Artist Needed
Carol & The Bullmarket Frogs
design some illustrations suitable for T Shirts, Mugs
and possibly greeting cards, to be used to raise money for
rescue.
Artist should be willing to work for a reasonable (ie; cheap)
rate, and be able to complete the work in fairly short order
(ie; the sooner the better). The other artist we had lined
up seems to have disappeared, and we need to get this
project under way as soon as possible.
Stylistically, you should have an affinity for painting
colorful, fun images of dogs, French Bulldogs specifically.
We'll supply lots of Frenchie images for you to work from,
and the basic design ideas. We're looking for this be an
on going series, with a new design released once or twice
per year. We'll happily include, in addition to monetary
payment, links to your web site as well as an ad banner
in our rotational ad series on our (highly visited)
web site. We would need sole rights to reproduce the work
created for us.
Please reply by email, since I don't want to miss your
reply in all the messages in the group. If possible, include
a web site address with samples of your work.
Thanks in advance,
Carol Gravestock
res...@bullmarketfrogs.com
--
French Bulldogs by Bullmarket
http://www.bullmarketfrogs.com
French Bulldog Fun Zone
http://www.frenchbulldogfun.com
Wizard of Draws
>
> Artist should be willing to work for a reasonable (ie; cheap)
> rate, and be able to complete the work in fairly short order
> (ie; the sooner the better). The other artist we had lined
> up seems to have disappeared, and we need to get this
> project under way as soon as possible.
>
Perhaps you would be able to convince the artist to complete the project
if you paid a fee commensurate with the value you require.
You want good, cheap, fast *and* exclusive worldwide publishing rights?
I sincerely wish you luck in your search.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com
Tracy Landauer
his work, I think he's in So Cal, or is that Sedona, AZ? I fergit.)
He's a strong advocate for animal shelters, and he donates a portion of
proceeds from some of his more recognizable dog and cat portraits to the
ASPCA, I believe. A couple of years ago, he did some work for PetsMart,
notebook covers and notepads, that kind of thing. I have a couple of
his prints hanging on my wall.
Tracy
Christy wrote:
>
> If you reread the entire post, you will see that Carol is looking for
someone to provide artwork for French Bulldog Rescue - an organization
that helps homeless dogs. I'd hope many artists would be interested in
nationwide exposure of their artwork while helping a worthy charitable
organization.
>
> Christy
Wizard of Draws
> >
> > You want good, cheap, fast *and* exclusive worldwide publishing rights?
> > I sincerely wish you luck in your search.
>
> someone to provide artwork for French Bulldog Rescue - an organization that
> helps homeless dogs. I'd hope many artists would be interested in nationwide
> exposure of their artwork while helping a worthy charitable organization.
>
Please reread my post. I know exactly what organization she was asking
on behalf of, but that was not my reason for posting as I did.
Finding an artist (quickly) that is good, willing to work for less than
market value, on a rush deadline, *and* willing to give exclusive rights
to the client, is a daunting if not impossible task.
Personally, I do a number of projects each year for organizations that
are able to pay, but I don't charge a cent. However, they don't demand
as much as Carol does. That is what makes the difference here.
Especially the rights.
*Everyone* that asks me for a free cartoon, offers me *exposure*. I
doubt half of them have websites that get as many visitors as mine,
making their offer less an inducement than they realize. If their
exposure is of a different nature, say print, I've found the size and
scope of their publication is usually so small, that again, the offer is
virtually worthless. (Usually that's why they can't afford to pay very
well.)
Again, in all sincerity, I wish her luck. She will need it.
Wizard of Draws
>
> Ron Burns is such a case in point. (Christy, if you're familiar with
> his work, I think he's in So Cal, or is that Sedona, AZ? I fergit.)
> He's a strong advocate for animal shelters, and he donates a portion of
> proceeds from some of his more recognizable dog and cat portraits to the
> ASPCA, I believe. A couple of years ago, he did some work for PetsMart,
> notebook covers and notepads, that kind of thing. I have a couple of
> his prints hanging on my wall.
>
Has he signed over all of the rights to each of the images to the ASPCA?
Wizard of Draws
>
> Then don't apply for the job.
>
> Lurking can be a good thing.
> --
I was merely giving advice on why she might be having a problem keeping
an artist on the project. For the uninitiated, that kind of advice can
be a good thing too. Maybe she didn't realize how much she was really
asking for. Many people don't you know.
Tracy Landauer
from him directly and/or other poster print-type operations.
Tracy
Wizard of Draws wrote:
>
> Tracy Landauer wrote:
> >
> > Ron Burns is such a case in point. (Christy, if you're familiar with
> > his work, I think he's in So Cal, or is that Sedona, AZ? I fergit.)
> > He's a strong advocate for animal shelters, and he donates a portion of
> > proceeds from some of his more recognizable dog and cat portraits to the
> > ASPCA, I believe. A couple of years ago, he did some work for PetsMart,
> > notebook covers and notepads, that kind of thing. I have a couple of
> > his prints hanging on my wall.
> >
>
> Has he signed over all of the rights to each of the images to the ASPCA?
Christy
"Wizard of Draws" <shar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A04B8...@mindspring.com...
> Carol & The Bullmarket Frogs wrote:
> >
> > Artist should be willing to work for a reasonable (ie; cheap)
> > rate, and be able to complete the work in fairly short order
> > (ie; the sooner the better). The other artist we had lined
> > up seems to have disappeared, and we need to get this
> > project under way as soon as possible.
> >
>
> Perhaps you would be able to convince the artist to complete the project
> if you paid a fee commensurate with the value you require.
>
> I sincerely wish you luck in your search.
If you reread the entire post, you will see that Carol is looking for
someone to provide artwork for French Bulldog Rescue - an organization that
helps homeless dogs. I'd hope many artists would be interested in nationwide
exposure of their artwork while helping a worthy charitable organization.
Christy
Rocky
<3A04B8...@mindspring.com>:
>You want good, cheap, fast *and* exclusive worldwide
>publishing rights? I sincerely wish you luck in your search.
Then don't apply for the job.
Lurking can be a good thing.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
TD of zuzubabies.com
Wizard of Draws wrote:
> Perhaps you would be able to convince the artist to complete the project
> if you paid a fee commensurate with the value you require.
>
> You want good, cheap, fast *and* exclusive worldwide publishing rights?
> I sincerely wish you luck in your search.
You've obviously never worked with a charity before, have you. I've
donated a couple pieces for things like this, and would happily do it
again. I support animal rescue work as much as I'm able. And while I'm
not able to contribute financially at this time I do foster animals and
will do my best to help however it's needed. Including the creation of
"good, cheap, fast" offerings.
--
.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.
( Blessings and Joy, )
) Tobi~Dawne (
( http://members.home.net/prairie-lily )
) (
( Check out http://zuzubabies.com for great friends, )
) fun contests, free email, super discounts, a (
( wonderful forum, interesting articles, and more. )
"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"+.+"
Christy
>
> Please reread my post. I know exactly what organization she was asking
> on behalf of, but that was not my reason for posting as I did.
> Finding an artist (quickly) that is good, willing to work for less than
> market value, on a rush deadline, *and* willing to give exclusive rights
> to the client, is a daunting if not impossible task.
Definitely not impossible.
If you take a quick peek at http://members.aol.com/sheltirsq1/products.html
and scroll down to the greeting card, you'll see an example of a piece of
artwork that my sister donated to a rescue group to be used for fundraising
purposes (in this case, reproduced into cards.) She produced this piece in
short order, gave full rights to the group and received zero compensation
(not even exposure, since she does not currently produce art for profit.)
She just wanted to give something to the group in which she is closely
affiliated. No, the average person won't be willing to donate their art in
this manner, but some artists are above average. :)
Christy
Mike C.
If people ask for free work to be done and they do that begging
in a public place then they had better be prepared for the public
comments. It is just the small price to pay to get work done for free.
":^) ®
--
Mike C.
* Logo Design
* DHTML & GIF Animation
* Custom Graphics for YOUR Site!
Stop by and see if my skills and talents are up to your standards.
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
NEW SITE at: http://www.mikeslogoland.com/
mailto:mi...@artistmike.com?Subject=Logo.Project
Rocky
<3A050827...@artistmike.com>:
>If people ask for free work to be done and they do that
>begging in a public place then they had better be prepared
>for the public comments. It is just the small price to pay
>to get work done for free.
You're right.
But: Carol's been here a long time and has done good work for
dogs, and I've just *now* noticed the cross-posting. Good
causes and all that, eh?
Still, IMO, she wasn't begging.
[r.p.d.b.]
Donna
Asking an artist up front to relinquish all reproduction rights to a piece
of work, w/o offering a small royalty to help support his/her livelihood
as an artist is disrespectful.
Asking an artist to whip up something this important
in short order is naive and shows that the person
asking for the favor has probably not worked with professional artists
before.
When people come to me looking for these favors (I make
a living - and support a dog rescue - with illustration
work), I usually send them to a local high school or
art college. Sometimes art students are happier to work
under these conditions.
I would advise the french bulldog person to arrange a
1%-3% profit sharing of the product line go to the artist
as a gesture of thanks for their very large donation to
this worthy cause.
Donna
(Co-Owner of Racer-Reynolds Illustration)
Wizard of Draws wrote:
>
> I was merely giving advice on why she might be having a problem keeping
> an artist on the project. For the uninitiated, that kind of advice can
> be a good thing too. Maybe she didn't realize how much she was really
> asking for. Many people don't you know.
Manadero
>I would advise the french bulldog person to arrange a 1%-3% profit sharing of
the product line go to the artist as a gesture of thanks for their very large
donation to
>this worthy cause.
I have to say I am sort of surprised at the responses. Carol did ask for a
reasonable piece of artwork, done in a timely manner, and with release of
rights (so that they can freely reproduce it for fundraising). This is to help
homeless animals. In this case, Frenchies. As a rescuer, I couldn't begin to
put a dollar amount on the money that has come out of my own pocket to vet,
house, transport, etc. the time away from my family, the wear and tear on my
car. And yet, I don't begrudge the dogs my time or money. Rescue isn't
profitable, and most don't even break even. The people spending their time and
money to help abandoned and homeless animals very often come out of pocket to
do so, and those pockets are rarely "bottomless".
This request is for a charitable cause. Every dime of "profit" that the artist
demands is *less* money available to save lives. Artists are commonly
stereotyped as petulant and temperamental. Judging by some of the responses
here, they are also arrogant and uncharitable. This isn't about cheating you,
it is about trying to save dogs that would DIE without intervention.
I appreciate that many people have a "what's in it for me" attitude, and that
is certainly your right. I would urge you though to not be so quick to condemn
those that *are* trying to make a difference. If the price of a few pieces of
artwork are too much to give, don't respond. She isn't requesting that you go
hungry or homeless, she is asking that someone devote an afternoon to helping
those that would die without the resulting funds. (And she did offer to pay a
reasonable sum, which is probably the only amount available for such a project)
I know from experience that when it comes to supporting a good cause, there is
always someone generous enough to step up and donate their time and work. And
that's a good thing :) Just think how sad it would be if everyone felt that
they should profit off those that are in need.
Robin
Mike C.
Rocky wrote:
>
> mi...@artistmike.com (Mike C.) wrote in
> <3A050827...@artistmike.com>:
>
> >If people ask for free work to be done and they do that
> >begging in a public place then they had better be prepared
> >for the public comments. It is just the small price to pay
> >to get work done for free.
