The following is a discussion of some important copyright and contract issues that an independent artist should be aware of when working with producers, mixing engineers, and others who arguably add some artistic creativity to the artist’s already artistic creation:

Producer agreements vary greatly, depending on the purpose of the relationship between the producer and artist. Some artists are looking for a producer to write and arrange songs with, and to help develop them as an artist. This type of relationship is normally governed by an “Artist Production and Development Agreement”, which gives the producer ownership of the recordings. For the purpose of this discussion however, we will assume the songs are already written and arranged, and the goal of the relationship between the producer and the artist is not to develop the artist for a potential major label contract. The goal is simply to get the songs recorded and ready for mixdown. The producer will have limited creative input, and is most likely being hired for his audio engineering assistance. Therefore, it is important to create an agreement by which Artist retains all ownership in the songs and the recordings. The Producer can be compensated by a flat fee, a royalty, or some combination.

An important issue arises as to whether or not a recording can be considered a work made for hire. Here is an example of a clause from a producer/artist development contract, granting the ownership of the sound recording rights to the producer:

4. MASTER RIGHTS: All Master Recordings created under this and all Records made therefrom, together with the performances embodied therein, shall, from the inception of their creation, be entirely the property of Producer in perpetuity, throughout the World, free of any claim whatsoever by Artist or by any persons deriving any rights or interests from Artist. For the purposes hereof, all such Master recordings shall be works made for hire under the United States Copyright Law. In the event such works are deemed not to be works made for hire, then pursuant to this Agreement Artist hereby transfer your rights to the copyrights in the Masters to Producer. Artist agrees to execute any documents to fulfill the transfer of copyright to the Masters upon request by Producer. Producer shall have the right to secure registration of the sound recording copyright in and to the Masters in Producer’s name as the owner and author thereof and to secure any and all renewals of such copyright. Nevertheless, Artist shall, upon request, execute and deliver to Producer any assignments of copyright (including renewals and extensions thereof) in and to such Master recordings as we may deem necessary. Company (and its Licensees) shall have the sole and exclusive right to use the Masters throughout the Territory or any part thereof in any manner it sees fit, including, without limitation, the sole and exclusive right in perpetuity and throughout the World to do the following:

(a) To manufacture, advertise, sell, distribute, lease, license, or otherwise use or dispose of the Masters and Records embodying the songs, in any or all fields of use, by any method now or hereafter known, upon such terms and conditions as Company may elect or, in its sole discretion, refrain therefrom;

(b) To use and publish the names (including all professional, group, and assumed or fictitious names), photographs and biographical material or Artist, in connection with the promotion, exploitation and sale of Records; and

(c) To release derivatives of any one or more of the Masters on any medium or device now or hereafter known, under any name, trademark or label which Producer and its Licensees may from time to time elect.

One of the most important aspects of this section of the contract revolves around the concept of a work made for hire. “Works created as part of one’s job responsibilities are called “works made for hire”, and are treated differently than works created by individual authors on their own motivation. For a work made for hire, initial ownership vests in the employer, who is considered the author of the work.” (Leaffer, Marshall. Understanding Copyright Law, 4th Ed. Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. 2005, p. 190).

The following are the legal consequences of categorizing a work as one made for hire:
a. the employer-author has the entire right to the work; the employee-creator has no ownership rights whatsoever.
b. a work made for hire isn’t subject to the termination provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act.
c. the normal duration for a copyrighted work is the life of the author plus 70 years. Works made for hire, however, have copyright protection for 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever is less.
d. because the employer is the author of a work made for hire, the nationality and status of the employer can have important consequences (for example, if the employer is the US government, copyright cannot be claimed at all; in addition, if the employer is a foreign national, the manufacturing clause will not apply, and questions of copyrightability may be determined in certain circumstances by the foreign employer/author’s nationality or domicile). (Leaffer, Marshall. Understanding Copyright Law, 4th Ed. Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. 2005, p. 190).

Section 101 defines a “work made for hire” as: (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. ( 17 U.S.C. 101 (work made for hire) ).

