Art PACT: Paying freelancers in exposure

[Scorpio616]

I've seen surprisingly little talk about supply and demand so far. I am not in the industry, but I personally have too many friends that would like to make their art their living for the need I see. Art is only your job if.....well, it's actually your job. Is the market just too saturated?

Very saturated. In the developed world, children's artistic creativity is often encouraged more often and more earlier over vocational and practical skills.

 

[lynnfredricks]

Another variable to this is that the people willing to work for free are damaging the pricing for professionals. A business who can connive young talent into working for free is forcing experienced professionals to lower their rate to try to reclaim business.

I employ several full time artists (2D & 3D), translators and other creatives. Experienced professionals should be producing far better quality work than inexperienced people in any creative endeavor. That's why folks with greater experience tend to be at the top of their respective pay ranges. If you are good at what you do, you can find something better - but you also may have to make compromises.

Now a larger pool of talent, made available by easy access via the internet, can be a challenge. But then, someone who is closer to the business home base is better able to participate and assist in decision making processes which can be key to the success of the business.

In other words, cheap labor doesn't eliminate high paying creative jobs, but it can make them more competitive.

 

[Crusadius]

Has anyone ever had "pay for exposure" go on to paid work? I find it hard to believe it would unless the work was for a major company/product line. Which a prospective employer has to buy. And read through. And decide to track down an artist of an illustration they liked rather than use from the artists they already have a relationship with.

Whereas I'd think an artist would have a better chance getting paid work by having a website and submitting samples to companies they wish to work for (or answering advertisements for paid work).

 

[Janx]

I employ several full time artists (2D & 3D), translators and other creatives. Experienced professionals should be producing far better quality work than inexperienced people in any creative endeavor. That's why folks with greater experience tend to be at the top of their respective pay ranges. If you are good at what you do, you can find something better - but you also may have to make compromises.

Now a larger pool of talent, made available by easy access via the internet, can be a challenge. But then, someone who is closer to the business home base is better able to participate and assist in decision making processes which can be key to the success of the business.

In other words, cheap labor doesn't eliminate high paying creative jobs, but it can make them more competitive.

The problem comes in when artists/art majors who don't pursue a career in art, decide to make art as a hobby. Then they decide to sell it or give it away because they didn't NEED the money. If it was just crappy wannabes making true crap, there wouldn't be a problem as natural selection would deal with it (as in nobody would use the crap).

If you're employing artists, it is likely that you need custom, on-demand art. Odds are good a home hobbyist isn't going to meet your schedule needs to even be in the running for consideration.

But if you're looking for clip-art of dragons and D&D stuff, odds are good somebody is giving it away (and that person may actually be quite talented, but not employed in the industry).

 

[WayneLigon]

Actually getting paid for a short story was something that you worked your way up to, through years of being published in smaller journals. If you held out for paid publications, you'd likely never get anywhere.

Maybe this was true for literary or poetry journals, but not for regular fiction venues. Avoid anything that pays in anything but money unless you're doing a favor for a friend. There are enough anthologies out there as well as regular magazines (print and online) that pay, that you don't have to bother with this. You just need to be diligent in looking for them.

 

[Scorpio616]

It's not just artists, of course. Writers, editors, graphic designers - they all get asked to work for exposure.

Over the last decade, I've felt that there has been a lot of movement to increase perception of why this is a bad thing. That's why it surprises me to see it in 2013; it feels to me like I'm seeing an anachronism from years past.

So [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] where is the line drawn? Because this RPG Superstar sure feels like Paizo is paying for all the submitted material with a chance to win a undefined contract. This is like a company asking for an hour of work as a resume.

How about material from my own campaign?
Provided the campaign has never been published, this is fine, but keep in mind that all submissions become the property of Paizo Publishing, LLC. You are probably better off inventing a new country or god or whatever specifically for the contest.

 

[delericho]

First up: In the months since this thread was first posted, I've given this matter some more thought, and I've concluded that my initial position was in error. While, in theory I still think "work for exposure" doesn't necessarily have to be exploitative, I think the reality of such things is that they almost certainly are - certainly often enough to oppose the practice in general.

So, yeah, I was wrong.

So [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] where is the line drawn? Because this RPG Superstar sure feels like Paizo is paying for all the submitted material with a chance to win a undefined contract. This is like a company asking for an hour of work as a resume.

