I’ve been approached by people at parties asking for advice about how to build a website. I’ve also been approached by people and organizations asking me to build them a website for free (or on spec).
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly don’t find those two situations equally insulting.
Teachers get this all the time as well.
One of the posted messages, from a legislator, appears to be about a logo. I think he has a point; if you’re a government body, you do have access to cheaper resources than private design firms. Some years ago it was all the rage for state Universities to adopt new, “with it” logos. My university hired a design firm for $150,000. Nobody liked the logo. We then tried again, and had bids ranging from $40k to $400k. We chose a middle bid and paid $80k for two new logos. Nobody liked them. We eventually just had an alumnus design a modification/simplification of the traditional seal for around $5000. It is OK. The right solution (other than simply not trying to rebrand) would have been to have a student competition, with a scholarship for the winner.
[quote=“RevVeggieSpam, post:18, topic:84477”]
This genius bro came in and was trying to convince the mom&pop owner to sell it to him for $20 cash.[/quote]
I don’t see a problem with trying to negotiate prices; I do it all the time. My father was a shopkeeper; while he might not agree on a proposed price, he wouldn’t treat it as an affront. The idea that the price tag is somehow sacrosanct is a first-world peculiarity.
As someone who has worked in both academia and professional design studios I must disagree. Students rarely if ever have the experience to give a job of that magnitude the attention and professionalism it deserves. If they did, they wouldn’t still be students.
Besides, a visual identity is more than just a logo. Nobody is going to flesh out an entire graphic standards manual on the off chance that they might win a scholarship. And if they had the skills to do so they wouldn’t NEED a scholarship.
Well, our students are pretty good:-) In any event, the logos we paid big money for were rubbish, genuinely horrible. For a while the school newspaper was publishing contributions from students, and nearly all of them were far better, more appropriate to the school and more creative, than the ones we’d paid for. The thing we finally settled on was designed by an ex-student.
I agree that implementing the new brand, putting together the full brand standard, takes professional care. We have a permanently-staffed office for that.
You are wrong. Here are examples literally pulled randomly from Deviant Art, the largest online marketplace for digital artworks.
When all you do is literally tell everyone else responding to you that you haven’t seen it and they must all be wrong you should examine how obstinate you’re being instead of listening. Just because you don’t go shopping in digital art that’s not photography doesn’t mean that others aren’t.
I’m done talking to you about this, best of luck.
I’d actually bet Garmin jut pulled from some penny stock image and called it a day instead of dealing with individuals.
Probably, but what about faculty? Assuming, of course, they have a design program.
No, they aren’t. They are telling you that it is not unusual, and that if what you paid for has that signature on it you are not automatically in the clear to remove it just because “I paid for it”. What you paid for can, and very often does, include stipulations that you do things like linkbacks and attribution. If you’re building a website, you pay for sources that don’t require those - which would typically cost more than a source that doesn’t, skill levels being equal.
If your source does require things like linkback requirements, and you don’t do it, then that typically means you’ve given up the rights you might have had to that work under copyright law, regardless of how much you paid. Same with attribution, which is the whole reason many of the Creative Commons licenses work. It varies depending on the license, of course - and of course, you can often get different licenses for different prices.
Newsflash: companies very rarely want to include the artist’s attribution, so of course it is going to be rare that you will find a company with signed images on their branded website. That does not mean the requirement’s never there.
Do you really think that original complaint was from someone representing a company of any size??
I am one such faculty. Just led the rebranding of our own department, as a matter of fact—which was possible in part because I only needed the cooperation and approval of other full-time faculty in my own department. But if I was going to rebrand an entire University I’d expect some kind of non-instructional pay, because that would take a lot of time away from my regular teaching duties.
Yeah. Depends on what the image is of… If it’s a product image, that won’t be true, but people out hiking… yeah those are probably stock photos (which if you read the fine print will most likely have something in the contract about moral rights too).
achhhhh! my eyes! my eyes! my brain! it needs scrubbing!
telling me that maintaining signatures is standard practice
No, they aren’t. They are telling you that it is not unusual
If you’re building a website, you pay for sources that don’t require those
companies very rarely want to include the artist’s attribution, so of course it is going to be rare that you will find a company with signed images on their branded website.
Okay. So maybe we’re just tripping up over what “standard practice” means. I’m thinking it means what everyone actually does, which I think we agree is pay for use of images without signatures. Maybe it means something else to somebody else.
SteampunkBanana provided above some beautiful examples of images that are available for purchase (licensing?) I’m not sure that they’re relevant to the discussion, however, until they wind up on the patron’s web site. Unfortunately (s)he’s not talking to me anymore. Is there an individual market for those sorts of images? D
Do you really think that original complaint was from someone representing a company of any size?
I’m not sure how size is relevant here. I mean, whether we’re talking “Joe’s Landscaping” (.com) or microsoft, I don’t tend to encounter paid-for digital works bearing the artist’s signature.
So. I concede the point: It’s not “standard practice”, but rather super-special licensing terms that get negotiated individually in smoke-filled rooms every time an image is sold for use on the web, and I’m the last to learn about it.
Absolutely. Just look at all of the cases of companies like Urban Outfitters or people on Redbubble grabbing random images from DeviantArt like these and slapping them on a t-shirt – after removing the signature, of course. It happens all the time.
I’ve hired a bunch of artists from DeviantArt for various small jobs, either buying the exclusive rights to images (for a specified time period, like stock images but person-to-person) or hiring them to do custom art based on the style they use.
Well that seems fair. Or at least cut back on teaching hours instead.
My illustrator teacher created the “Power Cat” logo for the foot ball team. It went from a booster type logo, to the main stream campus logo and is on every sort of licensed thing you can imagine.
No. You do not get to decide what you are paying for, the person selling the art does. And you clearly don’t have any clue what “everyone” who sells art thinks on the matter.
Also? Just because companies pay for art without signatures does not mean that every time someone pays any amount for art they’re paying for it without a signature. That’s just stupid reasoning.
Oh, for crying out loud…
Here is a featured Windows wallpaper, on Microsoft’s website, that includes the artist attribution on it. What’s your next goalpost move?
These are examples of images that haven’t been purchased. Show me one that’s paid for and still bears the signature.
you should examine how obstinate you’re being instead of listening.
I get that whether a signature appears or not (a) is negotiable and (b) will likely change the price. I think that’s the thing you’re referring to here?
I’m not sure that you’re listening to the having been sold point I’m making, because these examples aren’t in use by their patrons as far as I can tell (deviantart.com didn’t pay to display them in marketing, did they?)
What I don’t get is why anyone would expect that commissioned art for use on the patron’s web site would bear a signature as the default, when we’re surrounded by un-signed works and have yet to identify a single example that’s both sold and signed.
I’m done talking to you about this, best of luck.
Okay, thanks. Good luck to you too.
Hey, thanks! That’s an interesting example. Is Microsoft paying to distribute that image?
Dude WHY wouldn’t you put a signature on something you drew? I don’t know of any artist show doesn’t sign their work. A lot of commercial art illustration will also have signatures somewhere.
Look at any Comic Book cover - even though the interior art isn’t signed, the covers have the penciler, inker, and some times colorist signatures.
It is generally safe to assume that Microsoft is not violating copyright law unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. And considering that they’ve included their own branding on it as well, it’s safe to say they negotiated an agreement of some kind with the artist.
If you want specifics about Microsoft’s relationship with the artist, go ask Microsoft or the artist. Good luck on that.
