Self Publishing: What's An Artist Worth?

If you're like many other folks who have recently delved into the foray of self-publishing 5E products, you've probably quickly realised that art is expensive (actually, I dislike using that term - it's not expensive for what it is). Some people are lucky enough to have artistic talent which lets them illustrate their own products; others need to rely on the hard work of other contributors to help bring their words to life. This short article covers a few basic ways you can get your product illustrated. Welcome to a well-established community of small and self-publishers in the RPG industry!
If you're like many other folks who have recently delved into the foray of self-publishing 5E products, you've probably quickly realised that art is expensive (actually, I dislike using that term - it's not expensive for what it is). Some people are lucky enough to have artistic talent which lets them illustrate their own products; others need to rely on the hard work of other contributors to help bring their words to life. This short article covers a few basic ways you can get your product illustrated. Welcome to a well-established community of small and self-publishers in the RPG industry!

Are You A Writer Or A Publisher?
First things first, it's important that you start from the right perspective. If you're producing and selling products, and using artists to illustrate them (we'll leave out editors and layout/design people for now), you're not just a writer any more. You're a publisher. A small publisher, perhaps, but a publisher nonetheless. Being a publisher isn't the same thing as being a writer - it requires different skills; and as a publisher, albeit a small one, you have a new set of responsibilities. Publishing ain't always easy, but it can be rewarding.

If you just want to be a writer, that's a different thing. As a writer, you don't need to worry about art, someone else can edit your work, someone else does the layout, someone handles the marketing, someone handles the accounting. If writing is the thing you really want to do, consider instead approaching a publisher and writing for them. They'll do all the (non-written) hard work, and you'll get paid for your writing.

But if you're doing the whole shebang - using artists, selling the work, and so on - you're a publisher. You may prefer to think of yourself as a struggling writer, but you've taken a step beyond that; and as a small publisher you need to consider the hard work of others involved in bringing your words to life. You may be surprised to find that that can take as long or longer than your actual writing, and involve just as much hard work!

Don't Work For Exposure
Now, art isn't cheap. Or at least, it shouldn't be - it is possible to persuade artists to work for peanuts (or worse, for exposure) but doing so is exploiting them. A quick Google search will reveal hundreds of articles about how artists should not work for free or for exposure, and the reasons why, so I won't belabour the point here except to say that it is important. I even wrote a similar article (focused on writers, not artists) a while back.

That might mean you can't afford art, at least at first. That's totally OK. It's OK to not be able to afford something, and to work towards being able to afford it, and books with little or no art are just fine! However, there are other options which mean that you can actually afford art and pay your artists a fair amount. Every small publisher has gone through this - if you look at DTRPG, you'll see thousands of small publishers who have gone through that very thing. Don't panic; it's not a new problem. If you keep producing quality stuff, you'll be able to start slowly improving the production values of that material. "But I can't afford it" is not a great reason to exploit somebody; it's a great reason to hone your craft and reputation and work towards being able to afford it. In the meantime, starting with little or no art is just fine; if your writing is solid, you have a great starting point.

That said, in this day and age, there are some amazing resources which enable you to early circumvent these barriers. It's a pretty wonderful time for self-publishing!

Some Solutions
The most obvious one is Kickstarter. Let's say you need a thousand dollars to illustrate your short book (like I said, art is not cheap - I spent £20,000 of Kickstarter funds on art for my WOIN books). A Kickstarter campaign to raise that thousand dollars has a number of benefits. First, you find out in advance if folks want your book. Second, it has its own marketing value all of itself. Third, it means you can pay your artists a fair wage. Fourth, if you raise more than your thousand dollars, you start making profit before even putting the book on sale. Fifth, you can then sell the book.

That's a win-win situation. Your book ends up looking good, everybody gets paid fairly, you make money. It's hard to find a good reason not to do that, especially when your back-up plan is to ask artists to work for free. Work out what art you need, work out how much it costs, and there's your Kickstarter goal. When your book gets funded, your artists' fair pay is built-in to the model.