Subdivision (1) (works created by employee within scope of employment) must be read in connection with Section 201(b), which provides: “the employer or other persons for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all the rights comprised in copyright”. Therefore, when a work is created by an employee within the scope of employment, it is presumed to be made fore hire unless the parties agree otherwise in a written instrument. ( 132 A.L.R. Fed. 301, Application of “Works for Hire” doctrine under Copyright Act of 1976, §2(a) )

Subdivision (2) concerns specially commissioned works (works created by independent contractors-people who aren’t salaried workers of the commissioned party). The Act imposes two requirements to create a work made for hire for specially commissioned works. First, the work has to fit into one of the nine enumerated categories of subdivision two (contribution to collective work, part of motion picture, etc.). Second, the parties must “expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.” “The nature of the writing necessary to create a work made for hire differs from other written contract in that it must be signed by both parties. In addition, the writing must indicate unambiguously that the parties agree to a work made for hire.”

The issue arises as to whether or not the recording created by the contract could be a work made for hire under the Copyright Law. The answer must lie in the construction of the word “employee”, and a resolution of where a recording could fit amongst the nine categories provided in subdivision two.

The Supreme Court, in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 US 730, 104 L Ed 2d 811, 109 S Ct 2166 (1985), resolved the meaning of “employee”. “The Court read the statute literally. In so doing, it limited the definition of employee in subdivision one to the master-servant relationship. The Court held that the words “employee” and “employment” describe the conventional master-servant relationship as understood by the common law of agency.” (Understanding, p. 195).

In order to determine if someone is an employee under the law of agency, the following matters must be considered (from CCNV):
1. right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished
2. the skill required
3. the source of the instrumentalities and tools
4. the location of the work
5. the duration of the relationship between the parties
6. Whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party’s discretion over when and how long they work
7. the method of payment
8. the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants
9. whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party
10. whether the hiring party is in business
11. the provision of employee benefits
12. the tax treatment of the hired party

There is caselaw holding that a sound recording, under the facts and circumstances of the particular case, did constitute a work made for hire. For example, in National Ctr. for Jewish Film v Goldman, 943 F Supp 113 (1996), songs produced for use in a movie were held to be works made for hire, since the movie’s producer paid the composer to travel to Poland to write songs for incorporation into the producer’s movies. Also, in Moran v London Records, Ltd., 827 F2d 180 (1987), where a professional commercial announcer was hired by a company to make a sound recording for a dog food commercial, and a musical performing group later incorporated the announcer’s performance in a song they recorded, the court held that the recording was a work made for hire, and that the announcer had no standing to sue for copyright infringement.

Given the level of uncertainty as to whether a work made for hire will be created in the context of a recording or production agreement, it is important to specify whether such a work will be created. Furthermore, as is the case in the sample “Master Rights” license above, a clause stating who the owner of the rights will be (via transfer pursuant to the contract) in the case that the works created are deemed not to be works made for hire, is essential to the contract.

The “work made for hire” issue exists not only in production agreements, but in major and independent record label contracts, and so it is an important area of the law to understand. It is also important to note in regard to the Producer agreement, that often, even artists with major label deals are now required in their contracts to hire the producer. (Passman, Donald S., All You Need To Know About the Music Business, 5th Ed. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2003, p. 122). This has not only shifted the paperwork burden to the major-label artist, but has also shifted the financial burden to the artist as well. (Id.)

The agreements made with the mixing and mastering engineers should be similar to the one made with the producer. Copyright rights are once again implicated at this stage because of the fact that the mixing engineer is taking Artist’s work and adding artistic input to it (balance, tone, compression, effects). Therefore it is important to state clearly that the mixing engineer will not be obtaining any rights in the recording or song, but will be compensated by flat fee, royalty, or combination. Once the mix is done, the mastering engineer will once again be adding original input (setting the overall mix level, tone, compression, effects). Therefore, a similar agreement should be made with the mastering engineer.

All this said, I must admit that I personally work on nothing more than a handshake with my mixing engineer. He understands that he is not obtaining any rights in my songs. I pay him upfront, and that is the end of it. But, if I were dealing with an engineer in more of an arms-length arrangement, where I wasn’t absolutely sure as to his perspective on ownership of the songs and/or recordings, I would draft a contract.

Today I’m making you a fan of…Working Partners, Ltd.