As far as I'm aware, Paizo don't publish any of the losing entries to their competition. If there are any instances, I would be surprised if the creators weren't paid for their efforts.

My understanding is that that 'ownership' clause isn't some cynical measure to get lots of free Wondrous Items for their game, but rather about their covering all their bases just in case someone submits an item that happens to match something in an upcoming book.

(And I think "the line" is about intended use. Someone offering "pay by exposure" is going to use the artist's work in an attempt to make money for themselves. Conversely, Paizo aren't intending to use the submissions to make money for themselves; they're using them to try to identify talent that they'll then pay to produce future material.)

 

[Morrus]

So @Morrus where is the line drawn?

I literally don't know. I'm not an artist (or even a creator, really). That's something I'm really interested in hearing about.

At the weekend, we interviewed a bunch of artists and art directors about this very subject, and we asked them this. We'll be putting together a little video featurette on it.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

So [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] where is the line drawn? Because this RPG Superstar sure feels like Paizo is paying for all the submitted material with a chance to win a undefined contract. This is like a company asking for an hour of work as a resume.

I think you're seeing villainy where there is none, personally. Contests are a different beast. An established designer or writer would probably not enter -- they're an opportunity for new talents to try to short circuit the path to "glory".

As for the question about all submissions becoming the property of Paizo -- that's probably just a necessary legal defense. Without that condition of entry, they would open themselves up to a wide variety of copyright infringement suits.

Imagine this: I submit a wonderous item called "gnome's glowy thumb" which helps find treasure. I don't win, but six months later a paizo adventure comes out and there, in the text of the adventure, is an item called "Gnomish Nose For Loot", a gold nose that the wearer can put on that helps find treasure. I would have a reasonable case to take to court and sue Paizo over that, claiming they had stolen the idea from my contest entry -- even if it were just a coincidence. Even if that adventure had been written two years earlier, including that item, it would probably cost Paizo more in legal fees to prove it than any damages I might win in my suit. Even worse that the money, it would waste a ton of time and effort.

But, by making a stipulation of entry the legal transfer of ownership of the idea to Paizo, they hopefully avoid that whole situation.

-rg

 

[lynnfredricks]

The problem comes in when artists/art majors who don't pursue a career in art, decide to make art as a hobby. Then they decide to sell it or give it away because they didn't NEED the money. If it was just crappy wannabes making true crap, there wouldn't be a problem as natural selection would deal with it (as in nobody would use the crap).

If you're employing artists, it is likely that you need custom, on-demand art. Odds are good a home hobbyist isn't going to meet your schedule needs to even be in the running for consideration.

But if you're looking for clip-art of dragons and D&D stuff, odds are good somebody is giving it away (and that person may actually be quite talented, but not employed in the industry).

Then isn't it time to up your game, either strategically or technically?

The clip-art crowd likely cannot pay prices for good original art. The online PDF sites ("drivethru" etc) are jammed with cheap, cheap product. So judge those games accordingly, and promote good art games over others. Get online reviewers to review the total product - including art. Review games yourself and judge the artwork. When I have reviewed games, I review the art too, though I will also give allowances if the art was typical for the time (such as the not great art of the early years of D&D). Clip art use isn't going to go away unless its demonized as cheap. I don't see any problem with "wow, Ive seen this image by X too many times" to bring down a review because of a lack of original artwork. Some people will say it does or doesn't matter. But it does matter because people will judge the whole product.

As for contests, art for free, art for exposure, whatever - that's not going to go away, and it is a competitive factor of business. That's the business side of art and if you are a freelancer, you are also a business person. I sometimes run contests related to art, and the contest will often grant our use of the art for promotional purposes. Paizo isn't going to stop what they are doing.

On the technical side...art really isn't a field that supports "sorta good" art. Back when I first entered college, I majored in commercial art - until I realized 1) there are a lot of flakes in this field I don't want to work with (esp professors not interested in actually teaching) and 2) my art was quite good, but I could tell it wasn't what I would consider competitive. I changed majors, went into a different field, but continued to do art as a hobby. Where my business touches the world of art though, my background did give me the skills I needed to evaluate the art. I can tell if someone is just "sorta good" or if they are professional. You have to be better than that to be a freelancer.