You’re a Dinosaur
copyright hugh macleod, gapingvoid
I think this cartoon is a Perfect example of horse Asses whining that their industry is not like it used to be.
The above cartoon has been released under a Creative Commons license by the author/artist. Please get out of our way so we can change the world—thanks.
March 30th, 2006 at 3:59 am
SO how, specifically, is a Creative Commons license supposed to make my job any better, let alone “change the world”? “Get out of the way?” That’s a little fresh.
I support the IPA and wouldn’t characterize them as any part of a horse’s anatomy except maybe the heart. They’re strong, experienced, people who have been going to the mat for illustration constantly. I think some thanks are due!
March 30th, 2006 at 7:42 am
I personally believe that the fight to prevent orphan works will be about effective as the war on drugs, terror, ad nauseum. In reality - be honest now - how often have you seen lifted works and illustrators filing suit in the past? I could count all the cases I’ve ever heard of on one hand. literally. It just doesn’t happen that often. Do you honestly believe someone will lift a Brad Holland image and say they could because there was no indication of who owned it - please. Those are unethical persons who would do it anyway.
The IPA is - in my opinion - a group of extremely talented, but respectfully, old gaurd of illustrators who wish that the illustration market would simply revert back to the time when they made five grand for an editorial spot. With Creative Commons, on the other hand, flourishes a community of sharing, mutual-promotion, and ultimately the future of how illustrators will do business - you don’t have to believe me, you don’t even have to like it, just get out of its way. Before you jump on me, I was at the 2nd annual ICON in Sante Fe and it was all about the IPA - They don’t get the new culture (blogs, cc, etc.) they JUST don’t - and you should be very worried if you don’t.
The IPA, do not forget, consists of the same generation of illustrators who wanted to make a quick buck by selling to the stock houses in the 80s - which basically killed their own industry - their generation, not mine. The IPA also contacted me (probably you too) last year asking for a contribution to the cause - (again) please.
Lastly, take a look at illustration from 20 to 30 years ago (which is where most orphaned works will be taken) - it’s dated, it’s ugly, it represents another time and place. Most people wouldn’t want an 80s theme in their corportate brochure anyway. Would you steal an image of a woman working out in a headband, legwarmers, and a striped onelet for your gym ad?! Think about the reality of it before you have a knee jerk reaction to what the IPA is telling you.
And now, my sincere thanks to the IPA. Thank you for actively getting the word out about the selling to stock houses and how that effects our industry. I sincerely believe that they’re efforts (along with the efforts of others) is where they should remained focused.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Tony,
I’m sorry but I feel that you are off base here. I completely disagree with your arguments against looking skeptically at any Orphan Works legislation.
I really don’t understand your vituperation at the IPA.
Everywhere I look I see artists freely giving away their rights to control their work. All I see in Creative Commons, is a backlash against Big Brother that’s about it. I see nothing in it for me.
The collaborative world of which you speak is coming into existence because of technology and changing modes of marketing art. It all really comes down to marketing. New forms for new times does this mean I have to give away my art. I really fail to see the logic in Creative Commons for small time operators like 99% of the art community.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Re: Creative Commons. Where exactly do you see artists giving away their rights? Specifically where? I do not give away my art work and I never would. Creative Commons does not mean “give away your rights.” —it literally provides more control to the creator—moreover, Creative Commons is specifically suited for small-timers like me and you and the other 99% of the art community.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
It’s intriguing but you haven’t convinced me; we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Ciao!
April 6th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Interesting conversation, and sorry if I poke my nose where it doesn’t belong, but just wanted to add that I strongly agree with Tony’s comment about certain older groups of illustrators/artists being completely paralyzed when it comes to the new wave of marketing, self promotion, et al. Now obviously this doesn’t mean everyone of them. The fact of the matter is that things are changing, as they always have, and it’s just a waste of energy to think it will go back to how it used to be. Stock illustration, photography, mass availability of images, it’s here to stay. Sorry, but we as artists are going to have to deal with it. We can’t fight it, but we can work alongside of it. Co-opetition people. That’s right, co-opetition.
I now humbly step off of my pedestal.