>
> You're right.
>
> But: Carol's been here a long time and has done good work for
> dogs, and I've just *now* noticed the cross-posting. Good
> causes and all that, eh?
>
> Still, IMO, she wasn't begging.
What do you call asking for free stuff to be done for you?
Manadero
>What do you call asking for free stuff to be done for you?
I'm sorry, I think I've missed something somewhere along the way. Could you
please quote exactly where she asked that the work be done for free?
Thank you,
Robin
Dimitri
"Mike C." wrote:
>
>
> What do you call asking for free stuff to be done for you?
>
> ":^) ®
>
I would offer the word "charity" in this instance. Not all beggars are
dishonerable Mikey.
Wizard of Draws
> No, the average person won't be willing to donate their art in
> this manner, but some artists are above average. :)
Then we are in complete agreement it seems. Finding the "above average"
artist will likely involve some luck, which is what I wished for her.
Obviously some people mistook the tone of my post as a rebuke of her
request, and that was my fault for wording it so clumsily. I hope Carol
did not take it that way.
Wizard of Draws
>
> You've obviously never worked with a charity before, have you. I've
> donated a couple pieces for things like this, and would happily do it
> again. I support animal rescue work as much as I'm able. And while I'm
> not able to contribute financially at this time I do foster animals and
> will do my best to help however it's needed. Including the creation of
> "good, cheap, fast" offerings.
>
Your assumption about me, my work and charities is incorrect.
Regardless, I still maintain that there are relatively few artists that
will meet all of her criteria:
1. Available
2. Fast
3. Good
4. Cheap
5. Willing to sign over all of the rights to every image created for the
organization
There is a saying that:
you can have it Fast, Good or Cheap...(pick 2 only).
This charity requires not only all 3, but *2 more*.
I merely point out that it will be difficult to find an artist willing
to agree to ALL of those conditions. And I SINCERELY wished her luck. I
still do.
If you think I was being obnoxious, I can assure you that that was not
my intention and I apologize to anyone who interpreted my post that way.
CJJUNG
biological illustrator and now have returned to my fine arts roots and am now
making a go at being an artist. Everyone has to make money to live and an
artist is no exception. I have done work for charity but it's on my own time
and when I can fit it into my schedule. At a recent dog rescue event, I made a
bunch of pins for sale. I split the resulting profit between me and collie
rescue. So yes, not all the money went to Collie Rescue but they did get some
money that they won't have gotten otherwise.
chris and her smooth collies
Zeffie and Pablo
Julie
Since I write and can't draw a stick figure, I will do what I can, I have
some young (read as college age) friends, well Bob's daughter's friends, who
have some drawing ability (One is drawing illustrations for a children's
story that will be sold to raise money for shelters). She did a great job
in drawing the dog in my story, I didn't have pictures and she went
completely by what I was describing.
I'll contact her and give her you email addy if that's ok.
My other thought was clip art or drawings that are in public domain.
Wouldn't cost a thing and don't have to wait for it.
Just some ideas.
Julie
--
~If you want to email me, remove the xyz from the .com
TD of zuzubabies.com
Wizard of Draws wrote:
> If you think I was being obnoxious, I can assure you that that was not
> my intention and I apologize to anyone who interpreted my post that way.
Thank you for the apology. It did come across that way, and I'm happy to
learn that wasn't how it was meant. *smiles*
Robin Nuttall
Manadero wrote:
>
> Donna wrote:
>
> >I would advise the french bulldog person to arrange a 1%-3% profit sharing of
> the product line go to the artist as a gesture of thanks for their very large
> donation to
> >this worthy cause.
>
> I have to say I am sort of surprised at the responses. Carol did ask for a
> reasonable piece of artwork, done in a timely manner, and with release of
> rights (so that they can freely reproduce it for fundraising). This is to help
> homeless animals. In this case, Frenchies. As a rescuer, I couldn't begin to
> put a dollar amount on the money that has come out of my own pocket to vet,
> house, transport, etc. the time away from my family, the wear and tear on my
> car. And yet, I don't begrudge the dogs my time or money. Rescue isn't
> profitable, and most don't even break even. The people spending their time and
> money to help abandoned and homeless animals very often come out of pocket to
> do so, and those pockets are rarely "bottomless".
I'm not surprised at all, and even further, I support the contention
that Carole is asking for too much.
If you don't make a living from illustration or artwork, it can be
difficult to see what the problem is. The problem is, simply, that
people expect what Carol expects--somebody to be able to whip up, at
short notice, innovative and clever drawings/paintings which show
Frenchies in a variety of poses. And of course, if I know dog people,
nothing would be allowed which didn't show Frenchies of correct type.
Further, she wants it really cheap, and she wants all the rights to it.
Believe it or not, this IS a huge issue with graphic artists. It's as if
people say, "oh, you can whip up all this stuff for me, can't you?"
without understanding the years of study to become proficient at this,
plus the hours and hours of time it takes to create each individual
work.
If you look at this from a dog viewpoint, think about it as a good
breeder versus a puppy miller. The good breeder doesn't let his "work of
art," the puppy he "created" through years of showing, pedigree
research, etc. etc. go out of his house unless he feels he has some
"control" over the "final product," which is a dog who lives a long and
healthy life. The good breeder has say about that puppy and keeps in
contact with his "product." If his "product" is being poorly treated,
the good breeder reclaims it. Whereas the puppy miller is perfectly
willing to churn out something that kind of looks like the real thing,
but isn't. Further, he hands his "product" over to the buyer and
basically says, "here, it's yours, I don't want to see it again, you do
what you like with it." Similarly, artists not only want, but DESERVE to
be able to keep some control on where their work goes and how it is
used. If I drew a gorgeous doberman head, then gave up all rights to it,
who is to say that Kimbertal might not get ahold of it and use it in
their advertising brochure? I'd have no say in that.
See the problem?
--
Robin Nuttall
DD Graphix
http://www.ddgraphix.com
Robin Nuttall
CJJUNG wrote:
>
> I have to say that I'm with Jeff (the Wizard of Draws). I worked years as a
> biological illustrator and now have returned to my fine arts roots and am now
> making a go at being an artist. Everyone has to make money to live and an
> artist is no exception. I have done work for charity but it's on my own time
> and when I can fit it into my schedule. At a recent dog rescue event, I made a
> bunch of pins for sale. I split the resulting profit between me and collie
> rescue. So yes, not all the money went to Collie Rescue but they did get some
> money that they won't have gotten otherwise.
Yep. I get asked to help with things like web projects, for free, all
the time. The thing is, I need to spend as much time as possible
actually *making* money, so I can pay my bills! I don't have anybody
else to rely on. I'm single, so if I don't make it, my bills don't get
paid. All artistic projects take time--usually hours of time. And those
are not billable hours, or are only billable at such a low rate that I
can't make anything. I too deserve to make a living. I feel really bad
turning people down who want free work, especially since it's mostly
been for Doberman stuff. But I just can't be sucked into that hole.
Because if you do it for one person, they all want it. And pretty soon,
you're sitting in front of the computer 8 hours a day and not making a
penny.
Gwen Watson
Robin Nuttall wrote:
> Believe it or not, this IS a huge issue with graphic artists. It's as if
> people say, "oh, you can whip up all this stuff for me, can't you?"
> without understanding the years of study to become proficient at this,
> plus the hours and hours of time it takes to create each individual
> work.
>
> See the problem?
>
> --
> Robin Nuttall
> DD Graphix
> http://www.ddgraphix.com
Isn't that the truth? Recently at my work I am also
expected to be able to do Photography, cuz
gee your an artist, that makes you the closest
thing here to being a Photographer. Not to mention
my new responsibility of doing
floor plans, ie AutoCad as once again, gee
you do Computer Illustrations so that
makes you the closest person here
qualified to do that.
Gwen
shaking her head at all the junk I am suppose to be able to do
Gwen Watson
Robin Nuttall wrote:
> Believe it or not, this IS a huge issue with graphic artists. It's as if
> people say, "oh, you can whip up all this stuff for me, can't you?"
> without understanding the years of study to become proficient at this,
> plus the hours and hours of time it takes to create each individual
> work.
>
> See the problem?
>
> --
> Robin Nuttall
> DD Graphix
> http://www.ddgraphix.com
Isn't that the truth. Then at my work I am also
expected to be able to do Photography, cuz
gee your an artist that makes you the closest
thing here to be a Photographer. Not to mention
my new additionally responsibility of doing
Manadero
>If you don't make a living from illustration or artwork, it can be difficult
to see what the problem is.
I understand what the problem is.
>Believe it or not, this IS a huge issue with graphic artists. It's as if
>people say, "oh, you can whip up all this stuff for me, can't you?"without
understanding the years of study to become proficient at this,
>plus the hours and hours of time it takes to create each individual work.
I also understand that this is your livelihood and that it takes time from your
schedule to create a piece of artwork. I guess what I do not understand is how
your time/work is so much different than the many people who do give of
themselves every day to help those less fortunate than themselves. We have
lawyers that have advised us on matters, vets that do pro bono work for special
cases, businesses that donate items for fundraising, individuals that do
transport, foster dogs, rehabilitate them and rehome them all on their own time
and with their own resources, trainers and behaviorists that offer
consultations/sessions either free or at very reduced cost, printsetters that
do business cards, ID cards, letterhead, etc. All without thinking of what's in
it for them. And I wouldn't limit it to just "dog" people, though that is the
topic here. Lots of people, in all walks of life, find it fulfilling to give
back to the community and to help those that would do without otherwise. I
myself, as a groomer, have volunteered many upaid hours doing what took me
years to perfect, in order to help those that need it the most.
I do understand that some see things differently. I just don't comprehend
having the ability and not the desire to make a difference. You act as if
these people who are in the trenches rescuing dogs are going to "use" you to
bankroll their vacations.
If your artwork is too much to offer, why not spend a few hours at the local
shelter? You might see things a bit differently.
Robin
Robin Nuttall
Manadero wrote:
>
> Robin Nuttall wrote and Gwen agreed that:
>
> >If you don't make a living from illustration or artwork, it can be difficult
> to see what the problem is.
>
> I understand what the problem is.
>
> >Believe it or not, this IS a huge issue with graphic artists. It's as if
> >people say, "oh, you can whip up all this stuff for me, can't you?"without
> understanding the years of study to become proficient at this,
> >plus the hours and hours of time it takes to create each individual work.
>
> I also understand that this is your livelihood and that it takes time from your
> schedule to create a piece of artwork. I guess what I do not understand is how
> your time/work is so much different than the many people who do give of
> themselves every day to help those less fortunate than themselves.
Oh please. Who says I don't? I was saying that what Carole was asking
would hit some real trigger buttons for people who do graphic
art--especially losing control of their work.
As a member of the Graphic Artists Guild, I am kept apprised of the
various and sundry laws and lawsuits going on when people are trying to
get their work back, and also of the organizations long-standing
position on doing "work for hire," which is what this is. It simply
means that you throw your work away. I gave you a wonderful example of
why it matters (the good breeder versus puppy miller analogy), which you
chose to ignore in your reply.
