Print

Print


Natalya: I know the feeling when you are the only one in the room with a group of clients who have attorneys on their payroll, and  a simple question can result in a three page legal description that I cannot come close to understanding. Keep it simple, and ask them to explain in simple terms their additions and re-wording. That being said, educating yourself is wise, and that gives you confidence. And yes, they are looking after their best interests, after all.... they have a staff job. 

I usually write a paragraph in simple language that states when and how I will use the images, if only to be open with them, that I need to use the work for portfolio, advertisements, etc. Sometimes legal departments want to write the "credit line" that appears with the work, and it's 30+ words long. Try to fit that into a spot where 5 words should go... I now state that in my use (posting, portfolio, or advertisement) that I shall credit the institution as "The Xxxxx Xxxx Exhibit at Xxxx Xxxx". That way I am coming up with the credit line and not them. 

If they insist in language of No posting or no Sharing without written permission, then get permission, but suggest it on your terms initially, and see if they are willing to go with that. There may be some compromise with that credit line. 
But I have found that once the issue is discussed, they see the light and the need for the artist's advertisement. Usually after the exhibit opens is the point where most clients are willing to acknowledge publication in your advertisements. If you own the artwork copyrights, then I would think you retain control of how you distribute, announce, or share. 

It's stretching it a bit, to me, for them to not allow you to promote the work, when they do not own the copyrights. It's denying you the opportunity to make money. 

You should also have in your contract somewhere a stipulation that your signature (or initials) should accompany the image with © copyright symbol, or tucked into the artwork somewhere unobtrusively. If a signature is separated from the artwork, I've known graphic designers to leave that bit out, if it conflicts with their design. Or at least to acknowledge the artist in a place where others have their credits, where appropriate. In interpretive graphics, if there is a large illustration, then my name is usually tucked in somewhere. On small spot illustrations, it depends, it may not be appropriate to sign each and every one (for example a grouping of five leaf silhouettes). 

I hope others will offer their experience, also. It seems all projects like this are a bit different with each client.

Best Wishes,
Linda

_____________________
Linda M. Feltner Artist, LLC
P.O. Box 325
Hereford, AZ 85615
(520) 803-0538
www.lindafeltner.com







On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Natalya Zahn wrote:

> Linda and Emily,
> 
> Thank you so much for this valuable information! I am indeed being paid by a project management contractor, which is separate even than the exhibit design firm… there are an awful lot of cooks in this kitchen! Which makes all of these negotiations take a VERY long time. I'm doing my best to be organized and firm about my position, and I really want to understand what I can reasonably be negotiating for since it's just me in the room with whole boards full of people angling for THEIR best interests (and lowest costs).
> 
> I do know this is expressly NOT a work for hire situation, and so far they seem receptive to my few problems with their contract language (like the requesting of a full copyright transfer).
> 
> *How do you all handle the portion of the contract that deals with "Announcements/Promotions/Sharing"? I'm fine with not broadcasting work that isn't complete, but when it IS complete - and the exhibit live to the public - I'd like the ability to announce the project on my blog, or post images in my personal online portfolio. As it stands, the contract verbiage lumps that kind of action under - "NO SHARING OR POSTING, unless you get the institution's written consent". Is that normal?
> 
> **Both of your portfolios are beautiful, BTW. :)
> 
> Cheers,
> -Natalya
> 
> 
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Linda Feltner wrote:
> 
>> It was great meeting you Natalya, and missed you at the conference Emily!
>> 
>> I agree with Emily. But, I think you are being generous with the three year exclusive use of the work, and that's fine, it's reassuring to the client. If it's a single-use license or a first-use license (having a hard time coming up with the exact word right now, still jet-lagged) and NOT work for hire, then they should not have the right to veto or screen or approve ANY future licensing of the work. That's what it's all about.     
>>  I comprehend their reservations to seeing the work they paid for in another venue, but ...... they are getting a good price for this limited licensing. 
>> 
>> Very Important to understand who you are contracting with, the exhibits designer or the institution. No matter who pays you, it should be clear in the contract who you are licensing to. I have licensed to the institution, but am paid as a subcontractor from the design firm.
>> 
>> Not sure about the question of Licensing the figures? do you mean registering a copyright? Depends on who owns the artwork copyright.
>> 
>> I'm glad you enjoyed the conference. Hope to see you next year.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Linda
>> 
>> 
>> _____________________
>> Linda M. Feltner Artist, LLC
>> P.O. Box 325
>> Hereford, AZ 85615
>> (520) 803-0538
>> www.lindafeltner.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Emily S. Damstra wrote:
>> 
>>> Natalya, I have interspersed a few short answers within your text below.
>>> Is your contract with the design firm or with the botanical garden? 
>>> In my experience, it can be a bit trickier when you are signing a contract with and being paid by the exhibit design firm rather than their client in the sense that the exhibit design firm doesn't really have the power to enforce certain things in the contract, such as proper illustrator citations or such as the client selling merchandise with your illustrations on it.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Emily S. Damstra
>>> natural science illustration
>>> Waterloo, Ontario
>>> (519) 616-3654
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> www.emilydamstra.com
>>> emilydamstra.wordpress.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Natalya Zahn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've never worked with a large institution like this before, or on exhibits. Is there a standard protocol for exclusivity in this case, since the work will be a semi-permanent fixture on their grounds?
>>> 
>>> I don't think there is a standard protocol. Every case is unique.
>>>  
>>> Is it wrong for me to want to be able to re-sell the artwork after a given period?
>>> 
>>> No, that's perfectly normal. I would call it "license" rather than "re-sell."
>>>  
>>> Is their request to have veto power as ridiculous as it sounds to me?
>>> 
>>> Yes, absolutely, unless they are willing to pay extra.  If they want total control perhaps they should reconsider paying the extra to own all rights.
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at 
>>> http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at 
>>> http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv
>> 
>> ________________________________________________
>> 
>> Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at 
>> http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 
> Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at 
> http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv


Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at
http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv