seems like another AppleInsider made up controversy. It is really light on details concerning who is complaining. Further the artists agreed to do something for what they got. No controversy.
“A lack of a photographer to document one poetry reading was also seen as a misstep by playwright Ayodele Nzinga, who suggests the addition would have made working for trade a more worthwhile prospect for the event.” Hello your in a Apple Store where everyone has a great camera in their pocket with a feature called AirDrop.
Yes. Everyone is a photographer because they have a phone in their pocket.
It isn't an Apple problem. Talk to a lot of artists, musicians, designers, and such and you'll find that nobody wants to pay them for their work. Apple wouldn't try this if they needed an electrician, or someone to fix the roof, or replace a window. Why do so may people think merch and "exposure" is all an artist needs for all their training and hard work. "Exposure" wont put food on the table or keep a roof over your head. Do you think Apple pays its own designers with an AppleWatch 3? Then why would they do this for an artist they brought in for an event at their stores?
I don’t know. Maybe because plumbers and electricians are professionals that Apple is forced to hire when the need arises and these professionals get what the market bears. They don’t need exposure. Artists coming to the Apple store are amateurs and they also get what the market bears. If they didn’t want to do the Apple store gig they wouldn’t. There are plenty of clubs where performers play for nothing other than exposure. Here they are at least recieving product. Apple also doesn’t need their services just desires them.
If artists agree to exchange their time for an item, then on the face if it, it’s their problem.
But, in being treated this way, it just perpetuates the idea that the arts is a curiosity, that it doesn’t have any real value, and that it is legitimate to approach an artist and tell them that this will be good for “exposure”.
Yes, I appreciate that in this case, that artists *are* compensated.
However for a company which prides itself on its connection with the arts, that has built itself on the back of the arts, and artists, for a company like that to *barter* with those very people... it tells me that they don’t value artists nearly as much as they think they do.
The person who designed the 5th ave Apple store wasn’t paid in iMacs or ‘exposure’, why should an artist be treated any differently?
I’ll tell you something. Going back many decades, though it’s worse now, artists and photographers have done work that’s called “editorial”. They get a spread in the magazine, but no pay. Sometimes, they’re reinbursed for expenses, and sometimes not. Nothing new there. Many artists and photographers need exposure, and they’re taken advantage of. But that’s up front. They know before they start. What’s worse, and also happens, is that they’re told they’ll get paid, and aren’t. It’s hard to sue. Not enough money is involved, and if they do, others shy away from them. It’s tough.
If Apple helped to promote their work it would be more valuable than just getting paid straight cash for the gig. But getting an Apple product isn’t.
Ultimately the artist determines what is acceptable. Ultimately people complaining means Apple might just not bring in artists to the store anymore probably to the dissatisfaction of many people who were OK wither arrangement.
It isn't an Apple problem. Talk to a lot of artists, musicians, designers, and such and you'll find that nobody wants to pay them for their work. Apple wouldn't try this if they needed an electrician, or someone to fix the roof, or replace a window. Why do so may people think merch and "exposure" is all an artist needs for all their training and hard work. "Exposure" wont put food on the table or keep a roof over your head. Do you think Apple pays its own designers with an AppleWatch 3? Then why would they do this for an artist they brought in for an event at their stores?
I don’t know. Maybe because plumbers and electricians are professionals that Apple is forced to hire when the need arises and these professionals get what the market bears. They don’t need exposure. Artists coming to the Apple store are amateurs and they also get what the market bears. If they didn’t want to do the Apple store gig they wouldn’t. There are plenty of clubs where performers play for nothing other than exposure. Here they are at least receiving product. Apple also doesn’t need their services just desires them.
Amateurs? Tell that to someone who majored in fine arts, or theater, or spent four years studying music. Tell them why their training and hard work shouldn't be rewarded by a fair salary for work done. Talk to all the artists and actors and musicians who wait tables because nobody thinks their expertise is worth actual money. Tell that to the graphic attests who find their ideas stolen after they do a presentation, or the web designers who discover the same. Tell that to the musicians who receive offers for gig after gig without pay, but hey they get exposure, and if they are lucky maybe the might get fed. It's easy to say the market will set the price, but that falls apart when everyone wants a product but nobody thinks it's worth money. That's how you get Napster. That's how you get bands paid less than half a cent per play on streaming services, that's how you get people like the one I talked to the other week. He liked a picture in a gallery so he took a shot of it with his phone, and made a print at home.
