production and evolution of cultures.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Borchi Alice. 2018. “Culture as commons: theoretical challenges and empirical evidence
from occupied cultural spaces in Italy.” Cultural Trends 27 (1): 33-45.
Dechamp Gaëlle and Pélissier Maud. 2019. “Les communs de connaissance dans les ‘fablabs’
Mythe ou réalité ?” Revue française de gestion 2 (279): 97-112.
De Tullio Maria-Francesca. eds. 2020. Commons: between dreams and realities. Košice:
Creative Industry Košice
Pélissier Maud. 2021. Cultural commons in the digital ecosystem. London: Iste Willey.

The paper explores the dynamics of managing local heritage as a common good, focusing on the Italian context. It presents a case study analysis of interactions between local administrations and civil society in the field of heritage valorization.

International and Italian policies increasingly recognize cultural heritage as a common good, encouraging the participation of local communities in heritage governance through a framework of shared responsibility. The Faro Convention and the concept of "Heritage Communities" establish a promising connection to the tripartite definition of the commons: resource, community, and shared rules of engagement (commoning). However, whether these policies effectively translate into local governance practices remains uncertain. Traditional approaches to heritage management—expert-led centralized control or privatization—often conflict with the commons-based approach, raising questions about practical implementation. What is the actual level of community agency? To what extent is this approach to heritage management viewed as legitimate?

The article uses Italy’s patti di collaborazione, formal agreements between citizens and local administrations, as a case study to explore how communities engage with urban commons, particularly in managing local heritage. The study examines how communities form around heritage commons, establish legitimacy in managing these resources, interact with public administrations, and which factors facilitate or hinder their efforts. Additionally, the research considers the potential of applying commons-based management to "minor" heritage sites, which public and private actors often overlook due to their limited market potential.

The findings reflect the potential for an integrated, participatory system of heritage management in Italy. Such a system could balance the traditional roles of public administration and private actors with the increasingly acknowledged value of community involvement, fostering a more inclusive and dynamic approach to preserving and promoting cultural heritage as a shared, common resource.

This research explores how practical knowledge is developed and shared and the obstacles its provision processes may face. Specifically, it focuses on the institutional arrangements that guide the behaviour of a community of makers and on how these arrangements are devised through the process of collective action. Adopting the Institutional Analysis and Development framework, the study focuses on Makerspace Delft, a community of makers and hobbyists in the cultural sector in Delft, the Netherlands. The data was collected mainly by semi-structured interviews with the members of the community, triangulated with secondary sources from various documents, communications and participant observation. The data were analysed based on the Institutional Development Analysis framework. The results show that practical knowledge is primarily contained in people themselves rather than either physical or virtual artifacts. Accordingly, the opportunities where people meet and interact in a common practice are the main facilities for knowledge sharing. Most importantly, people are intrinsically motivated to share their knowledge but are much less interested in orchestrating the opportunities for sharing. The social dilemmas are therefore present principally in the provision of the infrastructure for the practical knowledge commons. The data also reveals that most of the present institutional arrangements are informal and that there is almost no monitoring, sanctions, or conflict resolution system in place. Through its findings, the research contributes firstly to the existing knowledge commons literature by discovering makerspaces and maker communities as a new category to study shared knowledge resources. Secondly, it introduces an institutional analysis focused on collective action to the makerspace scholarship, in which aspects of organisation and management have received little attention. Lastly, it enriches the practical knowledge management studies of community-based, decentralised approach to knowledge governance.

Creative crafts are cultural goods due to their creative and symbolic nature. They are influenced by a heuristic approach, focusing on skilled handwork and sense-making practices. Cultural goods are evaluated differently, and their values are influenced by various factors. This article explores the factors influencing the valuation of creative crafts products using goldsmith sector illustrations. Moreover, this study applies a cultural economic perspective that considers price and value (Hutter & Throsby, 2008 ). Cultural economists have increasingly been interested in valuation methods that detangle the notions of value and price (Hutter & Throsby, 2008; Klamer, 2017).

To understand the grounds of these valuation methods this article uses two specific viewpoints and a reflection on the theory of values applied to creatively crafted goods. First, when looking at crafts, it indicates that a higher degree of realization of commoning can be realized by expanding the group of participants to the practice to include consumers–buyers. They must be part of the shared practice to appreciate craft and, thus, be willing to pay for it. Second, and in relation to the previous point, it underlines that embodied knowledge influences the context of creative crafted goods and their making.