I HAVE donated artwork. I also give a sizeable discount to non-profit
organizations, and do some work at far, far below market price for good
causes. So do many/most other artists. However, we are way too often
just *expected* to be delighted to do this kind of thing. And the thing
is, that just like you, we need to make a living. What if your boss
asked you, every day, to take home his shirts and wash them. Or to spend
your home time typing manuscripts, or preparing a speech for him. Even
if he was a wonderful and important person, even if his work was good,
aren't you of value too? Isn't YOUR time important and valuable?
>
> I do understand that some see things differently. I just don't comprehend
> having the ability and not the desire to make a difference. You act as if
> these people who are in the trenches rescuing dogs are going to "use" you to
> bankroll their vacations.
Excuse me? Perhaps you should get off your high horse, drop the
sanctimonious claptrap and look at what I've done. I'm active in
doberman rescue (have been for over 15 years) and act as the liaison in
Missouri, fielding several calls a week. I don't foster dogs because I
have two very ill dogs at my house, but I work with a local no-kill to
coordinate rescues. I spend HOURS on the net and the phone, just like
you do, educating people on doberman and dog issues. I haven't been as
active as I used to be on this group due to time, but do a deja search.
I'm also the head of the DPCA Longevity Program, and spend many hours
processing applications, entering dogs into a database, and producing
gorgeous certificates. All to help promote the concept of looking at
longevity in our bloodlines. I have served the UDC as Education and
Rescue chair in the past, and won the Presidents Award at our National
this year for volunteer work.
>
> If your artwork is too much to offer, why not spend a few hours at the local
> shelter? You might see things a bit differently.
And what makes you think I haven't?????? Perhaps before you open your
mouth, you should see how close your foot is to it.
Lynn Kosmakos
Manadero wrote:
>
> I also understand that this is your livelihood and that it takes time from your
> schedule to create a piece of artwork. I guess what I do not understand is how
> your time/work is so much different than the many people who do give of
> themselves every day to help those less fortunate than themselves. We have
> lawyers that have advised us on matters, vets that do pro bono work
No, you really don't understand. When a vet gives a discount on a
spay or neuter, it is not a reusable product. Same thing with legal
advice. That's very different from an artistic work which has a
permanent value and can be used in ways other than that intended by
the donation.
Our rescue had a large fundraiser in August and worked with 2 different
artists. One artist donated a drawing of a GSD that was used on the
invitations and the original drawing that was auctioned off. She got
full credit, with her donation acknowledged on the invitations, in the
auction book, and a display of her cards and sample book of pet
portraits
displayed prominently at the event. The sculptress, Susan Bahari,
donated a statue for the auction. She had the model of her War Dogs
memorial sculpture displayed, with her studio cards, and a table of
her sculptures offered for sale (proceeds to her). There was no
question
of our rescue retaining rights for future use beyond the intended
donation.
Lynn K.
Manadero
>Oh please. Who says I don't? I was saying that what Carole was asking
>would hit some real trigger buttons for people who do graphic
>art--especially losing control of their work.
O.K. so what about a business that uses graphic artists to design their logos,
etc. Do they not have control of the image after you complete it? The only
difference I see here is the amount of $$ in your pocket. And, since your
example is important to you... No, I don't see Frenchie Rescue releasing the
rights of their fundraising works to *any* private breeder to promote their
kennel, good or bad. Furthermore, I don't quite get the leap from rights to a
drawing to protecting the well being of a living animal that you have brought
into the world.
>It simply
>means that you throw your work away.
So? Please explain to me how this is *different* than anyone else that offers
their time and talents to help charity? If you are a caterer and do a
fundraising dinner at "cost", is that not throwing your work away? Same for
trainers, vets, printsetters, etc. that donate services. Is that not time,
effort and skill taken away from the work that will bolster their bank
accounts? Sure it is. That's why it's called charity.
>I HAVE donated artwork. I also give a sizeable discount to non-profit
>organizations, and do some work at far, far below market price for good
>causes.
I think that's great. Why then, do your other posts seem so opposed to doing
so?
> However, we are way too often
>just *expected* to be delighted to do this kind of thing.
Funny, I don't remember anyone asking you by name to do anything. She posted
asking if someone would be willing to help them. Hopefully, some generous soul
saw her post and is willing too. I think Christy said it best when she said
that the average artist probably wouldn't do it, but that some artists are
above average.
>And the thing is, that just like you, we need to make a living. What if your
boss
>asked you, every day, to take home his shirts and wash them. Or to spend
>your home time typing manuscripts, or preparing a speech for him.
I think you're reaching a bit here. I really wouldn't compare being expected to
do your boss's laundry to a general request on a newsgroup for someone to
donate their time to help homeless animals.
>Excuse me? Perhaps you should get off your high horse, drop the
>sanctimonious claptrap and look at what I've done.
I'm sorry, I have seen you carry on about how rude it is for people for people
to "expect" artists to do "something for nothing" (which wasn't even the
original request) because it might not be enough profit or promotion for them
personally. I have also seen you compare donating your skill to charity with
doing your boss's laundry.
But going with your lengthy description of what you do for rescue.... It
appears that you *do* donate your time, skill and knowledge to benefit homeless
dogs. How then, can you differentiate between those (doubtless) hundreds of
hours *given* away and *throwing* away the time it would take to do a few
drawings? Not saying that you should, or that anyone should expect you to.
However, your previous point was that people that asked you to do things were
taking advantage and didn't realize how much your time was worth. I'm sure
that if you are a talented artist, that people will ask you for help. As far
as I'm concerned, it's just one hand washing the other. We all have talents,
and if you have a gift, IMO, it would be a compliment for someone to come to
you to ask for help. I know that when I am called to do grooming
demonstrations for other breed rescues, I am pleased that they thought of me
and I always help out if I can.
>And what makes you think I haven't??????
Frankly? The attitude of your posts on the subject. It seems hard to believe
that anyone that knows what kind of a budget rescues work on would be put out
at someone requesting a "reasonable" piece of artwork for fundraising.
Robin
Manadero
>No, you really don't understand. When a vet gives a discount on a spay or
neuter, it is not a reusable product.
O.K. I agree with this. So, if someone pays a graphic designer to do a logo,
etc. Then does it always remain the property of the person that was paid to
render it? It just doesn't appear wrong for someone who is planning to
reproduce the image for a rescue to expect to have the rights to that image.
>One artist donated a drawing of a GSD that was used on the invitations and the
>original drawing that was auctioned off. She got full credit, with her
donation >acknowledged on the invitations, in the auction book, and a display
of her cards >and sample book of pet portraits displayed prominently at the
event.
From the original post:
Carol wrote:
<<We'll happily include, in addition to monetary payment, links to your web
site as well as an ad banner in our rotational ad series on our (highly
visited) web site.>>
Is this not the same type of exposure you outlined above?
Robin
Cindy Tittle Moore
Manadero <mana...@aol.com> wrote:
>Robin wrote:
>So? Please explain to me how this is *different* than anyone else that offers
>their time and talents to help charity? If you are a caterer and do a
>fundraising dinner at "cost", is that not throwing your work away? Same for
>trainers, vets, printsetters, etc. that donate services. Is that not time,
>effort and skill taken away from the work that will bolster their bank
>accounts? Sure it is. That's why it's called charity.
You don't appear to understand the implications of signing over the
copyright to the charity in question. That's unprecedented. You see,
the artwork is reusable, unlike the fundraising dinner. For an
equivalent, consider a deal with the caterer in which for the one fee,
they'd do the dinner for that fundraiser, and then for any other
fundraiser in the future they wanted to have that dinner for, at no
further charge.
Speaking as a person who could be making a similar request for the
charitable group I work for, I would not include giving up all rights
to the work in the deal. I would negotiate one time rights for the
specific fundraiser, and the option to request its use again in the
future, and would take care to credit the artist's work. Under those
kind of conditions, I have every confidence I'd be able to use the
work in the future, while not depriving the artist of the exposure
they deserve.
--Cindy
ka...@tuatha.sidhe.org
> Manadero wrote:
>>
>> I also understand that this is your livelihood and that it takes time from your
>> schedule to create a piece of artwork. I guess what I do not understand is how
>> your time/work is so much different than the many people who do give of
>> themselves every day to help those less fortunate than themselves. We have
>> lawyers that have advised us on matters, vets that do pro bono work
> No, you really don't understand. When a vet gives a discount on a
> spay or neuter, it is not a reusable product. Same thing with legal
> advice. That's very different from an artistic work which has a
> permanent value and can be used in ways other than that intended by
> the donation.
Here's an example that may help-
An artist friend of mine has had problems with some of her artwork being
used without her permission on various web sites. Because she retains the
rights to those works of art, she can go after them for copyright
infringement. If she gave away the rights, then she would have to get the
person/group that holds the rights to do so. If said group/person had not
interest or funds to do so, she is SOL and would have to see her work used
in ways that she did not intend and in ways that may infact be offensive
to her.
Someone asked about logos and other commercial images. Yes the companies
retain the rights to those. They also pay more for that right.
Another example of who keeps the rights-if you get photos done at a show,
the photographer retains the rights. You must get permission from the
photographer to use those photos in advertising or on a website, etc.
It is posible to get an artist to donate work for charity. It does
however, behoove all of us who would work with artists to understand the
reality that there is more to it than creating the work. That art can and
does have a life beyond the first use.
It's not unreasonable to consider the use of the art as the donation and
allow the artist to retain the rights. Consider it more of a donation of
time (for the production) and a donated lease on the use of the artwork.
Consider also working out a contract that covers acceptable use of the
artwork. I know that in the case of my artist friends, the control of the
future use is a bigger issue than the royalties in chaity cases.
Karen
Lynn Kosmakos
Manadero wrote:
> O.K. so what about a business that uses graphic artists to design their logos,
> etc. Do they not have control of the image after you complete it?
A very good point. The cost of logo design is many times the cost of
standard graphic artwork. The reason is the rights.
Lynn K.
Lynn Kosmakos
Manadero wrote:
> So, if someone pays a graphic designer to do a logo,
> etc.
Logo work is much more expensive than other graphic work - because
of the rights. Just as exclusive publication rights are paid more
for writers than where multiple submissions are stipulated. Just as
I cannot buy an artwork, then duplicate that design on aprons or
posters and sell them.
> Is this not the same type of exposure you outlined above?
Nope - not if the rescue retains the rights to use the work in the
future in any way they like. The difference is that our rescue
made an agreement with the artist for the specific use of her work.
A specific single use that the artist agreed to. We cannot reprint
her artwork for notecards or any other use. She made a donation of
a certain value. Additional uses would change that value.
Lynn K.
cate
news:3A0754D9...@home.com...
That's why the logo of my biggest client is often referred to as the
'$50,000 logo' (no, I didn't create it). It's used everywhere--web site,
stationery, business cards, note pads, umbrellas, book spines, mouse pads,
on and on ad nauseum.
Cate
Robin Nuttall
>
> O.K. I agree with this. So, if someone pays a graphic designer to do a logo,
> etc. Then does it always remain the property of the person that was paid to
> render it? It just doesn't appear wrong for someone who is planning to
> reproduce the image for a rescue to expect to have the rights to that image.