Apple isn't the bad guy here. They are just a symptom of a system that likes art but does not think it's worth paying for. Let me tell you from experience that it's damn hard to create beautiful things in a culture with that ugly attitude.
If artists agree to exchange their time for an item, then on the face if it, it’s their problem.
But, in being treated this way, it just perpetuates the idea that the arts is a curiosity, that it doesn’t have any real value, and that it is legitimate to approach an artist and tell them that this will be good for “exposure”.
Yes, I appreciate that in this case, that artists *are* compensated.
However for a company which prides itself on its connection with the arts, that has built itself on the back of the arts, and artists, for a company like that to *barter* with those very people... it tells me that they don’t value artists nearly as much as they think they do.
The person who designed the 5th ave Apple store wasn’t paid in iMacs or ‘exposure’, why should an artist be treated any differently?
DING DING DING!!
He gets it, someone gets the whole thing from the correct perspective. Looks like Apple is already falling in step as a "content provider". Devaluation of the talent that gets you to the dance...
1. Apple **is paying** the artists. They are giving them merchandise that would otherwise be sold, and whatever the wholesale value of that item is, that's what they're being paid. They are neither technically, legally, or actually "working for free." So they DO "value creatives."
2. Apparently this has not been an issue with the artists, but of course it can be an issue with their management. That's entirely fair and fine -- if it's not enough to be worth the time/effort, don't do it.
3. Apple doesn't, as far as I can tell from this report, offer "exposure" as (non)compensation. Nobody got famous doing a "Today at Apple" session, and that would be a BS offer anyway.
4. Having interviewed a couple of people who've done "TaA" sessions, the truth is that they are often big fans of the company and consider the merch as an honorarium. It's up to them and their management.
5. This is very, very, unlikely to be the same deal offered to the kind of artist/celebs that draw huge crowds, but I have no knowledge of that.
6. This may be an unintended comment on my own level of "fame" or "artistry," but approximately $200-ish worth of merch in exchange for an hour of my time leading a class? I'm in.
Reading the original article, it does sound more like the rep than the artists themselves. The one was just complaining about no links on Apple's website about her project.
Well if the artists get Apple products, then how is the rep supposed to cash in too, assuming they don't get anything from Apple? I guess they feel as if they need a piece of the pie as well.
I do think Apple should give them a choice. Giving them products as the only option seems more like a tactic to keep them into the Apple ecosystem than to genuinely pay them for their presence and talents in their stores. But any artist that agreed to show up without knowing the terms of the agreement deserves to get what they are given. Now, if Apple was expecting them to show up for free, that would be worthy of a complaint.
The article headline ‘Artists claim Apple pays in goods instead of cash’ makes it easy to think that Apple agreed to give the Artists cash but reneged and gave goods instead. If you agree to goods, you are not getting goods instead of cash. You are getting goods, as agreed upon. Why someone would find a problem with this, based on the evidence, is beyond me. Is the value of the goods lower than a reasonable professional monetary fee? It could very easily be more than the going value of professional expertise. Is there maybe even an incentive or perk for the Artists because they are receiving goods they would not otherwise be able to afford that would further their Artistic career?
You simply don’t make an issue out of something because it does not fit in the box where you are used to living.
If artists agree to exchange their time for an item, then on the face if it, it’s their problem.
But, in being treated this way, it just perpetuates the idea that the arts is a curiosity, that it doesn’t have any real value, and that it is legitimate to approach an artist and tell them that this will be good for “exposure”.
Yes, I appreciate that in this case, that artists *are* compensated.
However for a company which prides itself on its connection with the arts, that has built itself on the back of the arts, and artists, for a company like that to *barter* with those very people... it tells me that they don’t value artists nearly as much as they think they do.