What is Working Partners? Recently, the company seems to have blossomed into an umbrella for several different companies. But, I first learned of Working Partners as a children’s fiction book packager. You might be wondering what the heck a book packager is. Well, essentially, a publisher may choose to acquire a book or series that has been almost fully produced by a book packager. Meaning the book has been written and edited under the guidance of the book packaging company. In the case of a company like Working Partners, creative in house editors will brainstorm ideas for new books and series. Then, they will come up with extremely detailed plots and hire writers to do the actual line-by-line, chapter-by-chapter writing. In my research, most book packagers have been aimed at nonfiction books, so one of the reasons I was so drawn to Working Partners is its focus on children’s lit. (Another great packager of children’s series is Alloy.)

Reasons why you should love them: For one, if you are a writer, it’s a new market to explore. Work-for-hire can be a great income supplement because of the typically shorter turnarounds. It’s also a fantastic way to learn. If hired, you would be working closely with an editor, receiving feedback and direction. Moreover, what better way to flex your writing muscles? Like performing exercises as a musician or an athlete, it can be good to develop different sides of your craft. Maybe it will be beneficial for you to practice a new tone or voice in your writing without having to think about the plot. Maybe you’ll learn how to brainstorm different ways to convey the same story. Also, last time I received their writers’ information packet, they were offering substantial royalties. A lot of packagers pay only flat fees, so yay for Working Partners being pro-author. (Oh yeah, and their authors receive advances, too, so no worries).

So how does it work, you might ask? Interested writers may fill out the Writers Information form on the Working Partners website. I’ll be honest, I think more and more of the writers chosen are agented now as opposed to unagented. But, I don’t think that should deter you, depending on experience, etc. Editors will select writers for auditions based on their forms. If selected, you will receive an email asking if you would be interested in auditioning for a certain project. The editor will then send a synopsis of the book and you will be asked to write the beginning of the book, probably upwards of 6,000 words, to turn in by a specified date. Usually about 5 writers receive an invitation to audition for any given project and only one is chosen. Unchosen authors are still given about a page letter detailing reasons the editors either liked the sample or disliked. So, either way, it can be a great way to get real editor feedback. The editors are prompt and professional and just because you aren’t selected for a given project, doesn’t mean an editor won’t want to approach you again for a different project for which you might be a better fit.

So now that you’re a fan, where can you stalk?

To read a great Working Partners series, check out the Warriors series by Erin Hunter. (I’ve read one of these books and they really are a lot of fun.)

The Working Partners website

The new adult division, Rights People, and Greenhouse Literary

Interview with Alexandra Kirby, editor in 2006 for Working Partners

Message from Chris Snowdon (Managing Director) on Undiscovered Voices

JacketFlap

Sometimes client relationships go south, or your client just decides to find another designer for their project. How do you handle when they request the files you’ve created for them?

I go both ways, since I’m an illustrator as well. With illustration, we create the art and the client (usually) pays for the rights to use that particular illustration for set uses and set amount of time. With graphic design (in my experience) it’s a little different. It’s always been work for hire.

And with work for hire arrangements, the client owns the rights to use the imagery for whatever they want… but you can’t use a print file online and you can’t use a web photo in a brochure, so they still need the services we designers provide.

But if they own the rights, and you really can’t use that web design you created for another client, does it really matter to give your former client copies of the PSDs and other working files you’ve created for them? In the interest of good will and professionalism, I say go the extra mile and give them what they’re asking for. I’ve had at least one client relationship sour after I said no to the request years ago – and for good reason I refused, but still. With a few years of experience under my belt, now I look back and think “what harm is REALLY done by giving someone the working files they paid me to create?”

I’d love some other designers’ thoughts on this. Please chime in below…

This is just a quick post to announce the official relaunching of my website, spartaneye.com.  Over the years spartaneye has been my outlet for anything creative I produce from video to music.  In the last few years I’ve let most of it go un-updated and focused solely on my video portfolio and music recording sections, but with my future being so much more about marketing myself I need a website that will be much more up to date with my work and schedule.  So please, take a quick look at the redesigned site, shoot any feedback you may have about its design and content to me via a comment or email, and if you know anyone who’s looking for a freelance video editor/motion graphics artist/videographer/music composer/recording engineer direct them to me.

Marvel Comics has now outed their first gay couple, Rictor and Shatterstar, super-heroes from the X-Force title.

This is more or less an “it’s about time” issue. Marvels distinguished competition, DC Comics, has long beaten them to the punch with depictions of not only gay characters, but gay characters in relationships. Marvel has depicted gay characters before (Northstar and Freedom Ring come to mind) but has been loathe to depict them in relationships. This is in some respects odd, as Marvel’s treasured X-Men franchise has long been tied to metaphors of racism and sexuality. Better late than never.