Finally, the notion of (re)produsage that Euler (2018, p. 13) uses indicates that the culmination of commoning supports the inclusion of consumers and buyers. Applying to craft the elements of commoning ([re]produsage, needs-satisfaction, peers and self-organization, voluntariness, inclusiveness, and mediation), which, according to Euler (2018), guarantees a sense of togetherness. Togetherness encourages people to organize, use, maintain, and produce various resources, supporting the diffusion of a craft culture essential to allow the craft sector to survive and thrive.

References
Euler, J. (2018). Conceptualizing the Commons: Moving beyond the Goods-based Definition by Introducing the Social Practices of Commoning as Vital Determinant. Ecological Economics, 143, 10–16.
Hutter, M., & Throsby, D. (2008). Beyond price. Value in Culture, Economics, and the Arts (M. Hutter & D. Throsby, Eds.). Cambridge University Press.
Klamer, A. (2017). Doing the Right Thing. Ubiquity Press.

Much has been discussed about the governance structure of the Commons further expanded by several scholars (Aligica, 2018; Lewis & Aligica, 2024; Aligica & Boettke, 2010) including its extension to cultural commons (Ostrom, 2009; Hess, 2012; Bertacchinni et al., 2012). Scholarship in cultural commons typically discusses how particular cultural initiatives can be understood as a commons as well as the resource characteristics of the institutional arrangement. There is a lack of studies looking into the micro organisational level implied in managing the commons, while over-focus is given to macro-level inter-party dynamics. This paper is concerned with zooming in towards the micro-organizational characteristics of working with the commons approach through the lens of the “collectivist organisations” (Rotschild-Whitt, 1979; 1986) commonly found in the arts. More rare in typical industries, collectivist organisations abound in the cultural scenes (e.g., associations, collectives, peer groups and flat hierarchies) for their adherence to “value-rationality”. The paper develops a conceptual model for applying the collectivist approach to managing cultural commons. It explores the collectivist incentives and dilemmas encountered in flat hierarchies: the consensus decision-making processes, temporary leadership, excessive homogeneity, and the absence of consistent monetary reward systems. The article argues - in accordance with Williamson’s (1973) views on peer groups and associations - that the cultural commons built on collectivist structures tend to collapse in the long run due to incentive problems, unclear rule enforcement, ephemeral leadership and consensus, different from environmental commons. The benefits of collectivism in cultural commons eventually transform flatter arrangements into a relatively inefficient structure, similar to “peer groups and associations” (Williamson, 1973), which can negatively impact the origin of such organisations rooted in the maintenance of value-rationality and the public good characteristics of culture.

Considering the cultural economic perspectives, this paper studies both the cultural and social dimensions of cultural goods that function as commons–orientated practices.
When we claim to be using a cultural economics perspective, what we are actually embracing is a specific approach within the field of cultural economics known as the value-based approach. Whilst the literature on the cultural commons primarily focuses on the relationships between actors, resources and governance, this approach helps us to deepen the analysis of practices that make up the cultural domain, and their social and cultural qualities. We argue that cultural values and social values within the cultural commons practices are intertwined yet distinct concepts, with each contributing towards the overall ethos and functioning of these shared resources. They differ with respect to their purposes and outcomes. When curators, artists, museum professionals, or other cultural professionals, and scientists, policy makers, and members of local communities collaborate, they thus co-create or co-curate new art works, exhibitions or experiment with new working methods, and make sense of what the art works signify, all of which involve cultural values. They also socialise with people that they otherwise would not meet. By analyzing the differences, we contribute to a better understanding of the ‘culturalness’ of cultural commons and what exactly makes them different from other types of commons, especially in respect to commons governance structures.
Next to this, based on systemic literature review, this paper puts forward a taxonomy of cultural commons–orientated practices, with respect to both the nature of the cultural resources and the dynamics between the cultural and social values that are expressed via the functioning of the cultural goods. In so doing, the paper also identifies gaps in extant research and opens up avenues for further inquiry into these aforementioned relationships.