The person who designed the 5th ave Apple store wasn’t paid in iMacs or ‘exposure’, why should an artist be treated any differently?
I’ll tell you something. Going back many decades, though it’s worse now, artists and photographers have done work that’s called “editorial”. They get a spread in the magazine, but no pay. Sometimes, they’re reinbursed for expenses, and sometimes not. Nothing new there. Many artists and photographers need exposure, and they’re taken advantage of. But that’s up front. They know before they start. What’s worse, and also happens, is that they’re told they’ll get paid, and aren’t. It’s hard to sue. Not enough money is involved, and if they do, others shy away from them. It’s tough.
Again, it’s wholly at the option of the artists, illustrator, photographer or writer. As one of the former, I only worked with magazines and agencies which paid. It’s up to the individuals to deal with people who are willing to pay.
That can be difficult. Most of these people aren’t doing that well. The term “starving artist” isn’t fiction.
Amateurs? Tell that to someone who majored in fine arts, or theater, or spent four years studying music. Tell them why their training and hard work shouldn't be rewarded by a fair salary for work done.
I am am laughing at someone with a degree in FA doing training and hard work. /engineer
I am an artist who gave a talk at one of these events at the Apple store in San Francisco. I was not interviewed for the article.
I was paid in product and, to be honest, I have no problem with that. If it hadn't been worth my time, I would simply not have done it. Instead I was happy to receive the product.
Unfortunately, many are clueless about finances. I’ve worked with a lot of them over the years. If they don’t have an accountant look everything over, they’d be thrown out of their living and working spaces.
its not true of all, of course, but is of too many. It why they get cheated by galleries and their own management, when they have them.
i don’t know how Apple presents this to them though. If there’s no contract, then they’re relying on Apple doing what they expect, which is to get paid. But really, they need to ask that first.
As a musician, even as a teen, we always discussed the payment. I can promise I would leverage the crap out of a performance at the Apple store.
in too, assuming they don't get anything from Apple? I guess they feel as if they need a piece of the pie as well.
macxpress said: Well if the artists get Apple products, then how is the rep supposed to cash in too, assuming they don't get anything from Apple? I guess they feel as if they need a piece of the pie as well.
That's between the rep and their client. Unless there is some prior agreement, it's not up to Apple to see the rep gets their vig or that Apple provides a photographer. That's the job of a publicist or rep, not Apple.
Nobody is forcing the artist to do the job. If they don't want to get paid by a product and Apple won't give them money then walk away. It's up to the artist if they feel they are compensated for what they are going to do. I see nothing wrong with this.
Comments
Apple isn't the bad guy here. They are just a symptom of a system that likes art but does not think it's worth paying for. Let me tell you from experience that it's damn hard to create beautiful things in a culture with that ugly attitude.
He gets it, someone gets the whole thing from the correct perspective.
Looks like Apple is already falling in step as a
"content provider". Devaluation of the talent that gets you to the dance...
2. Apparently this has not been an issue with the artists, but of course it can be an issue with their management. That's entirely fair and fine -- if it's not enough to be worth the time/effort, don't do it.
3. Apple doesn't, as far as I can tell from this report, offer "exposure" as (non)compensation. Nobody got famous doing a "Today at Apple" session, and that would be a BS offer anyway.
4. Having interviewed a couple of people who've done "TaA" sessions, the truth is that they are often big fans of the company and consider the merch as an honorarium. It's up to them and their management.
5. This is very, very, unlikely to be the same deal offered to the kind of artist/celebs that draw huge crowds, but I have no knowledge of that.
6. This may be an unintended comment on my own level of "fame" or "artistry," but approximately $200-ish worth of merch in exchange for an hour of my time leading a class? I'm in.
You simply don’t make an issue out of something because it does not fit in the box where you are used to living.
whatayamean you never heard of me?
I am am laughing at someone with a degree in FA doing training and hard work.
/engineer
I was paid in product and, to be honest, I have no problem with that. If it hadn't been worth my time, I would simply not have done it. Instead I was happy to receive the product.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though.