Taylor Swift Advocates for Musicians, but not Photographers
Posted by Rebecca Blake on June 29, 2015
Note: After this articles was published, Swift revised her concert contract, following the recommendations of photographers.
Creators were galvanized when Taylor Swift issued her open letter protesting Apple’s decision to not pay musicians, producers, and writers during the 3-month free trial of the new Apple Music streaming service. Her letter read like a manifesto: “These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up… Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing.” Apple paid attention and immediately reversed their decision, and Swift was widely lauded by creators – except photographers.
Within a day of Swift’s open letter, UK photographer Jason Sheldon published an open response to Swift, stating that as admirable as her stance was, it was somewhat marred by the contracts her management company requires concert photographers to adhere to. That contract includes a rights grab; the management company, Firefly Entertainment, has the right to a worldwide, perpetual license to use (and to authorize others to use) any of the photos in any media for publicity and promotion. Sheldon concluded, “With all due respect to you, too, Taylor, you can do the right thing and change your photo policy. Photographers don’t ask for your music for free. Please don’t ask us to provide you with your marketing material for free.”
Firefly shot back at Sheldon, stating that he had misrepresented the terms of the contract. (The entire contract can be read from Sheldon’s original post.) However, in a subsequent article on PetaPixel, photographer Joel Goodman pointed out that the contract Firefly is currently handing photographers is significantly worse. The terms Sheldon objected to – limiting photographers to a one-time use within a specific publication, and granting Firefly and Taylor Swift Productions the rights grab – are still present. But the current contract includes a clause permitting “authorized agents” of Firefly and Swift the right to “confiscate and/or destroy” the photographer’s equipment, should the photographer “fail to fully comply” with the terms of the contract. Or, as PetaPixel succinctly puts it, “Break Our Rules, and We Can Break Your Gear.”
While a protest against Swift’s inconsistency in sticking up for the rights of all artists hasn’t materialized, at least one publication has taken note. PetalPixel reported that The Irish Times, the second most widely read newspaper in Ireland, decided not to include any concert photography in their coverage of Swift’s sold-out gigs in Dublin. The Times wrote that they took issue with Swift’s photo authorization contract: “The photographs may be used on a one-time only basis and by signing her contract we grant Swift perpetual, worldwide right to use the published photographs in any way she sees fit.”
Below: An excerpt from Swift’s contract, highlighted by photographer Joel Goodman.
The Cost of Logo Design: Advice from a Graphic Designer
Posted by Rebecca Blake on June 17, 2015
Brooklyn-based graphic designer Roberto Blake has done us all a favor. In his video, “How Much Does a Logo Design Cost,” he educates non-designers on what to expect when soliciting a bid on a logo design. Business owners hoping to get a flat price quote will be disappointed; from the outset Blake makes it clear that the cost varies greatly depending on a number of factors: the kind of logo, complexity, color variations, alternate designs, etc. Instead, Blake prepares the non-designer to have a clear discussion with the logo designer, advising against engaging in bargaining for the lowest fee possible and encouraging the client to engage in a transparent discussion of budget and needs.
In outlining the design process, from research through execution of the design, through production of final press- and web-ready files, Blake makes clear the effort and time the logo designer expends. He also cautions the viewer that the copyrights to the logo do not transfer to the client until the rights have been negotiated and paid for. He concludes his video with a discussion of a flat-fee versus hourly rate fee basis, and payment schedules.
While Blake intended the video to be a teaching tool for clients, it’s also a wonderful resource for new designers inexperienced in negotiating with clients on logo design projects. Experienced designers will find the video helpful as well. It’s the perfect link to email anyone who asks, “Why do you charge so much for just a logo?”
Blake’s YouTube channel features a number of videos on design and photography best practices and techniques.