In 2012, the book Cultural Commons: New Perspectives in the Production and Evolution of Cultures proposed to analyze tangible and intangible cultural expressions under the perspective of the commons and outlined a research agenda aimed at advancing the understanding of these shared resources, their inherent social dilemmas and related community-governance models using the Ostrom’s Workshop analytical tools. A decade later, it is necessary to critically assess whether this agenda has genuinely evolved or remains fragmented and underdeveloped across key areas of inquiry.
This contribution questions how scholars have advanced the discourse in three fundamental areas. First, how has the complexity in defining cultural resources influenced the adoption and application of the cultural commons framework across different disciplines? Second, while some of the literature has adopted a community-based governance perspective, has this approach been adequately tested and expanded empirically, or does it remain conceptually limited? Third, how have collective action and social dilemmas that challenge the sustainability of cultural resources been operationalized and empirically investigated?
To interrogate these questions, we use insights from bibliometric analysis as an instrument to map the intellectual trajectory of the field. By identifying and examining the scholarship produced over the last decade, we aim to uncover whether the original research agenda has been followed, ignored, or redefined. Preliminary results suggest that while specific themes have been explored, the field lacks cohesive theoretical and empirical development.
In conclusion, we identify areas of stagnation and potential future directions, including the need for interdisciplinary approaches and a critical rethinking of the cultural commons research agenda to address the evolving challenges of managing shared cultural resources.

Abstract: The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) challenges norms about technology, the Internet, and data governance. These AI tools rely on datasets or foundation models, often collected by data scraping, a process of sweeping the vast expanse of the Internet for content. A common dispute is that certain AI models use copyrighted materials to train their systems without giving attribution for the copyright holder. The question therefore centers on whether training data itself qualifies for copyright protection and if an AI model’s output crosses into copyright infringement of that data. At its core, the advancement of AI has put the notion of copyright to the test. The Bloomington school’s scholarship on the cultural commons offers theoretical insight into the history of copyright infringement, revolving around the challenge of defining boundaries. The Bloomington School’s understanding of “commons” in general, including the cultural commons specifically, is rooted in two key principles. One is that a commons is a space where people share resources. Second, many different types of institutions can be at work in a commons. These institutions include boundary rules that allow people to share resources and overcome social dilemmas. Foundational scholarship on the cultural commons, which began developing in earnest twenty-five years ago, connects the cultural commons to the public domain and intellectual property. This research was generated by critical conversations about boundaries occurring around the year 2000, particularly how the new digital revolution challenged prevailing notions about intellectual property. In effect, digital technology unleashed the human capacity to share resources, including those considered to be under the protection of the intellectual property regime. This paper argues that the concerns and innovations about sharing and boundaries in foundational texts of cultural commons research remain salient today. Thus, we trace the salient features in this early body of scholarship with our present-day case study, AI, in mind. We’ll first examine recent cases involving AI and copyright protection issues, particularly instances of infringement over the usage of AI. From there, we’ll use the theoretical framework of cultural commons to shed light on the copyright movement and the concept of copyright itself. Primary focus will be placed on how boundaries are defined within the development of copyright protection. Finally, we’ll bring these discussions together to outline a theory of copyright infringement for the AI era.

This research project employs the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, augmented by the Network of Adjacent Action Situations (IAD-NAAS), to examine the empirical applications within the territorial contexts of Italian UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The World Heritage List remains the most effective international instrument for the protection of cultural and natural heritage. However, World Heritage Sites frequently display deficiencies and fail to achieve territorial impacts associated with such a prestigious designation. To illustrate, one of the most frequently debated issues pertains to the governance of the site and the active participation of local stakeholders.

The decomposition of the complex management of the sites into constituent elements provides an innovative perspective through which to represent the problematic dynamics of WHL implementation. The research identifies the IAD framework as an effective interpretative instrument of the conditions that influence the rules within the governance of sites. Furthermore, the framework is enhanced by the Network of Adjacent Action Situations (NAAS), which acknowledges that the observed Action Situations are frequently interconnected and interdependent. Consequently, it is essential to analyse not only their individual components but also the relationships that characterise them. The introduction of the IAD-NAAS also includes the division of AS according to governance tasks, thus enabling this tool to represent common property administration situations within the territorial context.

The study begins from these premises to systematically apply the IAD-NAAS to European UNESCO sites, particularly those in Italy, with the aim of clarifying polycentric governance dynamics and identifying potential development paths that would enhance the impact of heritage on the territory. A cross-analysis of data from the Periodic Report, one of the monitoring systems used by UNESCO, is being conducted with the objective of constructing an analytical model representing the governance dynamics of the sites and the various resources that comprise them. The model will categorise these elements according to the specific governance tasks to which they are relevant and link them to the factors that impact the site. The findings will subsequently inform an innovative representation of the roles and resources associated with cultural heritage.