I would normally include Patreon as an option, but the logistics are a bit awkward there. Certainly it's very suited to lots of small items, but if you want to use DMs Guild (which I assume most folks reading this do) the exclusivity clause at DMs Guild makes it slightly tricky getting your product to your patrons. I'm hopeful that some loosening of the rules (or a much needed extra feature - comp copies for DMs Guild publishers) is in the future, as that would make for the ideal solution.

What other options are there? The other obvious solution is stock art. There are stock art locations where you can buy art rights inexpensively, or even free public domain art. Those artists make their money by selling the same art to lots of people, rather than doing custom work just for you. There's the big places like Shutterstock, and there is tons of stock art available on DriveThruRPG. WotC has released some art to be used as stock art on DMs Guild (for free!) In fact, there are hundreds of places you can get stock art. Here's a quick list:
Now, there are places you can get art done for next to nothing. I personally feel that doing so is unfair. Some artists may well be willing to work for peanuts because (a) they don't know better and think that's the only way to get started as an artist or (b) they don't need the money as they have a full time job and are just doing it for fun. The former, unfortunately, have their viewpoint reinforced by all those publishers who keep telling them that that is true, when it isn't; the latter undermine the former because they make it look like art is, indeed, a cheap commodity. For that reason, even if you don't need the money, if you're an artist I hope that you still charge a fair price for your art, because not doing so harms those that do need the money.

Can you get art for dirt cheap, or free? Sure. Should you? The desire to get your awesome words out there and looking pretty is understandable and the temptation to do what you need to do to get that done right now is hard to resist, especially if you have no money to spend. I've been there! I asked Claudio Pozas, an artist I've known for 16 years, who started small and worked his way up:
Why not just offer US$5 and use whatever artist takes the bait? There are several reasons for that:

1) You'll get the art you paid for: probably rushed, from a starting, naive artist who is hurting his career more than helping.​
2) There's the ethical quandary of offering a payment that is unlikely to support the worker you're hiring. It's a matter of responsibility, when you have the power in the professional relationship (in this case, the job offer).​
3) for the publisher really scraping for money, there are several good artists out there that offer stock illustration. Sure, the art won't be uniquely yours, but it's better than to cheat an artist out of a living wage.​


OK, so now you're asking what a fair rate for art is? That depends on a number of things - colour, black-and-white, size, complexity, and so on. The range does, of course, vary - I'm not saying that beginning artists can charge as much as those who have spent years forging their reputation. A well-known artist may charge ten times or more than a new one; that's OK, as long as the new one is still charging a fair amount.

The average rates I tend to see from artists are in the region of $30 for a quarter page piece, $100 for a full page piece, maybe double that if it's full-colour. For a well-known artist, you may have to pay much more than that, but for the average freelancer, that's about the average. I asked Claudio Pozas again:
"Fair" depends on a lot of things: the artist's experience, the publisher's size, and the product's reach. At the very least, an artist -- like any other person -- should make a living wage out of his work. In the US, the minimum wage is US$7 (roughly) an hour, and there's talk of increasing that to US$15 (a minimum "living" wage).

If an artist is expected to spend two days on an illustration (between sketching, composition, rendering, and handling alterations), that's about 16 hours of work. That artist, at the very least, should be paid US$240 for his time.​
Granted, the artist won't probably work for 8 hours per day, that can be spread out over more days, as the freelancer has to deal with his own workflow, his paperwork, and have time to hone his skills.​
The bottom line is that each publisher should be prepared to contribute to an artist's living wage, so we can end the all-too-real image of the "starving artist". I can see a small, quarter-page illustration that could theoretically be finished (sketch + composition + rendering + alteration) over the course of 8 hours (again, putting together the hours actually spent on the image over several days), and the publisher offering US$120 for it.​
BTW, those numbers I gave you can be adjusted for, as you said, non-work-for-hire, etc. A b/w quarter-page illustration that an artist can do in 3 hours can start at US$30, easily.​

Now, Claudio is an established artist with a solid, reliable, professional reputation. $120 for a quarter page item isn't necessarily what a brand new artist can command, but they can definitely command more than just "exposure".

What about cartography? Dyson Logos offered this information when I asked: "As a cartographer, I charge $250 for a full page map, $175 for a half-page. This is for "work for hire", my rates are lower if we are dealing with licensed material instead (where I keep copyright and provide non-exclusive use licensing)."

