Good read. That a company as large and profitable as Google would have the audacity to request artwork in exchange for publicity alone is reprehensible, but not terribly surprising. Sign of the times, I suppose.
It is a depressing article. It is almost as if companies are not cognizant that people have to make a living... Many seem to think illustrators only do their work for fun and do not deserve compensation despite the years it takes to be any good...
Ignorance about the arts has reached stupefying levels. Art is fun. Why would anyone pay you for it in the same way you would pay a plumber to unclog your toilet. Now that's work!Hate to sound like the crotchity old man, but a lot of this mindset is driven by the current generation making their way in the business world. Art, music... it's all yours at the click of a button.It's bad and getting worse.
Ageement here with all that's been said...this sums it up nicely:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v+R2a8TRSgzZY
I feel so silly accepting the Google offer now! ( ; ) )
Good link, John. That definitely sums it up.
this has enraged me- I have heard that bull about doing art for free in return for exposure more times than I can count.... if we want exposure we can make our own websites, our own comics, our own zines, our own viral videos... why would we need them to do it? I am disappointed in the artists that accepted that. The companies like Gucci who gave it away for free already "purchased" it from the artists they hired to make it, so that was paid for. Argg.
I love that youtube film —spot on! Reminds me of the now-classic "designing the stop sign" vid. http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2008/07/stop-sign.htmlThanks for the link, John!Daryll's right. The Napster generation is getting into the workplace, and "quid pro quo" is a foreign concept.