One person who wasn’t happy about the development was Shatterstar’s co-creator, Rob Liefeld.

“As the guy that created, designed and wrote his first dozen appearances, Shatterstar is not gay. Sorry. Can’t wait to someday undo this. Seems totally contrived.”

The easy thing would be to write Liefeld off as a homophobe and given that Liefeld has written and/or drawn some of the worst comics ever, the temptation is to kick him when he’s down. But Liefeld unwittingly brings up another point. Marvel, as a corporate entity that relies on work-for-hire contracts to maintain its vast library of licensable properties, can do what they wish with what is essentially their intellectual property. Just as Stan Lee and Steve Ditko no longer have a say in Spider-Man’s destiny (which led Ditko to take leave from drawing the comic, and Lee, years later, to give a surprisingly bitter interview to 60 Minutes when the Spider-Man movie proved to be a blockbuster), Rob Liefeld has no say in Shatterstar’s destiny, despite being the single most identifiable artist for the character.

Liefeld, of all people, knows what he gave up, having done freelancing for Marvel and running later characters under the auspices of his own company. Karmically, perhaps having his characters doing something distasteful to him is an example of Liefeld getting his just desserts, and if it’s all in the name of social justice, so much the better. But let’s not forget that other creators in comics have not been as fortunate as Rob Liefeld to have lightning strike more than once in their careers and that many deserve, if not a further guiding of their characters’ destinies, then at least some due compensation.

Job Post: Who wants to program a Flash slot machine…. http://cartoonsmart.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=990

On Monday, January 26, 2009, the shareholders of Stan Lee Media, Inc. (“the Company”) filed suit against Marvel Comics, Inc., and the Company’s founder and namesake, Stan Lee, the celebrated co-creator of many famous Marvel Comic’s characters, including Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, and Daredevil. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that profits earned by Lee for his creations rightfully belong to the Company and requests $750 million in damages. Although the suit names only four shareholders as plaintiffs, the plaintiffs claim that they are seeking damages on behalf of all of the Company’s shareholders.

Monday’s suit is only the latest case in a long line of litigation involving Stan Lee, Stan Lee Media, Inc., and Marvel Comics. In August 1998, Marvel terminated Lee’s long-time employment, which apparently voided Marvel’s exclusive claim to the intellectual property Lee created while employed by Marvel. Lee then formed his own company with friend Peter Paul, Stan Lee Media, Inc., in order to use his creations in online and digital projects. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000 and in 2002, Lee sued Marvel over his co-authorship rights and was awarded approximately $10 million in damages. The Company eventually emerged from bankruptcy in 2006; however, in the meantime, Lee left Stan Lee Media, Inc. and regained employment with Marvel Comics. On December 6, 2006, Stan Lee Media, Inc. instituted a $5 billion lawsuit against Marvel Comics, claiming that Lee had retained his co-creator rights to the Marvel characters he created, had contractually assigned those rights to Stan Lee Media, and thus, the Company was due half of the earnings derived from those creations. The outcome of that suit is still pending.

In the newest lawsuit, Stan Lee Media, Inc.’s shareholders claim that part or all of the proceeds being paid to Stan Lee under his current employment contract with Marvel should also be awarded to the Company. Lee argues that he did not actually own the copyright to his creations but that they were merely works-for-hire owned by Marvel, and thus, he could not have assigned the rights to Stan Lee Media while he worked there. However, Stan Lee Media has a strong argument that it rightfully possesses Lee’s co-authorship rights in certain Marvel creations, because Lee was successfully able to prove in the 2002 lawsuit that he did retain his co-authorship rights after leaving Marvel in 1998. The factual question remains to be determined as to whether Lee assigned those rights through his employment contract with Stan Lee Media, or whether he personally maintained his co-authorship rights throughout his employment with Stan Lee Media. Ultimately, all this litigation over copyright ownership could have an effect on future Marvel projects and creations, and could eventually lead to Watchmen-type litigation in which individual projects are held up as their ownership is conclusively established.

– Marci Britt

Image Source

Peanut was playing with his Chrismakkah tea set today. (First night present. There are ten days of Chrismakkah because that’s the maximum number of token presents we feel like wrapping.)

I noticed he had spilled water on the floor. “Oh,” I said. “You haven’t cleaned that up. Would you like a towel?”