You'll notice that Claudio says that an artist should be paid a living wage for work. Now, there is a problem there; I know it well! You, the publisher are not making a living wage, so why should the artist? It's a good question. It's also not the right question. If your business model doesn't allow you to pay a fair wage for art, the answer isn't "exploit an artist", it's "revise your business model; it doesn't work". Don't pass the pain onto those who depend on you - it is, sadly, yours to bear. There are solutions; they take work or patience, but I've outlined several above (start smaller; use Kickstarter; etc.) It may be that you just can't have the art yet. Don't worry - you can, with time, get yourself to a place where you can have it all! Think of it like hiring a builder or other craftsman to work for you (though those types of people long, long ago realised the value of their labour - you won't get them doing it for a fiver!)

You can do other things to make things fairer for artists, and maybe save some money. Consider letting them keep the rights to the art. When I publish, I no longer use work-for-hire art except for very occasional specific pieces which really need to be (and I pay more for them). Work-for-hire means you, the publisher, owns the copyright to the art. Instead, consider letting the artist keep the copyright (don't do that instead of paying them - do it as well as paying them, but you may be able to negotiate a lower rate). The artist can go on to make money by selling prints and the like; even WotC lets its cartographers do that these days. Hey, head over to my friend Claudio Pozas' art store and buy a print of this gorgeous cover he did for To Slay A Dragon. The odds are you don't really need it to be work-for-hire. If for some reason it does need to be work-for-hire, you can still give the artist permission to sell prints themself.


tsad.jpg

[FONT=&quot]SaveSave[/FONT]
 

Von Ether

Legend
It's all about supply and demand, and your article proposes to drive up the supply of cheap art (public domain and stock art) and drive down the demand for new art. Public domain art does not pay artists. Cheap stock art may pay the artist a living wage for the time spent on that piece of art, but it reduces the number of pieces of art being sold. If a good stock artist sells a work 10 times at $15 a piece (or 30 times at $5 a piece, and only a third of them get used), that means one good artist gets $150 for ten uses and nine artists get nothing. Is that better than ten artists each getting $15 for a commissioned piece of work? You certainly haven't improved the status of the artists who got nothing.

At the end of the day, your ideas would produce a market that spends less on art (given PD art) and employs far fewer artists at a much higher rate. I'm pretty sure that the artists who you've deprived completely of work are not fans of that idea.

The head scratcher to that assumption is why aren't the big companies also using stock art for the majority of their work. At most, they pay for for quality work and then eventually resuse some of that art, but overall when publishers get enough budget, they opt for original art because it offers something that stock art doesn't

A customized image that supports the vision of the product, which is the goal of any publisher with an average project, which should have a professional budget.

But if your goal is to sell something for a few bucks and the budget option is No Art (and no artist is making money) or Stock Art (where someone is at least making a some cash), then I'd suggest going stock art.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I'm used to a large percentage of the TTRPG community being unreasonably cheap when it comes to paying for content. So I guess I shouldn't be so surprised at how many publishers exhibit the same cheap attitude. Such publishers are really hobbyists hoping to make some money on their hobby, but having little business sense. It is easier than ever to find public-domain art, especially for fantasy settings. But so many times those who have taken that route end up with a cheap-looking product because the art isn't custom-built to the content. Even with public-domain or inexpensive stock art, it takes someone with an artistic bent to select art that harmonizes together and captures the "feel" of the content. Layout too is an art and I think layout becomes even more important when you use non-custom art.

I'm not sure I'm fully on-board with some of the guild mentality and union vibes I'm getting from the OP, but hiring people who value themselves to ask for a rate they can live and thrive on (and regularly get people to pay it), only makes sense. In my business I've learned this the hard way. I've bought the services of many artists, copy writers, Web-site designers, and programmers over the years and almost every time I went cheap, I've regretted it, with it often costing me more because of wasted time or even scrapping what I bought and having to pay someone more competent to redo the project.

One thing I don't think the OP emphasized enough, is the importance of finding the right fit. It is demoralizing to hire expensive talent, someone who is obviously capable, only to find out that they just are not able to carry out your vision. Learning about art can help improve your ability to describe what you are looking for and better determine if the awesome portfolio of an artist will translate into awesome art for your project. I really love listening to pod casts or reading articles were product directors and artists talk about their collaboration and how they came up with the art for a work. See some of the stuff with Chris Perkins and other talking about the Curse of Straud for example.
 

