You are an arist? Can you READ?

April 13, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

I am home with my mom for a little while. I hope to pick up my camera for something worth while during my stay here, hoping, believing, trusting that “something” will fill the void that is in my heart as the sages of the ages proclaim that it would…but for the time being, the cameras are sitting neatly in their cases.

Yet in the mean time…I read a post on Wooster Collective about why they don’t post calls for submission for design contests and I have a thought or two to share in regards to that.

As artists, we try to build our CV with exhibit opportunities, awards and publications, after all, how else do we put our work forward and get noticed? This is the way the system is set up. Hence comes forth a sleuth of contests in which you can enter for a nominal fee of $25 onwards in the hopes that you will get a shot at the prize. Sometimes the prize is ok, sometimes is not, but I think for the most part, we are all just hoping for a bit of recognition, something for our CVs, another piece of news to add to our press kit. The entities who organizes these contests often in takes more than enough from the entry fee to cover the prize, or the labor involved in sorting through all the entries. On top of which, as Wooster Collective points out, we often have to sign over the rights to that particular piece of work for the use of the the entity who is sponsoring the contest.

Wooster’s argument is that they believe there is no value in the work that is generated if the artist is willing to sign over the rights just so that they can have a shot the prize. I couldn’t agree more. Our rights to our work is the only thing that we have, so why do we ever give it away so easily? Then again, if you were to go up to an artist who is still trying to “make it” and offered him the artistic career he dreams of in exchange for a pound of flesh or his first born, I don’t know how many would say “NO!”

Hence comes all who tries to profit from our dreams.

If the artist is willing to sign over rights just to have a chance to nudge his career forward another tiny inch, if the entities understand this mentality, then who is at fault? Are both parties not willing participants? Sure the entities do make out better in the end, but if we are all consenting adults, then can we really point the finger at the entity and claim that we are being taken advantage of?

Maybe the moral here is that we should always read over the fine lines and terms and conditions carefully before we agree to anything. After all, being an artist is not an excuse for not being literate.

Another related topics here in recent photographic / art news is of Annie Leibovitz putting up the rights to her life’s work (all her images, past, present and future) as collateral in order to secure a loan to deal with her debt. Yes, I believe that photographers should be able to retain the copyright to their work and Annie has been able to secure the rights to much of her work despite the fact that many photographers lose the rights to the editorials that they are working for. YAY for Annie. But if Annie has mis-managed her fiances to such degree that she needs a $16 million dollar loan, how much sympathy should we have for her? Mind you, Annie is one of the top paid photographers in the world! She works plenty and has made plenty of money through the years.

Irrespective to who should own the copyright to the work, should we not in the end assume responsibility for the contracts, agreements, debts that we choose to enter into?