Bring your Blood Pressure Up: Spec Work Documented on Social Media
Posted by Rebecca Blake on February 25, 2015
If you’ve been advised to keep your heart rate steady, you should probably avoid @forexposure_txt on Twitter and shitspecwork on Tumblr. @forexposure provides a steady stream of outrageous requests for free labor. Some of the requests are from businesses one could safely assume have a budget: “You will be doing interviews for a real media outlet. Our prices are affordable and way cheaper than classes.” Some make it clear that the projects have no funding: “In the past contributors have been expected to buy a few copies of the book to help with funding.” Almost all promise some sort of payoff in exposure: “In exchange you get exposure on my account when I tag you in my Instagram pictures.”
The Twitter account is maintained by comic artist Ryan Estrada. The posts are often breathtaking in their audacity and general cluelessness: “We do have a budget for professional services, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND IT.” While the Twitter stream is so comical it’s hard to believe, Estrada assures us “These are real quotes from real people who want you to work for exposure.”
Until recently, 3-D illustrator Timothy Reynolds published the Tumblr spec work blog shitspecwork. The blog featured submissions of requests for free work from large companies, such as HBO, Audi and Coca Cola, to music bands looking for free poster design, to posts by individuals trolling for free labor. Some of the posts cover headline-generating campaigns, such as the Canadian government’s student contest for a logo for the 150-year anniversary of the country’s confederation.
Unfortunately, Reynolds has ceased to post to shitspecwork. Last December, he sent out a request for anyone willing to take over the blog. Earlier this month, he posted that “I gave up on http://shitspecwork.tumblr.com last year because it took a lot of negative energy to run it. But if anyone wants to take over, lmk.” Interested parties can contact Reynolds via his Twitter account. No doubt there will be a wealth of material for anyone interested in documenting requests for free labor.
Right: @forexposure's Twitter stream.
Artists, Money, and Envy
Posted by Rebecca Blake on January 26, 2015
When the San Francisco Gate reported that author Danielle Steele’s assistant embezzled $400,000 from her accounts, many comments to the article relished the author’s financial woes. The rancor of comments led cartoonist/writer Colleen Doran to muse on the conflicted relationship artists have with money. It’s a situation made toxic by low expectations, envy, and hackneyed stereotypes.
In Art and Money, Doran describes her pursuit of financial stability as a bid for freedom to pursue her art — a habit of fiscal prudence she shares with F. Scott Fitzgerald. Yet artists who are financially successful are met with scornful envy. Doran writes:
“What sick mixed messages this ambivalence about material success sends to creators. They are constantly told they are fools for being artists, doing work for the love. Then they are told they are fools for doing art for money. They are fools for not managing money well. Then they are told that artists are constitutionally incapable of handling money because they are foolish artists.”
(Fitzgerald is spared this abuse because he died practically destitute, although because of his wife’s overwhelming medical bills, rather than any artistic financial ineptitude.)
The point of Doran’s article is one that she repeatedly makes: knowing how to manage money can make the difference between being a full-time artist, or one held back by juggling thankless part-time jobs. Buying into the stereotype of the starving artist, and denigrating those who are successful only holds artists back from realizing their goals as creators and successful business owners.
Photo of Colleen Doran used with permission.
Flickr Wall Art Puts a Spotlight on Creative Commons Commercial Licenses
Posted by Rebecca Blake on January 15, 2015
In mid-October, Flickr announced the roll-out of a “new opportunity” for users to share their work as photo-mounted or canvas-printed Wall Art. One month later, the photo-sharing site announced that it had added over 50 million “freely-licensed” Creative Commons images to its Flickr Wall Art service, without the participation of the photographers. The announcement understandably enraged Flickr users. As Dazed reported, Flickr, or rather its parent company, Yahoo, would pocket all profits for the bulk of the sales, with the photographers receiving only a small attribution at the bottom of the print. (A small number of curated photographers, contacted by Flickr, would receive 51% of the sales.)