Von Ether

Legend
I'm used to a large percentage of the TTRPG community being unreasonably cheap when it comes to paying for content. So I guess I shouldn't be so surprised at how many publishers exhibit the same cheap attitude.

It's the only hobby I've seen where people get irked if they can't use a 20 year-old supplement.
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
That is what you think would happen. It is not a fact, but your opinion. It is entirely possible nothing changes or the opposite of occurs.

It's entirely possible that the proposal will fulfill the conditions set for the end of the universe and cause an end to everything. It's a bit unlikely, though. I suppose all predictions of the future are in some sense not fact, but that still doesn't make it reasonable to dismiss any analysis of a proposal as just "opinion".

The proposal says that publishers without much money should go without art, use public domain art or use preexisting stock art. That is, the amount of original RPG art commissioned will be reduced. The proposal says that publishers should not pay bottom dollar for art. That reduces the power of an artist to bargain based on cost and encourages publishers to pay for artists who already demand a decent price, instead of newbie artists trying to get their foot in the door based on price. Those seem like reasonable conclusions to me.
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
It's the only hobby I've seen where people get irked if they can't use a 20 year-old supplement.

Really? I haven't seen it. I have seen people use 20 year old skis and complain about new digital SLR cameras not being compatible with 20 year-old SLR lenses. 20 year old camping gear works just fine if you don't mind the weight. Dover keeps many 50-year-old math books in print; heck, they have at least one 20-year-old computer book in print. Even in the rapid moving computer world, TeX has been stable since 1982 and Java is reasonably backward compatible to 1.0 in 1995. The processor in your computer is (theoretically) fully backwardly compatible to the 8086 released in 1978, despite Intel repeatedly trying to put the axe to the line. In 2001, the Itanium was offered as a replacement and bombed... and it's still being produced, because even in the computer industry, there are some places where a company has to support even a failure for 15 years.

Some upgrading of equipment in any field is to be expected. But ending up paying thousands of dollars and then having new stuff be incompatible is a pain, whether there's good reason for the forced upgrade or not. Why shouldn't people get annoyed?
 

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Thanks for a great article, Morrus!

I'm in the last 38 hours of using Kickstarter for exactly this purpose - to fund professional artwork for my sci-fi RPG which I'm just in the process of publishing. I'm currently 166% funded (why not take a look? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1283988566/starguild-space-opera-noir-tabletop-rpg)

The one additional thing which is worth mentioning is that for a kickstarter you may want to prime the pump by investing in some professional art before the kickstarter to show what you are intending to get. I'm really glad that I got a cover done by the magnificent Claudio Pozas; I wish I had had more confidence in my kickstarter and had ponied up for a few additional pieces of work up front :)

Now running a KickStarter, as you very well know, is a full-time job. I fear many self-pubs won't be able to do that and hold down their day job.

I think that is an unfounded fear.

I have an extremely demanding day job, but I've had no problem giving my kickstarter the care and attention which it needs - certainly enough to help it get to the point of being funded.

It takes time and effort, yes. But it isn't like a real full time job; it is an investment in time that you need to make.

Real pay for real artists is a worthwhile call.
 

dave2008

Legend
I suppose all predictions of the future are in some sense not fact, but that still doesn't make it reasonable to dismiss any analysis of a proposal as just "opinion".

Your statements are, to this point, 100% opinion. You have provided no facts. However, I do not dismiss opinions, I find great value in opinions.

The proposal says that publishers without much money should go without art, use public domain art or use preexisting stock art. That is, the amount of original RPG art commissioned will be reduced. The proposal says that publishers should not pay bottom dollar for art. That reduces the power of an artist to bargain based on cost and encourages publishers to pay for artists who already demand a decent price, instead of newbie artists trying to get their foot in the door based on price. Those seem like reasonable conclusions to me.

It is also reasonable to conclude that paying artists less than a fair wage or even nothing at all leads to artist failing to succeed at their craft because they can't make money, reducing the talent pool and thus the amount and, perhaps more importantly, the quality of art produced.