No. Logos are produced with the knowlede that all rights transfer for
that piece of artwork to the company you are doing work for. Which is
why logo work starts, for a small non-profit company or a single person,
at about $3,000, and go up to $200,000+. Identity design, which is
setting a "look" for a company (usually includes specific designs for
envelopes, letterhead, business cards, etc.) range from a rock bottom of
$5,000 to over $500,000. In these cases, rights to the work are signed
over to the company, and remain there. Contrast that to a graphic
designer's usual hourly fee of anywhere from $60 to $200 an hour. But in
works done for that price, I retain ownership of my work, and if the
customer uses it on products other than specified without my permission
and without paying me, I get to sue their butts. There was a huge case
won against a large commercial company not long ago in just such a
scenario. Oh, and my prices come from the Handbook of Pricing and
Ethical Guidelines put out by the Graphic Artists Guild. I've actually
got the old book, and I'm sure in the new book prices will have
increased.
>
> >One artist donated a drawing of a GSD that was used on the invitations and the
> >original drawing that was auctioned off. She got full credit, with her
> donation >acknowledged on the invitations, in the auction book, and a display
> of her cards >and sample book of pet portraits displayed prominently at the
> event.
>
>
> <<We'll happily include, in addition to monetary payment, links to your web
> site as well as an ad banner in our rotational ad series on our (highly
> visited) web site.>>
>
> Is this not the same type of exposure you outlined above?
It's a good start, and if the club would include that the artist didn't
have to sign away rights to their work, it might well be enough.
--
Manadero
>That's why the logo of my biggest client is often referred to as the
>'$50,000 logo' (no, I didn't create it). It's used everywhere--web site,
>stationery, business cards, note pads, umbrellas, book spines, mouse pads,
>on and on ad nauseum.
>
Right, and I would expect that, as they are no doubt a BIG company where the
only goal is turning a BIG profit. But a non- profit volunteer group that
saves homeless dogs?
I guess I just have a mental block where this is concerned. I wouldn't think
that anyone is talking about "starving artists". <G> Nor giving something of
great value away to an individual or group that clearly has the intention of
*profiting* from that image. (save the "profit" of lives that will be saved
with the proceeds)
I apologize for any confusion that my posts have caused. I think I just look
at it from a different angle. My personal belief is that if you have a gift, a
talent, a skill (whatever you call it) and you can donate your time and
abilities to better the life of those that depend on the kindness of others,
then you do it. If I could draw, I personally wouldn't have any qualms about
offering a few hours of my time to come up with a "reasonable" piece of artwork
to be used to promote a charity.
Just my .02
Robin
Lynn Kosmakos
Manadero wrote:
> Right, and I would expect that, as they are no doubt a BIG company where the
> only goal is turning a BIG profit. But a non- profit volunteer group that
> saves homeless dogs?
The fair market value of an item isn't dependent on who uses it.
And I think that's the point you're missing. It isn't hours or
effort that is being donated, but a product that has a market value.
A value that has to be determined for the tax reports of both parties,
among other reasons.
Lynn K.
LiLtkdGrL
>effort that is being donated, but a product that has a market value.
>A value that has to be determined for the tax reports of both parties,
>among other reasons.
I know nothing about graphic design or copyrights or anything :), but I wanted
to ask.. Can't the artist get a write off on their taxes for donating something
of monetary value if the charity gives them a receipt?
Just wondering :)
**remove shoes to reply**
"Well maggots bother me, but bodily fluids aren't that big a deal" courtesy of
Robin D. :)
Lynn Kosmakos
LiLtkdGrL wrote:
> Can't the artist get a write off on their taxes for donating something
> of monetary value if the charity gives them a receipt?
Sure thing. And the charity has to report the value of donations
received. So there's a need to value any donations, for both parties.
Lynn K.
LiLtkdGrL
>received. So there's a need to value any donations, for both parties.
>
I thought so! :) Thanks for answering that for me. It seems that could be an
incentive for an artist to donate an artwork, copyright issues aside. :)
<skulking out of the thread>
Tiger Lily
Cindy........ great post............and the underlying theme....... this
copyright is available thru XXXYYYYZZZZZ fundraiser for a nominal return to
the artist...... makes a lot of sense in *both directions*......... *both*
sides are winners thru the return advertising/returns
JMHO
kate
Julie
I work as a freelance writer. I write copy, technical, and some fiction.
Every so often I do pro bono work. An artist can do 1 simple thing in order
to be reimbursed. Send an invoice, the non-profit adds their tax i.d.
number and adds donation on the invoice. A copy is kept for the artist and
for the non-profit. I do a lot of work for non-profits and follow this same
procedure and write all of my non-profit work off.
Second, when it is not a non-profit and a grass roots organization that is
razing money for something or other, i.e. bake sale for speech team or band,
I just do the work. The worst case scenario is that I don't get any other
work from it. The best case scenario is that I will get more business in
that my name is somewhere below the word thanks.
A group asking me to do something is different from a friend asking me to do
something. You have no idea how many people want me to write a short story
for a birthday or anniversary, or "edit" their novel. I don't edit because
I get a lot of money to edit and I don't want to expose myself to their
ideas. It's bad business for a writer. I also don't edit because no one
wants to see "Write over, makes no sense", "Find better word use", "Needs
improvement", "Too wordy", or "This isn't good, re-write". They take great
offense to editing, as I do as well.
Now, as for the right? Well make an agreement, I do, that says it can only
be used for one calendar year, after which, I will re-invoice or write
different copy.
As for complaining to Carol, don't bother, I am quite sure enough artists
have been contacted, I found one myself, who is more than willing to do the
work, if only for their love of dogs.
Dianne Schoenberg
>O.K. so what about a business that uses graphic artists to design their logos,
>etc. Do they not have control of the image after you complete it?
It depends. "Work made for hire"--that is, works that are created
while you are receiving a salary from a firm--are generally
copyrighted by that firm. OTOH work done under a contract--
for instance, if you were to contract with someone to do a
specific logo, painting or article--is subject to whatever
agreement is specified in the contract. If the contract
doesn't specifically say that the copyright belongs to
the person who commissioned the work, then the copyright
still resides with the person who created it.
Dianne
Dianne Schoenberg
>No, I don't see Frenchie Rescue releasing the rights of their fundraising
>works to *any* private breeder to promote their kennel, good or bad.
Also wanted to comment on this. The scenario Robin posed is
not at all a farfetched one--in fact, I know of at least one
breed club that has faced this problem already. The problem
is that although *legally* it's theft to reproduce someone
else's artwork, it's up to the copyright holder to defend
that right. In the case that I know of, an artist donated
a logo (including the rights to it) to her national club for
a specialty. Someone else ripped the artwork off and started
reproducing it on mugs & keychains and the like. The artist
was understandably upset that someone else was making money
off her work, and went back to the club and asked them to
try to put a stop to it. This was a couple of years after
the specialty and the club wasn't even using the logo any
more, but here they were in the position of either having
to pressure the thief to cut it out or else to piss off a
very valued member. If, OTOH, if the copyright had stayed
with the artist, she could have taken action against the
thief on her own behalf without having to involve the club
in it. So you can see that in that to some extent having
the copyright continue to reside with the artist would have
worked to the benefit of both parties in that particular
case.
Dianne
Julie
>
> >
> Logo work is much more expensive than other graphic work - because
> of the rights. Just as exclusive publication rights are paid more
> for writers than where multiple submissions are stipulated.
Ok, again, have to jump in. Multiple submissions are done pre-publishing,
once first rights are sold, you can't send out the same piece for another
first right. Most publishers frown upon this because once you submit your
piece to 2 different publishers and they both like it you have to say no to
one of them. Trouble arises because in writing, the market is so saturated,
that the publisher had to say no to someone else to say yes to you. Then
the publisher has to back track and find a piece that is similar to fit the
spot your piece originally had.
My writing that has been published is never more that first rights.
Exclusive publications rights are world rights and no reputable publisher
will ask for that. Now, world rights do not only include printings, but
film or tv as well and for the life of the copyright the publisher or agent
has complete control.
First rights offers the publishing house the right to print as many copies
as they wish, but only those copies, afterwards second rights can be
negotiated.
You can negotiate contracts with non-profits that stipulate the art can only
be used for a time frame, after which renegotians will take place.
When my stories are published, I have no control over advertising,
placement, or art that is included as most artists can't demand that a logo
is placed in the upper right hand corner as opposed to center. I have
signed over first rights to them. Every year, the publisher I have been
working with, compiles a "best of" issue. My contract is worded in such a
way, that the "best of" is considered part of the first rights and they
don't need to pay me for it. The publisher I work for happens to be nice
enough to send me a "bonus" check, but they don't need to legally.
Now, I don't think that Carol was really asking for world or exclusive
rights. She was asking for an artist to create an piece of art that could
be used on fundraising merchandise, but may not be familiar with rights and
what they mean to an artist. Believe me, I am fighting copyright
infringement left and right, and often take 10 losses for every 1 win.
Lynn, the next part is not aimed at you, but instead all those who replied
in this thread.
People outside of publishing or art have no clue what rights mean beyond the
basics of you don't use things that are copyrighted. They don't understand
the nuances that exist or the sensitive nature that it is. It isn't a
fault, it isn't meant in any way to belittle artists. Believe me, I spend
hours upon hours trying to explain to people the hours it takes to write 100
words that are good, but their intention isn't to make 40 hours of work for
me, their intention is that they know I am a writer and they know they need
one.
The best way to handle Carol's request would have been for someone to
explain rights, the hours of work it entails, and then to offer compromises.
I have found that the best is a year contract, that can be resubmitted as a
donation every year. The artist doesn't lose any money as far as taxes are
concerned, the artist loses no rights, the group doesn't have to "pay" for
it, and they also get what they need.
Manadero
>Oh, and my prices come from the Handbook of Pricing and
>Ethical Guidelines put out by the Graphic Artists Guild. I've actually
>got the old book, and I'm sure in the new book prices will have
>increased.
Robin, I wish you continued success in your career. I'm done in this thread
because I feel that our values are just fundamentally different and there is no
reason to continue debate.
Like the example that Christy offered and the artist that Julie posted about,
someone always seem to step forward if it is a worthy cause. It doesn't take
"most" people, it just takes a few that are "above average" to make a
difference. :) Good for them, and good for the dogs....
Robin
The Carrolls
> I apologize for any confusion that my posts have caused. I think I just
look
> at it from a different angle. My personal belief is that if you have a
gift, a
> talent, a skill (whatever you call it) and you can donate your time and
> abilities to better the life of those that depend on the kindness of
others,
> then you do it. If I could draw, I personally wouldn't have any qualms
about
> offering a few hours of my time to come up with a "reasonable" piece of
artwork
> to be used to promote a charity.
But if you hand over all rights to that Frenchie graphic, what if the
shelter decides to put it on a CD of animal graphics and sells it and turns
a big profit off it? Or sells it to someone else, who then makes it part of
Petsmart's logo? They initially said they only wanted it for the
stationery, but if they have full rights to it, they can do whatever they
please. That's like the charity asking for full rights to a song you
wrote--what if it ends up being Backstreet Boy's or Britney Spears' next
latest hit, and you don't make a dime?
~Emily
Julie
> >Sure thing. And the charity has to report the value of donations
> >received. So there's a need to value any donations, for both parties.
> >
LiLtkdGrL wrote:
> I thought so! :) Thanks for answering that for me. It seems that could be
an
> incentive for an artist to donate an artwork, copyright issues aside. :)
>
> <skulking out of the thread>
>
Not only that, but it's free advertising. I got an annual report, for doing
all the collateral for an "event". I did press realeases, invitations,
brochures, even menus (I still have no idea how I got away with what I did,
I mean how do you describe an arugula salad?). One of the attendees had me
write the copy for the report and the shareholders meeting. I didn't have
to work for a year after that one, but it did take me about 3 months of
work. I put in about 3 weeks of work on the event and walked off with a
huge contract that will last years, and better yet, because of that contract
from the event, I was offered 3 more annual reports. (In writing, annual
reports are the world series, they pay anywhere from $50,000 to $500,000
depending upon the company and content.)