He walked across the room to the coin purse his uncle gave him. He took out a penny.

“Here, Mommy. I pay you do it.” He offered me the Lincoln.

Well, that is how it works. Sigh. I took the penny. “Okay.” And I cleaned the water.

He looked at me, evaluating. “You keep that money, Mama. I give it you, you earn it.”

True dat, little boy. Now hand over the $1.224 million you owe me for every other minute of cleaning up after you.

Brother, can you spare $50 for a ticket to the Steppenwolf?

With the recession on most everyone’s mind these days (except maybe Rod Blagojevich, who might have more pressing concerns; or maybe not, since he won’t be getting that big Christmas windfall he was counting on…) I spent part of last night listening to some folks discuss an interesting question: Do/should economics play a part when sitting down to write for a paying audience?

Of course, these weren’t just any folks; they were playwrights, lyricists, and book writers attending one of the quarterly meetings the Dramatists Guild has sponsored in Chicago for the last year or so. And actually, thinking about the practicality of staging one’s innermost dramatic visions is not something to consider only during the worst downturn in most of ours living memories. We got it tough, playwrights; novelists don’t have to worry about how many characters they have, or scenes. Poets and essayists don’t have to think about the cost of renting a venue for several weeks or paying actors. Hell, even most screenwriters, once they sell the script to a reputable producer, are going to have their visions fulfilled (more or less, if the script doctors and the director and the other tweakers don’t kill it first).

But for playwrights, the reality is we have to think carefully about how many characters we put on stage, since so few theatres will touch new works with more than 6 roles. We have to limit sets, if they’re naturalistic, to two or three at most. Now, throw in the current recession, still unfolding with its job cuts and housing problems and possible deflation, and the situation gets much dicier.

The talk last night was grim: one major theatre in town, the Goodman, plans to use fewer actors this year. (And here’s a recent blog with comments on the state of Chicago theatre in general.) Someone else said non-profits across the country, including theatres, will start going bankrupt in alarming numbers. Might be just speculation, but it sounds spot on. Companies will give less; endowments already have less to give, after seeing their investments tank; and individual donors below a certain income level will be more concerned with paying the mortgage and getting the kids through college than whether or not my 8-character romantic comedy ever sees its world premiere (I tell ya, I’ll give it to you cheap).

Uh, not really my kind of musical...

(Aside: Here’s an NYT report on how Off-Broadway theatres fared during the 90-91 recession.)

The talent level at these meetings is very divided, with some DG members (mostly the musical people, it seems), operating at a more professional level than the aspiring types (moi included). One guy felt that for-profit musical producers will continue to put money into new works, if they think they can make it back. The non-profits, though, never make their costs at the door, and always count on the kindness of strangers, and others, to survive. Still, one composer/lyricist pointed out that producers would prefer to go with the next bankable Forever Plaid than take a risk on something bigger, splashier, or less attractive to a conservative audience.

At least they don't ask what their motivation is

One playwright said he had one possible solution: hologram theatre. He described the historical vignettes played out at the Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield. One actor appears with several holographic images to tell the story of Lincoln and his times in what this writer says is a fairly compelling, dramatic way. But another writer who had seen the same presentation insisted that whatever the 20-minute piece was, it was not theatre. If that’s what the other guy wanted to write, go ahead, but it wasn’t for him. And in that setting, you’re talking about writing work-for-hire stuff; take it from me, the path to creativity does not that way lie.

Another writer, a younger guy, discussed his frustration with the lot he had chosen for himself: writing plays for 15 actors. In verse. He wondered if he was just screwing himself by sticking with it and thinking it would get produced. Our moderator, Doug Post, said that in most circumstances, yeah, that kind of play would be hard to get staged professionally. On the other hand, it just could be the next big thing. Post’s bottom line was write what you would like to see on stage. And maybe be ready to write something more commercial to pay the bills. (Left unsaid was the option of marrying well.) Also implied was have the perseverance to keep trying to make contacts and get your true love  produced. Develop a thick skin. Then drink yourself silly in a hovel when your life’s work is rejected over and over and – wait, that’s me…

For me, the final consideration is this: I write what I would like to see on stage, plays that speak to issues that concern me. Then, when they’re done, I think about anything I can do to make them more salable without damaging their integrity. I suppose I have one advantage over some people in that I tend to write kitchen-sink stuff for smaller casts (except the historical dramas). But since I’m not anywhere near getting my stuff staged at a professional level, this is all moot.

