Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:14:47 PST |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I agree wholeheartedly with the artists having a right to be
fairly remunerated for what amounts to an advertising
campaign illustration. Why is it that visual imagery to
promote something would be "donated" if that entity were a
nonprofit? Don't the others working in that nonprofit make
a living using their skills? So, doesn't it seem appropriate
that an artist deserves also to make a living when using
his/her skills? If the artist can't be paid for the work
provided then a royalty payment per each print in the
edition needs to be part of the agreement. Otherwise, no
sane artist should consider working on the project.
As an art director, and a working artist, I have too long
witnessed the abuses that accompany advertising and
promotion schemes reliant on "donated" imagery. The artist
loses out by having nothing but a portfolio piece that makes
little difference to anyone except those that have offered
his work as a benefit to their cause.
Artists are hardworking people. Pay artists fairly for
their honest work.
|
|
|