As an "artist", I would never turn down a non-profit job without careful
consideration. The benefits for the "artist" are just too huge to pass it
up, in my opinion.
Robin Nuttall
Manadero wrote:
>
> Robin Nuttall wrote:
>
> >Oh, and my prices come from the Handbook of Pricing and
> >Ethical Guidelines put out by the Graphic Artists Guild. I've actually
> >got the old book, and I'm sure in the new book prices will have
> >increased.
>
> Robin, I wish you continued success in your career. I'm done in this thread
> because I feel that our values are just fundamentally different and there is no
> reason to continue debate.
In other words, you're a good and honorable person, and I, because I
dared to say that my work is of value, am evil and "below average."
Think what you like. You're quite wrong, but admitting you are wrong
would be embarrassing to you, so you won't.
For Carole, I wish you success in your endeavor. I think if you re-think
the rights issue you should get a good artist who will do something
dynamite for you.
cate
news:20001106233733...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> Cate wrote:
>
> >That's why the logo of my biggest client is often referred to as the
> >'$50,000 logo' (no, I didn't create it). It's used everywhere--web site,
> >stationery, business cards, note pads, umbrellas, book spines, mouse
pads,
> >on and on ad nauseum.
> >
>
> Right, and I would expect that, as they are no doubt a BIG company where
the
> only goal is turning a BIG profit. But a non- profit volunteer group
that
> saves homeless dogs?
The client I refer to happens to be a nonprofit association. A big one, but
nonprofit nonetheless. They got a great logo for that price; I'm surprised
it wasn't more with the copious use it gets.
> I guess I just have a mental block where this is concerned.
I think so. Because the issue here isn't whether the time and services can
be donated or done cheaply. The issue is giving up the rights to the artwork
created. The rights to a piece (aka its future use) are what drive the large
prices for logos and such. If an artist doesn't control the rights to a
piece donated to nonprofit xyz, then nonprofit abc can come along and use
the piece again. And so can *for-profit* abc and xyz and so on. All without
benefit to the creator of the piece. However, if the artist retains rights,
then he/she can determine who will and will not make money off his/her
artwork.
Cate
Gwen Watson
Lynn Kosmakos wrote:
Exactly.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Dianne Schoenberg wrote:
> Manadero <mana...@aol.com> wrote:
> >O.K. so what about a business that uses graphic artists to design their logos,
> >etc. Do they not have control of the image after you complete it?
>
Robin,
Mostly they should have control. but in reality they don't. For instance
my office had logo made, long before I came, they use
it abuse it and modify it to their hearts content. Is it
really legal? No, but it happens all the time. And guess
what since I am the graphic artist here I am the one who
is asked to do these modifications that I totally disagree
with.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
cate wrote:
> . The issue is giving up the rights to the artwork
> created.
> Cate
Which I can honestly say I have been hurt by this one too many times.
One being a T-shirt and logo I designed for a local bar and grill
in my area. They have sold, profited and used this design for
over 4 years now. Guess what I got for doing this work?
A T-shirt.
Recently at work I was asked to make a new logo. I did
and guess what it is being used modified etc and because
I am JUST an employee I have NO say in how it is used
and I was by no means paid specifically for this design
as I am more their poster illustrator and I create
their brochures etc. So I am paid monthly. I certainly was
not paid for a LOGO.
Gwen
Andrea J Chee
<julie_L...@hotmail.comxyz> writes
>
>A group asking me to do something is different from a friend asking me to do
>something. You have no idea how many people want me to write a short story
>for a birthday or anniversary, or "edit" their novel.
I'm a freelance also, and to be honest I get quite fed up sometimes with
the number of people seeking 'freebies' or cheap rates. I'm not against
donating work - I already do so, and volunteer a lot of time and effort
for local charities. However, being the editor of the Kennel Gazette,
some people and groups seem to think that I have infinite amounts of
time to donate to everyone, which I just don't have. No matter how
politely I turn them down, and I have to because there's only so much I
can do in a day, all too often I get an abusive response like I'm
somehow selfish and hard-hearted for doing so.
At the end of the day, I have to do my paid work first, or myself and
hounds will soon be needing some of that charity ourselves. Then I do
the charity work commitments I already have. Then I spend some time with
my doggies and getting on with my life. If there's any time left, I may
be able to fit something else in, but it doesn't happen often.
Nonetheless, I'm the one left feeling bad and being blamed because I
can't do everything that everyone wants from me.
- ANDREA
--
Get paid to surf the Web!
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BFN610
^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
ANDROMEDA - Internet Goddess
<and...@bloodaxe.com> http://www.bloodaxe.com/
Bloodaxe's History Links: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5055/
The Loony Bin Archive: http://loonies.net800.co.uk/
Robin Nuttall
> At the end of the day, I have to do my paid work first, or myself and
> hounds will soon be needing some of that charity ourselves. Then I do
> the charity work commitments I already have. Then I spend some time with
> my doggies and getting on with my life. If there's any time left, I may
> be able to fit something else in, but it doesn't happen often.
> Nonetheless, I'm the one left feeling bad and being blamed because I
> can't do everything that everyone wants from me.
Bingo! You are exactly right, and said it better than I managed to.
Manadero
>In other words, you're a good and honorable person, and I, because I
>dared to say that my work is of value, am evil and "below average."
One more post on this:
I do not think you are an "evil" person because you think your work is of
value. I *do* think you a bit silly and arrogant because you seem to think
that your work and time is worth *more* than that of the people that give
freely of themselves to help others.
Please quote where I said you were "evil" or "below average". I didn't. I
think you are reaching again. I honestly think you are like most people, not a
bad thing, just a thing.
>Think what you like. You're quite wrong, but admitting you are wrong would be
embarrassing to you, so you won't.
To the contrary, admitting that I am wrong is not embarassing to me at all.
That said, artists apparently *do* offer pieces pro bono to non profit groups
as referenced in this thread several times. Please explain the difference
between the value of their time and energy and your own. Likewise, please
explain the difference in the people that are "picking" who gets to live,
bailing these dogs out of pounds, transporting them, fostering them in their
own home, vetting them, feeding them, training/rehabilitating them, nursing
them when they are sick, through heartworm, broken limbs, broken spirits, etc.,
screening homes and adopting them out, often with funds out of their own
pocket. I just don't "get" how their financial contribution, the hours they
spend, the heartache, etc. that they all do for the profit of a wiggle and a
lick is somehow *less* valuable than the time it would take you to render an
image to help them save more dogs. To use your laundry analogy, is their time
worth nothing? They surely aren't getting paid, it's costing them money out of
pocket, and not just time from their "livelihood". Should they just quit
because it doesn't afford personal gain? What sort of shape would we be in if
everyone just "quit" doing that which didn't financially profit them?
I do not wish to continue this argument, but I will be waiting for the
explanation.
Robin
Theresa /The Voice of Reason/ Willis
mana...@aol.com (Manadero) wrote:
> Robin Nuttall wrote:
>
> >In other words, you're a good and honorable person, and I, because I
> >dared to say that my work is of value, am evil and "below average."
>
> One more post on this:
>
> I do not think you are an "evil" person because you think your work
> is of value. I *do* think you a bit silly and arrogant because you
> seem to think that your work and time is worth *more* than that of
> the people that give freely of themselves to help others.
Robin never said this.
The main objection here is the surrendering of all rights. People put
forth many scenarios that illustrated why this was not a good idea. I
don't understand why you think that means that Robin is being silly and
arrogant.
>
> Please quote where I said you were "evil" or "below average".
Please quote where Robin said she thought her time was worth more than
the time of those who give freely (as Robin is one of the people giving
her time freely, this is clearly a paradox).
> I didn't. I think you are reaching again.
<whistling>
> I honestly think you are like most people, not a bad thing, just a
> thing.
I honestly think Robin is like most people, too -- generous and giving
to the causes she cares about.
Which has nothing to do with the problems regarding giving up all
rights to a creation, which is the main objection here.
> >Think what you like. You're quite wrong, but admitting you are wrong
> >would be embarrassing to you, so you won't.
>
> To the contrary, admitting that I am wrong is not embarassing to me
> at all.
Great. Maybe you'll admit that you are wrong about Robin not being
giving of her time, or feeling that her time is more valuable than
someone who does (clearly a paradox).
Maybe you'll also admist that you are wrong about the surrendering of
all rights. I'll admit I was; until I saw the examples given, I didn't
understand that someone surrendering all rights to their created work
was all that different than someone donating their time.
> That said, artists apparently *do* offer pieces pro bono to non
> profit groups as referenced in this thread several times.
Including Robin. She has done this to, as referenced in this thread
several times.
> Please explain the difference between the value of their time and
> energy and your own.
Once again: This is a strawman. This is not the source of Robin's
objection. Robin is not saying her time is more valuable than theirs.
The problem is the surrendering of all rights.
> Likewise, please explain the difference in the people that
> are "picking" who gets to live, bailing these dogs out of pounds,
> transporting them, fostering them in their own home, vetting them,
> feeding them, training/rehabilitating them, nursing them when they
> are sick, through heartworm, broken limbs, broken spirits, etc.,
> screening homes and adopting them out, often with funds out of their
> own pocket.
Uh, there is no difference, Robin _is_ one of these people.
> I just don't "get" how their financial contribution, the hours they
> spend, the heartache, etc. that they all do for the profit of a
> wiggle and a lick is somehow *less* valuable than the time it would
> take you to render an image to help them save more dogs.
No one is suggesting this. You are ignoring the rights issue.
> To use your laundry analogy, is their time worth nothing?
She isn't making this argument.
> They surely aren't getting paid, it's costing them money out of
> pocket, and not just time from their "livelihood".
Right.
> Should they just quit because it doesn't afford personal gain?
No one has made this argument. You are ignoring the actual arguement
put forth, which is about why it may not be a good idea for the artist
to surrender all rights. I don't understand why you want to do that.
> What sort of shape would we be in if everyone just "quit" doing that
> which didn't financially profit them?
Again, this statement is irrelevant; no one is suggesting this.
> I do not wish to continue this argument, but I will be waiting for the
> explanation.
Eplanations have already been given, many times. Lynn Kosmakos in
particular made some postings that I thought explained it all very
clearly. I don't understand why you are ignoring the rights issue. None
of the people who you give as examples here (fostering, donating time)
are being asked to legally surrender all rights to their creations.
None of the explanations have anything to do with the strawmen (in
particular, that Robin is saying her time is more valuable than others,
orthat anyone is suggesting that people shouldn't do things that don't
financially profit them) you have put forth here. You are waiting for
people to defend arguments that they haven't made, which is a silly
thing to wait for.
The argument is not about one persons time being more valuable than
another's. It's about being asked to surrender all rights to a
creation, and the problems that could lead to (the inability of the
artist to directly fight copyright infringement, for example, was a
bigee I hadn't considered when this thread started).
