>Perhaps a direct campaign by an organization like GNSI is the
>solution.  To present a fair, newly written alternative to "work-for-hire"
>that is presented by representatives of the Guild to lawyers and publishers
>in the industry.  A campaign to offer a standard alternative that carries the
>same immediate understanding as "work-for-hire", that gives publishers what
>they want without giving away all the rights by the artists.  I'll think
>about this some more.
>
Several years ago, at the Bellingham meetings, a few of us had proposed the
idea of a standardized Guild contract specifically targeting publishers now
demanding work-for-hire.  We weren't able to drum up much interest at the
time, but perhaps there is more now?

Such a contract would of course have to be fairly favorable to the
publisher to be accepted in place of work-for-hire; in my experience
publishers just laugh at the standard GAG contracts.  But most of all, to
be effective we would have to show serious solidarity in using it.  This
can be done:  one publisher's lawyer told me that the major photographer's
association had really stuck together in insisting on their own contract
and pricing, and as a result more than doubled their average rates.  Worth
a try?

Marlene Hill Donnelly
Field Museum, Dept. of Geology