A delivery, a publishing decision

Review makes it possible to agree on which result meets the project’s intention. The message, format, materials, and represented context all matter. For a project involving several people, it also matters who has authority to approve the delivered version.

Consider an institution commissioning an educational video. It can approve the structure and visual execution and still need a review by the team responsible for the subject before sharing it. The decision should match the intended use and agreed terms.

A delivery needs to identify which files make up the result and which terms accompany their use. Depending on the scope, formats, sources, permissions, or distinctions between recordings and generated representations may matter.

Imagia’s framework supports this clarity through Origin and Core. If a piece includes a reconstruction, preserve the explanation for its later presentation. Relevant information should accompany the work where it will be interpreted.

Participants decide whether to share a piece and which platform to use, in line with agreed rights and terms. They may need a website, a presentation, a campaign, or an audiovisual venue. Each destination can add requirements for format, context, and authorization.

Amivi is one publishing option within Imagia. A Mulvin delivery does not automatically publish a piece there or require the use of that platform. The decision to share should identify the version, destination, and applicable terms.

Keeping work materials, delivering files, and authorizing publication are decisions that need a defined scope. Access, retention, and reuse terms should be set for each project. Belonging to the same group does not, by itself, authorize sharing materials across experiences.