--Terri & Harlan
--
What Would Robot Frank Do?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pony
years ago i did the logo for the North American Spotted Draft Horse
Association, which had just formed at that point. They use it on all
kinds of stuff and I got a years membership in the association, a
t-shirt with the picture on it and a life time subscription to their
newsletter. :-) Thats nothing as impressive as getting the annual report
deal, but it isn't too shabby either... I just wish i could go back and
re-do the thing, I'm better now then I was then, sigh...
Julie wrote:
>
>
<snip to save bandwidth>
>
> As an "artist", I would never turn down a non-profit job without careful
> consideration. The benefits for the "artist" are just too huge to pass it
> up, in my opinion.
>
> Julie
>
> --
> ~If you want to email me, remove the xyz from the .com
--
Pony www.angelfire.com/mi2/ponystuff
Tiffany (Kid), Jamie (Pony), Ragdoll (Dog),
Lyric (Bird), Heero, Duo, Z. Marquis and Benjamin
(Bunnies), HRH The Lady Lash Wippletree, Mercedes
Beanz, and sometimes Amber (Cats) and Trace (Boyfriend)
Pony
printed up a brochure with my "rates" and told them I would be happy to
do the work, on MY time, and this is what I charge for doing artwork.
They decided to have someone else do it... :-D
Gwen Watson wrote:
>
>
>
> Recently at work I was asked to make a new logo. I did
> and guess what it is being used modified etc and because
> I am JUST an employee I have NO say in how it is used
> and I was by no means paid specifically for this design
> as I am more their poster illustrator and I create
> their brochures etc. So I am paid monthly. I certainly was
> not paid for a LOGO.
>
> Gwen
--
Manadero
(just can't keep my fingers still <G>)
>The main objection here is the surrendering of all rights. People put
>forth many scenarios that illustrated why this was not a good idea.
>Which has nothing to do with the problems regarding giving up all
>rights to a creation, which is the main objection here.
Great. What is the difference between the common practice of doing this for
businesses that afford a hefty price tag and a non profit charity that can't?
Why would the scenarios that apply to one not apply to both?
>Great. Maybe you'll admit that you are wrong about Robin not being
>giving of her time, or feeling that her time is more valuable than someone who
does.
Um, if you would read *all* the posts, you would see that I did indeed
acknowledge her efforts.
But, since there have been several examples of artists that have done and will
do what Carol was asking for... How is her work (or anyone's for that matter)
more valuable than comparable work done by others?
>I'll admit I was; until I saw the examples given, I didn't understand that
someone surrendering all rights to their created work
>was all that different than someone donating their time.
The only difference I see is that if the check is big enough, those "issues"
seem to disappear.
>Including Robin. She has done this to, as referenced in this thread several
times.
Please quote where she said that she did work for "no charge" given freely to
charity groups (rights included) like the other artists referenced in the
thread.
>Uh, there is no difference, Robin _is_ one of these people.
Uh, she *does* give time to rescue. She does not actively rescue herself, per
her own post.
>No one is suggesting this. You are ignoring the rights issue.
Which seems to be tied very closely to the $$ issue.
>She isn't making this argument.
She used exactly this argument.
<< And the thing is, that just like you, we need to make a living. What if your
boss
asked you, every day, to take home his shirts and wash them. Or to spend
your home time typing manuscripts, or preparing a speech for him. Even
if he was a wonderful and important person, even if his work was good, aren't
you of value too? Isn't YOUR time important and valuable?>>
How does the above scenario apply to donating one's money, time and skill to
help homeless dogs? My time is surely important and valuable, as is everyone's
I'm sure.
What continues to surprise me is the definately uncharitable attitude shown by
some. I never said that Robin was a bad person, and I don't think she is.
However, the request was a general request for assistance, cross posted to
several ng's requesting help for a rescue. If someone is up for it, they
should volunteer, as someone apparently has. If they aren't willing, there's
no reason to carry on about why they won't.
Robin
Theresa /The Voice of Reason/ Willis
> >forth many scenarios that illustrated why this was not a good idea.
>
> >rights to a creation, which is the main objection here.
>
> this for businesses that afford a hefty price tag and a non profit
> charity that can't?
> Why would the scenarios that apply to one not apply to both?
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Businesses
pay a hefty price tag for stuff where they want all rights to the work,
which equates to a pretty hefty donation. That's a lot to ask from
someone. If a way could be found where we aren't asking so much, i.e.,
you give up all your rights to your creation, and still benefit rescue,
isn't that better?
>
> >Great. Maybe you'll admit that you are wrong about Robin not being
> >giving of her time, or feeling that her time is more valuable than
> >someone who does.
>
> Um, if you would read *all* the posts, you would see that I did indeed
> acknowledge her efforts.
But you still made the same silly claim, that Robin was saying her work
is more valuable, in the post I'm responding to. And then you
contrasted her to people that were donating time, etc, as if she
weren't doing that. That doesn't sound to me like you are acknowledging
her efforts.
> But, since there have been several examples of artists that have done
> and will do what Carol was asking for... How is her work (or anyone's
> for that matter)
I saw several examples of artists donating time in this thread.
I did not see several examples of artists giving up all their rights to
their creations in this thread. I may have missed these posts, of
course.
> more valuable than comparable work done by others?
Once again, no one is claiming this. This is a strawman argument.
>
> > I'll admit I was; until I saw the examples given, I didn't
> > understand that someone surrendering all rights to their created
> > work was all that different than someone donating their time.
>
> The only difference I see is that if the check is big enough,
> those "issues" seem to disappear.
I'm not sure what you are saying here: Are you saying that you think
it's hypocritcal for an artist to charge more for right-surrendering,
such as in logo work? That's not an example of the issue disappearing;
that's an example of the issue being addressed.
> >Including Robin. She has done this to, as referenced in this thread
> >several times.
>
> Please quote where she said that she did work for "no charge" given
> freely to charity groups (rights included) like the other artists
> referenced in the thread.
Sorry for the confusion; which artists in this thread surrendered all
their rights? Because, no, Robin has not done that to my knowledge. I'm
not sure who has. But like I said, maybe you can tell me which folks
these were; I may not have seen all the posts.
I can certainly understand why someone wouldn't want to.
If someone does, I think that's exceptionally generous. But also
perhaps reckless. The scenario where the artist can do nothing about a
puppy miller using their artwork because the artist has surrendered
their rights, and the people who have them don't have the resources or
desire to pursue the matter, would be very distrubing.
I do not think it implies that someone is arrogant or greedy if they
choose to reserve their rights.
> >Uh, there is no difference, Robin _is_ one of these people.
>
> Uh, she *does* give time to rescue. She does not actively rescue
> herself, per her own post.
Uh, the point was she does a lot of the things you were talking about.
Uh, the point is not wanting to give up all rights to an artistic work
does not imply that the artist is selfish, or that they think their
time is worth more.
Uh, the point was that making a huge list of people spending time,
energy, and resources doesn't have anything to do with the particular
thing that Robin was objecting to.
> >No one is suggesting this. You are ignoring the rights issue.
>
> Which seems to be tied very closely to the $$ issue.
You are ignoring the risk to an artists reputation if someone decides
to violate copyright and the artist has no recourse. That has nothing
to do with money.
> >She isn't making this argument.
> She used exactly this argument.
> << And the thing is, that just like you, we need to make a living.
> What if your boss asked you, every day, to take home his shirts and
> wash them. Or to spend your home time typing manuscripts, or
> preparing a speech for him. Even if he was a wonderful and important
> person, even if his work was good, aren't
> you of value too? Isn't YOUR time important and valuable?>>
>
> How does the above scenario apply to donating one's money, time and
> skill to help homeless dogs?
Personally, I didn't think this was a good analogy at all (sorry,
Robin).
By the same token, I do not feel this arguement in any way suggests
that she feels her time was more valuable than others. It sounds to be
like she is suggesting that everyone's time is valuable.
So, no, I do not feel Robin was making the argument that you feel she
is making. I'm sure she can correct me if not.
> My time is surely important and valuable, as is everyone's
> I'm sure.
>
> What continues to surprise me is the definately uncharitable attitude
> shown by some.
I do not think anyone in this thread has demonstrated an uncharitable
attitude. I think your interpretation of their responses is incorrect.
I think that's why you continue to be surprised; I am not surprised
about anyone being uncharitable because I do not see that anyone is
_being_ uncharitable. YMMV.
> I never said that Robin was a bad person, and I don't think she is.
> However, the request was a general request for assistance, cross
> posted to several ng's requesting help for a rescue. If someone is
> up for it, they should volunteer, as someone apparently has. If they
> aren't willing, there's no reason to carry on about why they won't.
Great, and as it was a general request for assistance, I see nothing
wrong with someone posting about why they think the request may be hard
to fill. I read the original posters post as suggesting that their may
be issues that Carol hadn't thought about (I don't know if she has or
not) regarding the rights issue. I don't think it was uncharitable of
him to bring it up, and I don't think it was uncharitable of anyone to
agree with him.
In fact, I could see where this kind of information could actually
benefit rescue. For example, by thinking up better ways to protect the
artists, they find more artists are willing to help out, which could
only be to the good.
It certainly gave me lots to think about.
I can understand if someone is willing to dontate their time, energy,
creativity and surrender all rights.
I can also understand if someone doesn't want to do that, and I don't
think it makes them "definitely uncharitable". I think this is a most
unfair characterization.
ka...@tuatha.sidhe.org
> Terri wrote:
> (just can't keep my fingers still <G>)
>>The main objection here is the surrendering of all rights. People put
>>forth many scenarios that illustrated why this was not a good idea.
> >Which has nothing to do with the problems regarding giving up all
>>rights to a creation, which is the main objection here.
> Great. What is the difference between the common practice of doing this for
> businesses that afford a hefty price tag and a non profit charity that can't?
> Why would the scenarios that apply to one not apply to both?
First off, the comparison here is apples to oranges. When the question of
rights on logos came up, along with the hefty price tags, it seems that
some people started comparing that work straight out with
illustrations.
It's not the same at all. The big difference is that a company or an
organization has a vested interest in protecting their logo. The misuse
scenario is quite different for a logo than it is for an illustration for
a card/t-shirt/other fundraising item. In addition to retaining the
copyright on a logo, almost all custom logo holding entities trademark
their logo as well.
The original request was for illustrations. The logos and their pricetags
got brought up as part of the discussion on retaining the copyright.
> more valuable than comparable work done by others?
> >I'll admit I was; until I saw the examples given, I didn't understand that
> someone surrendering all rights to their created work
>>was all that different than someone donating their time.
> The only difference I see is that if the check is big enough, those "issues"
> seem to disappear.
See my above point about logos. The checks aren't that big for
illustrations (or other pieces of art) where the rights are retained by
the creator.
>>Including Robin. She has done this to, as referenced in this thread several
> times.
> Please quote where she said that she did work for "no charge" given freely to
> charity groups (rights included) like the other artists referenced in the
> thread.
You know, just because some people do something doesn't mean it is a good
idea for them to do so. Hopefully they will never get hit with the lessons
that some artists learn about having their works used in ways that are
objectionable to the artist. It's hard enough when they can protect their
own works. It's even harder when the rights are held by an organization
that really can't afford to spend the money to protect the work. (The
reputation of the organization can also be hurt by the objectionable use
of the work.)
>>No one is suggesting this. You are ignoring the rights issue.
> Which seems to be tied very closely to the $$ issue.
