>If he wants the materials to be part of a project, he should have spent the time needed to make them into a project. But really, Jason doesn’t know what to do with them, that’s why he donated them in the first place.

>It’s not much different than dropping off an attic full of miscellaneous paintings to the Met and expecting them to put them in an exhibit.

>If you want to make a qualified donation, make a qualified donation. Write up a contract that tells the organization what it’s allowed to do with your donation. Otherwise, anything is fair game.

First, as he wrote and of course you read, that is indeed a lesson he has taken:

>"Finally, this is all relatively minor in terms of the work I do and projects I focus on, an event that brought me some fury but which has mostly played the part of filed under “life lessons”. [...] My conversations with people and organizations I shift materials to are much longer, much more involved, and with much more contingencies as a result of this event, and things are better for it.

So apparently he's doing exactly as you say in response. He, rightly or wrongly, felt he'd trusted where he shouldn't have and will be more explicit about expectations going forward. That's good?

Second, trying to shift to legalism from a social complaint is crappy. He never said it wasn't "fair game" or that he'd be talking to his lawyer or any such thing. He never even implies there was a contract to the contrary, that didn't have every "right" in the legal sense to do whatever they wished. It was a terms-free donation. But just because the law lets you do something doesn't mean you're free of social reactions. If people feel you've treated them badly, even if it is totally allowed, they may exercise their freedom to tell others about it and refuse to associate with you further. Others may then react in turn, or not depending on how they judge the event. "You didn't have a contract so haha too bad for you" is not the greatest take in the world.