SCIART-L Archives

SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"E. Beade" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:08:49 -0400
text/plain (85 lines)
Thanks for the good conversation on this! It's very helpful to hear
some other viewpoints. And, Cynthia, that's amazing! I haven't heard
of the credit report angle before, where will it end? Medical
records? Strip search?

I decided to tell them no on the indemnification agreement (going
with my gut feeling) and they've said they'll go ahead for the fall
anyway without it. They want to discuss it more over the fall, and
come up with language that works for me for the future. I'm open to

Tthis isn't about copyrighted material specifically. As Britt said,
they're casting a wide net to protect themselves against anything and
everything that might come their way. I can sympathize with them to
some extent. Big institutions are bombarded with frivolous lawsuits.
But the big problem is, they hire more and more contractors and fewer
and fewer full-time, long-term employees, so who knows what they'll
get? But on the other hand, most independent contractors can't afford
to shield them from random lawsuits. I certainly take responsibility
for my actions, but I don't feel the need to shield a large
institution from such a broad range of frivolous lawsuits (that have
nothing to do with my conduct).

As to these clauses as they relate directly to illustration - my
standard agreement warrantees the originality of my work. That seems
sufficient to me. I understand their concern about this. You do have
to be careful in signing these contracts though, that their indemnity
language doesn't cover "all actions arising from the artwork", as
this means you're responsible for legal costs even on frivolous
cases, or one's in which the lawsuit is defeated or thrown out. Good
explanation of this in PEGS (11th edition, page 250!)



On Sep 5, 2006, at 10:48 AM, botanicalart wrote:

> At this point in my career, I am not afraid to challenge what does
> not seem
> fair and I sure dont mind turning down the wrong client,  headache
> assignment, or even the venue that is just too darn far a distance
> to bother
> driving to!
> I have a contract sitting on my desk that was due yesterday but I
> hesitate
> to sign it.  For years I have provided workshops for this
> particular major
> educational company, freelance.  Permission to do a 'criminal
> background
> check' is part of the contract I sign with them every year.  No
> problem with
> that as many of the teaching assignments are with youth and
> family.  But
> this years contract, they have added a form giving them the right
> to check,
> under the Fair Credit reporting Act Disclosure, my motor vehicle
> record [no
> i do not drive for them]; my earning history [ Just look it up
> already...they have been one of my accounts for 8 years];  My credit
> history? [ I am flabbergasted here.  They should know about those
> purple,
> over-the-knee, suede slouch boots purchased at Nordstrom's???]  Am
> i being
> paranoid or is this info that they need to have?  Is it that as
> artists or
> independent contractors we are signing whatever is asked because we
> are
> afraid not to?  [deep sigh].
> Cynthia Padilla
> Dedicated to the realistic portrayal of plants, flowers and natural
> science
> subjects.
> ......................................................................
> ......
> .........
> Hi All,
> .............. But the more I look at it,
> the less interested I am in signing anything with such a clause. Does
> anyone have any experience with this, or a policy for themselves
> about signing such contracts? Thanks for any thoughts you may have,
> Erica