It's more often tied to the uses a piece is put to. Every use of a piece
of art reflects on the artist. Poor production values show the work in a
bad light. Then there are the hassles if a piece gets picked up by adult
sites (don't think a piece has to be x-rated for this to happen!)
An artist should care about the future use of her/his work. Poor use or
production can adversely affect people's perceptions of the artist as a
professional.
> What continues to surprise me is the definately uncharitable attitude shown by
> some. I never said that Robin was a bad person, and I don't think she is.
> However, the request was a general request for assistance, cross posted to
> several ng's requesting help for a rescue. If someone is up for it, they
> should volunteer, as someone apparently has. If they aren't willing, there's
> no reason to carry on about why they won't.
No, there isn't a need to carry on, but it is not unreasonable for people
to understand that the request is bigger than the initial impression most
people have of simply asking for artwork.
I've noticed that when my artist friends do charity work, the number of
revisions requested often excedes the other work for hire. Many people
have the attitude that "it's just a drawing" as if doing art isn't real
work or "but she loves to do it" as if that automatically makes more time
for it.
Karen
not an artist, but an artist observer :)
Manadero
>I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Businesses
>pay a hefty price tag for stuff where they want all rights to the work,
>which equates to a pretty hefty donation. That's a lot to ask from
>someone.
Granted. But that's my point. If a corporation pays a hefty price tag for
rights to an image that it uses for *profit*, how do you equate that to a non
profit group using the funds raised to save lives?
>If a way could be found where we aren't asking so much, i.e., you give up all
your rights to your creation, and still benefit >rescue, isn't that better?
Yes, of course it is. But I am sure that there have been groups that were
burned because after paying for an image to be created, they have to continue
to pay for the right to use it. IMO, asking for the "rights" to a piece so that
they can freely reproduce it in a fundraising capacity isn't asking for the
world. And if it is, it has been mentioned that the artist gets to write the
donation off so that they *do* ultimately get compensation.
>I did not see several examples of artists giving up all their rights to
>their creations in this thread. I may have missed these posts, of
>course.
Here's one.
Christy wrote:
<<Definitely not impossible.
If you take a quick peek at http://members.aol.com/sheltirsq1/products.html
and scroll down to the greeting card, you'll see an example of a piece of
artwork that my sister donated to a rescue group to be used for fundraising
purposes (in this case, reproduced into cards.) She produced this piece in
short order, gave full rights to the group and received zero compensation
(not even exposure, since she does not currently produce art for profit.)
She just wanted to give something to the group in which she is closely
affiliated. No, the average person won't be willing to donate their art in
this manner, but some artists are above average. :)>>
It's a lovely piece too :)
>I'm not sure what you are saying here: Are you saying that you think
>it's hypocritcal for an artist to charge more for right-surrendering,
>such as in logo work? That's not an example of the issue disappearing;
>that's an example of the issue being addressed.
Not exactly. If a major corporation pays big bucks for a logo that it intends
to use solely for product recognition/profit. Isn't it a different "league" to
expect like compensation from a non profit group that saves homeless dogs?
What about all the concern for their creation?
Here's another breeder analogy:
To *me* this is the same as a breeder who will not sell a puppy of their
breeding outright to a pet home, but gleefully signs off if the buyer is a big
time breeder with enough $$$ to "ease" their conscience. There is still the
same loss of control. The same opportunity for mismanagement, and yet, with
enough money in their pocket, it is no longer such a moral dilemma.
>I do not think it implies that someone is arrogant or greedy if they
>choose to reserve their rights.
I don't think so either. But when it the *value* of someone's time and skill
is repeatedly mentioned and there is a different standard for those with more
disposable income, I wonder how much of the "issue" is truly a "losing a part
of myself" type thing and how much is a $$ thing.
>Uh, the point was that making a huge list of people spending time,
>energy, and resources doesn't have anything to do with the particular
>thing that Robin was objecting to.
I disagree. Her point is that everyone's time is valuable. I agree
wholeheartedly with that. However, if everyone were to put a dollar amount on
their time and expect to be fully compensated, there would be a whole lot of
nothing getting done and lots of dogs dying as a result.
>You are ignoring the risk to an artists reputation if someone decides
>to violate copyright and the artist has no recourse. That has nothing
>to do with money.
How is the risk of the artist's reputation lessened by the amount of profit? I
don't know about you, but I deal with people every day that have more money
than sense. Many of the dogs we get are bought by people who are *very* well
off, and yet, it doesn't make them any more responsible. "Easy come, easy go"
>Great, and as it was a general request for assistance, I see nothing
>wrong with someone posting about why they think the request may be hard
>to fill.
And yet, apparently someone has offered.
Julie wrote:
<<As for complaining to Carol, don't bother, I am quite sure enough artists
have been contacted, I found one myself, who is more than willing to do the
work, if only for their love of dogs.
>>
>I can also understand if someone doesn't want to do that, and I don't
>think it makes them "definitely uncharitable". I think this is a most
>unfair characterization.
You are absolutely right. Although, I wonder if they could afford to pay the
"going rate" if they wouldn't suddenly be much more accomodating.
Just my .02
Robin
ka...@tuatha.sidhe.org
Maybe a better analogy than the puppy/dog placement in general would be
the idea of a breeder donating a puppy to a charity. After all it's a
simple donation on the surface. Many people soliciting for charity
fundraisers don't understand what all of the fuss is about. But as we
know, a responsible breeder would not do that because they have no control
over where that puppy would end up.
While the consequences an artist can face through loss of control over a
work are not as serious to the art as they would be to the puppy, there
can be serious consequences to the artist in terms of reputation. Both the
breeder and the artist could get some positive publicity for the donation
and possible some income work as well. But for either the risk is probably
not worth it.
Karen
ka...@tuatha.sidhe.org
> Terri wrote:
>>I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Businesses
>>pay a hefty price tag for stuff where they want all rights to the work,
>>which equates to a pretty hefty donation. That's a lot to ask from
>>someone.
> Granted. But that's my point. If a corporation pays a hefty price tag for
> rights to an image that it uses for *profit*, how do you equate that to a non
> profit group using the funds raised to save lives?
You are still comparing the hefty price tag of a logo to a piece donated
illustration. It is not only for profits that pay for logos by the way.
As I've mentioned before, the entity using a logo has an interest in
maintaining the integrity of their logo. Any corportation with sense has
guidelines in place for how that logo is going to be used _and_ has it
trademarked. The likelyhood of such a piece of art being used in a way
that is contrary to the original purpose/intent of the artist is
exceedingly slim.
>>If a way could be found where we aren't asking so much, i.e., you give up all
> your rights to your creation, and still benefit >rescue, isn't that better?
> Yes, of course it is. But I am sure that there have been groups that were
> burned because after paying for an image to be created, they have to continue
> to pay for the right to use it. IMO, asking for the "rights" to a piece so that
> they can freely reproduce it in a fundraising capacity isn't asking for the
> world. And if it is, it has been mentioned that the artist gets to write the
> donation off so that they *do* ultimately get compensation.
Writing a donation off is only as good as your income. And in any case,
you can't write off the losses that could be caused by misuse.
I don't know about you, but I don't make enough money for my donations to
rescue to amount to much of anything in the way of affecting my tax bill.
>>I'm not sure what you are saying here: Are you saying that you think
>>it's hypocritcal for an artist to charge more for right-surrendering,
>>such as in logo work? That's not an example of the issue disappearing;
>>that's an example of the issue being addressed.
> Not exactly. If a major corporation pays big bucks for a logo that it
intends > to use solely for product recognition/profit. Isn't it a
different "league" to > expect like compensation from a non profit group
that saves homeless dogs?
> What about all the concern for their creation?
Again, the logo to illustration comparison is not valid.
> To *me* this is the same as a breeder who will not sell a puppy of their
> breeding outright to a pet home, but gleefully signs off if the buyer is a big
> time breeder with enough $$$ to "ease" their conscience. There is still the
> same loss of control. The same opportunity for mismanagement, and yet, with
> enough money in their pocket, it is no longer such a moral dilemma.
>>I do not think it implies that someone is arrogant or greedy if they
>>choose to reserve their rights.
> I don't think so either. But when it the *value* of someone's time and skill
> is repeatedly mentioned and there is a different standard for those with more
> disposable income, I wonder how much of the "issue" is truly a "losing a part
> of myself" type thing and how much is a $$ thing.
The different standard is in the different product.
>>You are ignoring the risk to an artists reputation if someone decides
>>to violate copyright and the artist has no recourse. That has nothing
>>to do with money.
> How is the risk of the artist's reputation lessened by the amount of
> profit? I don't know about you, but I deal with people every day that
> have more money than sense. Many of the dogs we get are bought by
> people who are *very* well off, and yet, it doesn't make them any more
> responsible. "Easy come, easy go"
Logos are a part of corporate identity (be it large, small, non-profit,
partnership or sole-proprietorship or even a club) and as such the owner
has a reason to protect it.
Using the example that was given of an artist giving rights and then
having that work be used in a clip art collection as a fundraiser, there
is then little to no control over future use of that work. How nuch
depends on the copyright permissions notice in the clip art
collection-some allow free use, some limit the number of pieces in a
single project, others limit it to use by teachers. None of these,
however, stipulate how the image may be used.
One example was given of the use in a puppy mill ad. Here's another
possible scenario - a piece of released art is used in a ban the breed
campaign.
>>I can also understand if someone doesn't want to do that, and I don't
>>think it makes them "definitely uncharitable". I think this is a most
>>unfair characterization.
> You are absolutely right. Although, I wonder if they could afford to pay the
> "going rate" if they wouldn't suddenly be much more accomodating.
Sure, and if you could switch over to making your living by doing rescue
work, I bet you'd do it too.
Likewise, I bet there would be more artists willing to do it if the
requestors were more willing to work with the norm regarding illustrative
work. It's a two way street here. (please note: NONE of the following is a
flame on Carol, I'm simply using the original request as an example.) It
is not the norm for an artist to give up copyright for illustrative work.
The original request was for illustrative work.
Karen
Lynn Kosmakos
Manadero wrote:
> I do not think you are an "evil" person because you think your work is of
> value. I *do* think you a bit silly and arrogant because you seem to think
> that your work and time is worth *more* than that of the people that give
> freely of themselves to help others.
This is nuts. There's a basic concept missing here - that the product
of x hours work does not equate to x hours donated. It really is no
different than the thousands of Remington bronzes recently cast after
the molds were found or all the unauthorized "Dalis" or all the books
printed in Taiwan that the authors never see a penny from. Or Napster.
Without understanding the question of rights in general, you really
aren't informed enough to form any opinion. There are ways to make
these kinds of donations that protect both the artist and the
organization and no reason to do it otherwise. That's all. It's not
a question of donating or not donating, but how to do so wisely.
Lynn K.
Theresa /The Voice of Reason/ Willis
mana...@aol.com (Manadero) wrote:
> Terri wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Businesses
> >pay a hefty price tag for stuff where they want all rights to the
> >work, which equates to a pretty hefty donation. That's a lot to ask
> >from someone.
>
> Granted. But that's my point. If a corporation pays a hefty price
> tag for rights to an image that it uses for *profit*, how do you
> equate that to a non profit group using the funds raised to save
> lives?
I don't. I don't think that the money a business will pay for
reproduction rights is equivalent to the money raised by a non profit
group (I'm assuming your thinking of the image being sold multilple
times for the benefit of the rescue group). The issue of how much
business are willing to pay for a logo was brought up to illustrate just
why asking for all rights is asking a lot, not because the money paid by
the business equates to that raised by the rescue.