Separate to this discussion last night, but I think linked to it, was the contractual problems that can emerge over subsidiary rights. Several writers said they walked away from deals that did not seem fair to them financially. They wanted to be able to face themselves in the mirror in the morning. Deciding how much economic issues will shape your work before or while writing it might be a similar kind of character/ethical issue. Only each writer can know how far he or she will go to compromise their vision to have a better chance of getting something staged. And the same question can arise even after someone has gotten all gushy over your work and wants to stage it: “but maybe you can just change this. And this. And…”

For me, this is all easy. I’m a writing whore, as I prove every day when I sit down to work. I write what you want if you give me enough money. And sometimes when it isn’t enough. As far as theatre: You only take plays with three characters and the set is just a rug on a bare stage? Have I got a play for you!

This morning I woke up to find an email from Ellie Altomare, Marketing Associate and Marketing Partner at Serbin Communications, Inc. in my inbox.  Serbin Communications published the “Directory of Illustration” — an encyclopedia of sorts for artists and illustrators.

Since there has been a lot of talk, and understandably so, about how to make artistic ends meet in this economy, I thought I’d take a quick minute to make sure you are aware of this advertising opportunity.

Although the Directory is made up of artists who do more work-for-hire than traditional licensing, I believe some do a mix of both.  It is possible to sell the rights to your art for a particular product for a flat fee, while maintaining the rights to licensing (for royalties) on other products.  If you are looking to add a mix of selling strategies to your business, you might want to take a look.

This description, in italics, is from their website:

• The Directory of Illustration offers a comprehensive program to meet the needs of today’s professional illustrator in an ever-changing marketplace. Our web and print platforms reach the widest variety of active art and creative directors who have the ability to hire you. We attract the best artists in the industry while giving you the tools to stand out from the crowd. Think of the Directory as your marketing partner, providing just the right combination of innovation, value, support and stability to help you get ahead.

• ---

• Directoryofillustration.com attracts tens of thousands of unique visitors each month. It’s where qualified art buyers go to find top talent.

• ---

• The printed Directory is distributed to as many as 20,000 buyers in January and cross-promoted with national advertising, internet banners, trade events, seminars and industry sponsorships.

• ---

• We reach out with targeted e-blasts that identify premier buyers and drive traffic to directoryofillustration.com. We continually explore new and emerging markets to showcase your talent.

• ---

• Our marketing professionals all have 10-15 years of collaborative experience promoting artists like you. We know this business inside and out.

About 12 years ago I was living outside of Seattle, about 5 miles from Microsoft.  I became friends with a woman whose husband was an amazing digital artist.  He did a lot of packaging design for Microsoft and even designed the blue “e” for Internet Explorer and the Windows logo.  (He used to get embarrassed when i would introduce him as “the guy who designed the windows logo — but how cool is that?)  Anyway, that was the first time I saw the Directory of Illustration.  They told me it was their main source of advertising.

I haven’t gone this route personally but I do believe it is a highly used source for companies who buy art.  Their early submission deadline is December 17th.

If you want to learn more, here are some links.

Directory of Illustration main website page

Advertising information

Have a happy and creative day — be open to the many artistic opportunities out there!

~ Tara

These days lots of people seem to be starting  up online businesses, web commerce sites,  business blogs etc. Because they need content to fill these sites, many are seeking freelance writers.

Good news for writers, you say? There’s just one hitch. Have you noticed that more than the occasional ad  says something like  “We’re a start-up and don’t have a lot of money, so we pay little or nothing. But we do offer great exposure”.

Since when did freelance writers become the tool with which others hope to take their potentially high-trafficked, income-generating sites (great exposure, right?)  to the top of the heap, for free?

As a freelance writer, I learned long ago you can’t take “exposure” to the grocery store. Or pay for necessities like fuel and clothing with clips or links.

Why do people insist that writers should be willing to work for little or nothing? Freelance writing is a BUSINESS. Perhaps even a CAREER.  In fact,  a business just like the aforementioned blogs or web commerce sites.

Here’s a thought. What would happen if these same entrepreneurs suggested the “great exposure” idea to their auto mechanic? “Fix my car for free and you’ll get some great exposure when I drive it around town? “  Would they have the nerve to try that idea on the house painter, dentist, hairdresser, dog groomer etc.?