The announcement resulted in a firestorm of outraged articles from ardent Flickr users such as Jeffrey Zeldman, with the consensus being that the move on Yahoo’s part was short-sighted. As Flickr co-founder Stewart Butterfield (who left the company in 2008) told The Guardian, “It’s hard to imagine the revenue from selling the prints will cover the cost of lost goodwill.” Copyright advocates predictably took a tough line. Artists’ Bill of Rights urged Flickr users to change the licensing terms on their uploaded images from Creative Commons to “All Rights Reserved”, and warned that “‘share and share alike’ needs a reality check in today’s internet: the CC license adds dollars to an internet entrepreneur’s pocket, not yours.” The only organization that seemed to be unperturbed was the Electronic Frontier Foundation; EFF’s intellectual property director was reported as saying that it didn’t appear Flickr was doing any wrong.
The issue wasn’t that Yahoo intended toviolate copyright law. The images folded into Flickr’s Wall Art collection were covered by Creative Commons licenses which permit commercial use: “Attribution” (CC BY), permitting wide usage, including altering, remixing, and distributing; Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) permitting the same rights as the CC BY license, as long as any derivative work is covered by the same license terms; and Attribution-NoDerivs (CC BY-ND), permitting distribution without alteration. Additionally, users had to knowingly select the CC commercial licenses. Flickr’s default license stipulates, “All Rights Reserved,” and users can select from any of the six licenses covered by Creative Commons, including the three which don’t permit commercial use.
However, many users, including supporters of sharing and remix culture, felt that Yahoo’s intention to profit from the works covered by the CC commercial licenses violated the “spirit’ of the Flickr community. Web developer Jen Simmons wrote “If the only option for preventing corporate abuse is to lock everything behind non-commercial-use licenses, the whole purpose of Creative Commons is weakened.” She identifies a key weakness in the Creative Commons commercial licenses — the licenses make no distinction between different kinds of commercial use, lumping together major corporations with small businesses, non-profits, and individuals: “I don’t believe that photographers, illustrators and others who want to share their work should have to agree that big companies can do whatever they want, including selling copies of those images on a massive scale. ”
In a thoughtful essay, Morten Rand-Hendriksen pointed out that the spirit of the Flickr service (which he defines as the “commonly agreed upon understanding” of its users) is at odds with the legal interpretations of the CC licenses. Rand-Hendriksen boils down the dissonance between spirit and legal meaning to “everyone should be able to do whatever they want with my photos, including earning money off their use without sharing it with me, as long as they are not the corporation that hosts those photos or a large corporation that should be able to pay me.” He agrees with Simmons that the Creative Commons licenses may need reevaluating. But as he concludes, “If you put content on the web, remember that the [Creatie Commons] license you apply to that content is universal. It grants the same rights to your neighborhood blogger and the corporation that hosts your content.”
Yahoo eventually backed down on the scope of the Wall Art Project, apologizing in a December 18, 2014 blog post. They announced that they were removing the Creative Commons-licensed images from the Wall Art pool and refunding all sales of those images. (Flickr users can still produce Wall Art of their own work, and only the work of Flickr-curated licensed photographers appears in the Wall Art site.) Artists’ Bill of Rights used the episode as an object lesson, cautioning creators to not use Creative Commons licenses, and urging them to embed metadata in their images, and register their copyrights.Previous Page Next Page
How to Start your Very Own Communication Design Business!
Enter your email address below to receive a FREE download of "Starting Your Own Communication Design Business" written by Lara Kisielewska.
By signing up you will receive our monthly newsletter and occasional e-mails about our advocacy work. You will have the option to opt out at any time.
Looking to keep up with industry trends and techniques?
Taking your creative career to the next level means you need to be up on a myriad of topics. And as good as your art school education may have been, chances are there are gaps in your education. The Guild’s professional monthly webinar series, Webinar Wednesdays, can help take you to the next level.
Members can join the live webinars for FREE - as part of your benefits of membership! Non-members can join the live webinars for $45.
Visit our webinar archive page, purchase the webinar of your choice for $35 and watch it any time that works for you.