Heck parents regularly push their children away from being artist for this very reason. Just imagine how much wonderful art could be produced if parents encouraged their children to be artists because they can actually make a good life with their art!

It seems to me that the prevailing evidence suggests: low pay = low quality and quantity of art.
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
It is also reasonable to conclude that paying artists less than a fair wage or even nothing at all leads to artist failing to succeed at their craft because they can't make money, reducing the talent pool and thus the amount and, perhaps more importantly, the quality of art produced.

Where's the money coming from? You can't have the same amount of art made at higher prices on the same budget. There's no people getting rich off our industry.

Heck parents regularly push their children away from being artist for this very reason. Just imagine how much wonderful art could be produced if parents encouraged their children to be artists because they can actually make a good life with their art!

How much does Elton John make? I'd say that's a good living. And yet parents push their kids from being musicians for the exact same reason they push their kids from being artists. There are more people who want to be artists and musicians then the world has demand and money for art and music. If parents pushed their kids to be artists, it would just be worse. Increasing the supply of artists reduces the amount that they're going to get paid. That's supply and demand, economics 101.

It seems to me that the prevailing evidence suggests: low pay = low quality and quantity of art.

Someone above linked to http://www.deviantart.com/ . I invite you to look at it. One can discuss the quality of art on the Internet; that's in the eye of the beholder. But to seriously claim that the low pay of artists produces low quantity of art is to ignore the Internet, wherein millions of artists are showing off their works, frequently without someone else covering the hosting costs like DeviantArt does.
 

dave2008

Legend
Where's the money coming from? You can't have the same amount of art made at higher prices on the same budget. There's no people getting rich off our industry.

More artist = more talent = better art = better sales = higher demand = more artist.



How much does Elton John make? I'd say that's a good living. And yet parents push their kids from being musicians for the exact same reason they push their kids from being artists. There are more people who want to be artists and musicians then the world has demand and money for art and music. If parents pushed their kids to be artists, it would just be worse. Increasing the supply of artists reduces the amount that they're going to get paid. That's supply and demand, economics 101.

Again: More artist = more talent = better art = better sales = higher demand = more artist.

Someone above linked to http://www.deviantart.com/ . I invite you to look at it. One can discuss the quality of art on the Internet; that's in the eye of the beholder. But to seriously claim that the low pay of artists produces low quantity of art is to ignore the Internet, wherein millions of artists are showing off their works, frequently without someone else covering the hosting costs like DeviantArt does.

Ahh, but how great would the art be if we paid them more - that is what your missing. I also never claimed low pay = low quality. I said better pay = better quality. There is a difference.

Also, I provided the link to DA, I am a member and contributor to the site, but I am not a pro. However, I lot of the art (at least a lot of it that I follow) on DA is from professionals who are paid for the work the are posting. All most all the high quality stuff was either specifically made for someone (video games, MtG, WotC, Pazio, Marvel, etc.) or by professionals showing their personal projects. And indeed you can purchase the art or commission an artist (which is what I did). So DA is not really an example of free art.

Finally to be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just open to the possibility that better pay could work for everyone. For example, many corporations in the US complain that raising the minimum wage will be bad for business / ruin the economy. However, states that have increased the minimum wage have not had this occur. Some have had a small dip, some have actually improved, but in most cases it has really had no effect. Somehow the economy excepts the higher wages without adversely effecting the rest of the economy. I think it could work for artists as well.
 

AriochQ

Adventurer
You could use the same argument for those people generating the DM's Guild content that requires the art, i.e. "By publishing gaming material for cheap, you are hurting SERIOUS writers. You should demand full price for your material or not produce it at all!" Looking at it that way, the original argument amounts to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Essentially, it comes down to supply and demand. Should people produce art for $5? Probably not. But if that $5 is the difference between eating dinner or going to bed hungry? Hand me a pencil! Although that example is extreme, it demonstrates a point. Not all art is created equal and the market will end up paying what it is worth based on supply and demand. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people trying to make a living as artists, and that depresses the market.

Like I told my college roommate who declared he was a true artist and would never become an art teacher...It would be great if we could all make a living from our hobby. What does he do now? Art teacher...
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top