Am I ranting?

Since I’m currently auditioning for a few book packagers, I thought I’d address an interesting issue involved.

If you don’t know already, book packagers are companies that come up with an idea for a book or series and sell it to a publisher. The editors at the packager (or some call them producers) usually come up with a detailed outline and then hire an author to turn the idea and the outline into a complete manuscript. For reference, some examples of packaged books are Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Warriors, Sweet Valley High, and Nancy Drew.

Generally, the author that is doing this “work-for-hire” earns a flat fee–in other words: no royalties. The packager maintains the copyright for the work, not the writer. This is much different than how publishing normally works.

I will point out that a company called Working Partners pays writers an advance against royalties (though, of course, the copyright is still in Working Partners’ name).

I’m not questioning how book packaging works. I’m really not. I hope to get some work-for-hire myself and am fine with the arrangement, but it’s not exactly intuitive, is it?

After all, how many times do you hear: it’s not the idea it’s the execution. Old ideas are made fresh all the time by different writers. Technically, you can’t even copyright ideas in writing fiction. Someone could steal your idea right off the query boards at Absolute Write and you couldn’t do a thing about it. One thing is for sure, though: Whatever the thief came up with would probably be executed quite a bit differently than what you had in mind.

That’s why I think it’s interesting that the idea is so important in packaging even when it is the writer who is putting the flesh and bones on the project. I think this must have a lot to do with the fact that packagers expect you to write in the voice of the entire series. You don’t get to use so much your own voice as an established voice. Plus, the outline is very detailed, though there is room to get creative.

Just something to think about if you are considering doing some work-for-hire.

But how about in writing fiction in general. Which is more important? The idea? Or the execution?

Status: Just got back from an unsuccessful shopping trip with my roommate. I was looking for something to wear for the 4th of July. Oh well. I finished Twilight today, so I will probably talk about that on Saturday. I plan to send in my sample for the Beacon Street Girls tonight and write several more pages of script. Pages of script take much longer than I thought because you have to be able to see very clearly each part of a scene in your head and there are many panels per page.

Later, I’ll start in on the Gallagher Girls again!

I’m going to go ahead and declare this a good weekend.

Chandler: 1 Writing: 0.

Ok, if I tallied the score, I think writing kicks my butt, but, yanno, humor me.

Last night, Nate and I went on a dinner date and, as I’ve said before, he has been very understanding of my obsessive email checking. So, once we finished eating, I whipped out the iPhone and checked Gmail. To my surprise, there was an email from an editor at a small press–and on a Saturday night, too! I’d sent a query, synopsis, and the first three chapters to this publisher. Now, one of the acquiring editors wants to see the full ms! This is the first response I’ve gotten from anyone who has read more than just my query letter. He said my story concept was “quite original” and “well written.” Yay! Back to waiting…

Then, this morning at breakfast I got another email–this time from a book packager requesting writing samples! The packager specializes in non-fiction books for grades 3-8. I’m happy to have a foot in the door and work-for-hire is something I’ve wanted to pursue for quite awhile. I’m am putting the final edits on one non-fiction article and think I might write another.

Finally, Ben told me he would have some rough drafts to show me in a couple days. I’m excited to see how he interpreted the characters, what they look like, and the vision he has for our graphic novel. Very fun!

As a writer, I love to feel busy. I love to have projects in the works and opportunities popping up. Of course, it means more waiting, but I guess that comes with the territory. I hope I have some good news to report soon, but if nothing else the weekend events have inspired a few great blog topics that I plan to touch on throughout the next couple weeks. So, here’s a few things you can look forward to…

 -How to tell if a small press is “good” (I plan to compile a big list of resources, too!)

-Writing nonfiction for kids

-Book packaging

-The challenges of writing for children

-How to spot a publishing scam

How ’bout y’all’s good news? I’d love to hear you brag a little!

Status: Polishing samples, doing some beta reading, writing pages of script for Ben. And…Harry Potter 5 is on HBO at 9pm! Could this weekend get any better?

So, I just got to my parents’ house in Dallas after a great trip to Austin and, as always, on my bed were sitting my “Welcome Home” presents. (Mommie Marie is quite the present-giver.) Anyway, mixed in with my “Welcome Home” gifts was an inch-thick Priority Mail envelope.