Business will pay a lot of dough for a logo, because they are buying
reproduction rights in addition to the artwork. If someone violates
their copyright, they are far more likely to prosecute as they are more
likely to have the resources to pursue that. And, they have a vested
interest in protecting their image, and this will help protect the
artist's reputation.
It's a much riskier proposition for a rescue. They are less likely to
have the resources to fight a copyright violator, and the artist will be
left with no recourse.
> >If a way could be found where we aren't asking so much, i.e., you
> >give up all your rights to your creation, and still benefit
> >rescue, isn't that better?
>
> Yes, of course it is. But I am sure that there have been groups that
> were burned because after paying for an image to be created, they have
> to continue to pay for the right to use it.
I'm not sure I see that as "being burned". It seems reasonable to me.
> IMO, asking for the "rights" to a piece so that they can freely
> reproduce it in a fundraising capacity isn't asking for the
> world.
No, but it is still risky (for the many reasons discussed in this
thread), and it may not be a necessary thing to ask for.
> And if it is, it has been mentioned that the artist gets to
> write the donation off so that they *do* ultimately get compensation.
Maybe. Depends on how the donation was valued.
Also, there is still that pesky issue of protection of the artist's
reputation.
> >I did not see several examples of artists giving up all their rights
> >to their creations in this thread. I may have missed these posts, of
> >course.
>
> Here's one.
Thanks.
> Christy wrote:
>
> <<Definitely not impossible.
> If you take a quick peek at
> http://members.aol.com/sheltirsq1/products.html
> and scroll down to the greeting card, you'll see an example of a piece
> of artwork that my sister donated to a rescue group to be used for
> fundraising purposes (in this case, reproduced into cards.) She
> produced this piece in short order, gave full rights to the group and
> received zero compensation (not even exposure, since she does not
> currently produce art for profit.)
> She just wanted to give something to the group in which she is closely
> affiliated. No, the average person won't be willing to donate their
> art in this manner, but some artists are above average. :)>>
>
> It's a lovely piece too :)
Well, that was indeed very generous of Christy's sister. I had no idea
how generous until I read this thread. As I said, there were a lot of
issues I hadn't considered concerning the rights to original work.
Of course, it also sounds like she doesn't have the professional
reputation concerns that I have been talking about, if she is not
currently producing art for profit. So, the risks involved may not be
that great for her.
So maybe the solution is to seek donations from amateur, not
professional artists. After all, an amateur work can certainly be of
high quality, and all that good stuff. And maybe they won't need to
worry about hurting themselves professionally if someone unscrupulous
decides to steal their work.
> >I'm not sure what you are saying here: Are you saying that you think
> >it's hypocritcal for an artist to charge more for right-surrendering,
> >such as in logo work? That's not an example of the issue
> >disappearing; that's an example of the issue being addressed.
>
> Not exactly. If a major corporation pays big bucks for a logo that it
> intends to use solely for product recognition/profit. Isn't it a
> different "league" to expect like compensation from a non profit group
> that saves homeless dogs?
Yes. The business is in a different league, and has more resources to
protect the artist. A non-profit group is in a different league, and
lack the resources to protect the artist. They are asking for more than
a donation, they are asking the artist to take a professional risk. I
see this as unneccessary; I am sure there are ways to arrange things
that benefit the rescue group _and_ protect the artist.
> What about all the concern for their creation?
> Here's another breeder analogy:
>
> To *me* this is the same as a breeder who will not sell a puppy of
> their breeding outright to a pet home, but gleefully signs off if the
> buyer is a big time breeder with enough $$$ to "ease" their
> conscience. There is still the same loss of control. The same
> opportunity for mismanagement, and yet, with enough money in their
> pocket, it is no longer such a moral dilemma.
I don't feel that this is a valid analogy.
For one thing, I do not see the situation we are discussing as a moral
dilemma. I do not see it as a question of morals at all, so I do not see
the business paying big bucks as buying off the artist's morals; so I do
not see the artist as selling out.
No one is saying it is unethical to sell all rights to an original work.
What people are saying is that it can be risky. Businesses paying big
bucks for a logo are, in a way, compensating the artist in part for that
risk, and lessening the risk by being more likely to pursue copyright
violators, thus further protecting the artist.
> >I do not think it implies that someone is arrogant or greedy if they
> >choose to reserve their rights.
>
> I don't think so either. But when it the *value* of someone's time
> and skill is repeatedly mentioned and there is a different standard
> for those with more disposable income,
I don't think this was what Robin was saying. I did not hear her to say
that her time was more valuable than others, at most I heard her say
that it was not _less_ valuable.
> I wonder how much of the "issue" is truly a "losing a part
> of myself" type thing and how much is a $$ thing.
Honestly, I don't think it has much to do with either of those.
I think it has to do with the idea that the request Carol made was
perhaps asking a lot more than it appeared on the surface, and people
misunderstanding what each was trying to say.
> >Uh, the point was that making a huge list of people spending time,
> >energy, and resources doesn't have anything to do with the particular
> >thing that Robin was objecting to.
>
> I disagree. Her point is that everyone's time is valuable. I agree
> wholeheartedly with that. However, if everyone were to put a dollar
> amount on their time and expect to be fully compensated, there would
> be a whole lot of nothing getting done and lots of dogs dying as a
> result.
But I don't think this is what Robin is suggesting should happen. I
think she's just trying to make folks aware that an artist's time is as
valuable as anyone else's, but a lot of times people can act as if
that's not the case.
For myself, I think the whole time thing isn't a big part of the
concern, and is more of a side issue of this whole deal.
> >You are ignoring the risk to an artists reputation if someone decides
> >to violate copyright and the artist has no recourse. That has nothing
> >to do with money.
>
> How is the risk of the artist's reputation lessened by the amount of
> profit?
I explained that above; a business is more likely to have the
resources to prosecute copyright violators. Even if a rescue was willing
to purse a copyright violation, that just means resources coming out of
rescue, which nobody wants.
> I don't know about you, but I deal with people every day that have
> more money than sense. Many of the dogs we get are bought by people
> who are *very* well off, and yet, it doesn't make them any more
> responsible. "Easy come, easy go"
OK. But I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. I don't
really see these peope as equivalent to a business with money.
> >Great, and as it was a general request for assistance, I see nothing
> >wrong with someone posting about why they think the request may be
> >hard to fill.
>
> And yet, apparently someone has offered.
And that's great. The original poster who brought up this whole issue
wished them luck. Maybe it did some good.
But it doesn't really impact this discussion that much. I'm glad if they
found someone to do this, but that doesn't mean that peoples concerns
were unwarranted.
> >I can also understand if someone doesn't want to do that, and I don't
> >think it makes them "definitely uncharitable". I think this is a most
> >unfair characterization.
>
> You are absolutely right. Although, I wonder if they could afford to
> pay the "going rate" if they wouldn't suddenly be much more
> accomodating.
If it offset the risks they were being asked to take, I would find that
a reasonable response.
Lynn Kosmakos
Manadero wrote:
> Great. What is the difference between the common practice of doing this for
> businesses that afford a hefty price tag and a non profit charity that can't?
Very simply, a business has a vested interest in protecting their
brand identities and resources to do so. That means that they will
protect against misuse of the artistic property. A non-profit is
not prepared to do so, and frankly shouldn't want to be put into that
position.
Lynn K.
Carol & the Bullmarket French Bulldogs
a day or two.
First of all, there was a reason that I asked for people to reply
via email, and it was so that I could explain the full scope of the
project.
To clarify, we did NOT ask that people work for free, nor did
we ask that people work to the shortened deadline, as anyone
who emailed me learned. We asked that if they had time to
prepare a piece in time for Christmas, fine, and if not, we
were still happy to work with them. There is, after all, a point
to messages which ask that people email for further details,
you know.... ;-)
That said, thanks again to the dozens of you who DID
respond offering to help. I'm still sorting through all of your
emails, and with any luck should have responses out by
tomorrow. I guess that message which wished me "Good
luck" because I was "Going to need it" worked quite
well.
Carol
Bullmarket French Bulldogs
http://www.bullmarketfrogs.com
French Bulldog Fun Land
http://www.frenchbulldogfun.com
Gwen Watson
Lynn Kosmakos wrote:
> Or Napster.
>
> Lynn K.
Bingo.
I for one have no problem donating time helping rescue dogs.
I do have a problem with my artwork used however and
whenever people feel the right to do so without my
consent.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Gwen Watson wrote:
> I for one have no problem donating time helping rescue dogs.
> I do have a problem with my artwork used however and
> whenever people feel the right to do so without my
> consent.
>
> Gwen
I would like to add that I do not mind doing small things
for people, like flyers for training for free and flyers
in general. It is when it falls into a fancy logo or
image that is going to be used time and time
again and be seen by all kinds of people
that I have a problem with my art being used.
Gwen
Julie
Can I send you in when friends ask me to write things for them?
Julie
--
~If you want to email me, remove the xyz from the .com
<ka...@tuatha.sidhe.org> wrote in message
news:JN_N5.55293$P82.6...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
> Manadero <mana...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Terri wrote:
>
> > (just can't keep my fingers still <G>)
>
> >>The main objection here is the surrendering of all rights. People put
> >>forth many scenarios that illustrated why this was not a good idea.
>
> > >Which has nothing to do with the problems regarding giving up all
> >>rights to a creation, which is the main objection here.
>
> > Great. What is the difference between the common practice of doing this
for
> > businesses that afford a hefty price tag and a non profit charity that
can't?
> > Why would the scenarios that apply to one not apply to both?
>
> First off, the comparison here is apples to oranges. When the question of
> rights on logos came up, along with the hefty price tags, it seems that
> some people started comparing that work straight out with
> illustrations.
>
> It's not the same at all. The big difference is that a company or an
> organization has a vested interest in protecting their logo. The misuse
> scenario is quite different for a logo than it is for an illustration for
> a card/t-shirt/other fundraising item. In addition to retaining the
> copyright on a logo, almost all custom logo holding entities trademark
> their logo as well.
>
> The original request was for illustrations. The logos and their pricetags
> got brought up as part of the discussion on retaining the copyright.
>
> > more valuable than comparable work done by others?
>
> > >I'll admit I was; until I saw the examples given, I didn't understand
that
> > someone surrendering all rights to their created work
> >>was all that different than someone donating their time.
>
> > The only difference I see is that if the check is big enough, those
"issues"
> > seem to disappear.
>
> See my above point about logos. The checks aren't that big for
> illustrations (or other pieces of art) where the rights are retained by
> the creator.
>
>
> >>Including Robin. She has done this to, as referenced in this thread
several
> > times.
>
> > Please quote where she said that she did work for "no charge" given
freely to
> > charity groups (rights included) like the other artists referenced in
the
> > thread.
>
> You know, just because some people do something doesn't mean it is a good
> idea for them to do so. Hopefully they will never get hit with the lessons
> that some artists learn about having their works used in ways that are
> objectionable to the artist. It's hard enough when they can protect their
> own works. It's even harder when the rights are held by an organization
> that really can't afford to spend the money to protect the work. (The
> reputation of the organization can also be hurt by the objectionable use
> of the work.)
>
> >>No one is suggesting this. You are ignoring the rights issue.
>