My parents warned me in the car that they thought a manuscript had been returned from an agent, so I was prepared when I saw it on the bed.

But, I was pleasantly surprised that it was not a really,  really big rejection (I guess they thought that agents returned the whole ms) but my new member packet from the Society for Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators. Much more fun than rejection!

I haven’t quite figured out all of the benefits that come with belonging to a writers’ organization, but I’ll tell you a few and add that I do think they are worth it.

1. an extra thing in your query letter/writing resume that shows that you are in tune with the market and take writing seriously

2. discounted tuition to the Summer Conference, which is sounds great, but I’m not going to

3. Regional advisors and regional critique/writing groups

4. Membership to a more exclusive discussion board

5. Opportunities to win grants and to submit work to newsletters put out by the organization

6. Information on small presses and book packager/producers that is hard to find on the internet

7. SCBWI specific, but I got a great book entitled, “The 2008 Publication Guide to Writing and Illustrating for Children.” Not only does it have contact info about agents, it lists which editors edited which books. It also has encouraging articles inside. Plus, markets that I never think about writing for (i.e. educational markets, worksheets, etc.)

8. I don’t have to wade through hundreds of publishers and agents making sure they represent children’s books. Everything they give me is geared towards authors who write for children!

In conclusion, join one. It’s $75 and you get discounted office supplies.

The End.

Status: Like I said, just got back from Austin. No writing done there, but I hope to have a productive day tomorrow. I am going to continue to submit, I think. Still haven’t heard back. Also, I’m going to try to put together some portfolios to try to snag some work-for-hire if possible.

Stay tuned!! Interview with Caroline Wilson tomorrow.

2 years ago I was hired by a video production house to create several animations for an infomercial for Kaballah Center International, Inc. Since they were completed I’ve been showing them off as part of my portfolio. In early March I decided to expand the reach of my portfolio by setting up the video hosting part of it on YouTube. Last Thursday I received a Cease and Desist letter from their law firm, Wolff & Samson P.C., demanding that I remove the videos as I was infringing on Kaballah’s copyright ownership.

Cease and Desist Letter Received from Kabbalah’s Lawyers

As far as I knew it was perfectly legal to expect fair use of any work-for-hire production to be used as part of an artist’s portfolio. My handy Graphic Artist Guild Pricing and Ethical Guidelines handbook said as much (11th edition, page 26, paragraph 7).

My first question is, am I correct? Do I, as a graphic artist, have the right to show work I’ve done for hire as part of my portfolio in order to promote my services and prove that I can do what I claim to be able to? What are the limits? Can I use a clip? Can I only use it on my site? Can I only use a screenshot? Can I even mention the client’s name? It’s going to be very difficult for visual artists to make a living if such restrictions are put on them.

Of course, because I was hired very loosely by the production company, there are no specifics in the contract I wrote up pertaining to this. I believe that unless specifically stated, that I am not allowed to show work as part of my portfolio, I have a reasonable expectation that fair use covers my right to use work I’ve done as part of my portfolio, and hence my self promotion.

My second question, which I’m sure is in limbo due to the explosion of social networks, is: can a social network such as YouTube (CGTalk, XPLSV.tv, Flickr, etc.) be considered an extension of an artists portfolio? The law firm has already contacted YouTube to ask that the videos be removed. I have also contacted YouTube to clarify what their stance is on this. In the meantime I’ve made the videos private, until such time as the matter is resolved.

I know there have been a great deal of lawsuits and C&D’s flying around as everyone tries to figure out how new Internet technologies and social behaviors emerge and how it effects intellectual property from movies, to music, to images. There are currently two bills in Congress that would make any image that is online available to anyone to do as they will with (use in an ad, copyright themselves) if a “reasonable” search has been made, but proven to be unsuccessful, of the owner.

It seems to me that perhaps lawyers have no problem pursuing cases that are on shaky ground due to the inability of laws to keep up with technology. After all, they get paid for their time and the worst case scenario is that they will get paid even if they are judged incorrect, but still can claim that they were diligent. Like any legal matter, the ultimate winner is the lawyer!

I’ll keep updating this entry until the issue is resolved. One way or the other I’m sure it’ll be helpful to other visual artists.

p.s. Although I was told that the work would be for an infomercial only, the full video has been shown in various presentation formats and currently resides on the home page of http://tv.kabbalah.com.