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.
Like any career decision, there are consequences to ignoring supply and demand trends. I decided very early in my career that the fine arts were admirable, but the pay wasn’t too great, so I went the commercial art route instead and things worked out fine.
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
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."
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."
Is this even legal, from a tax point of view?
Is it legal to pay someone in merchandise versus money? Yes. It’s called barter.
It's totally fair, Apple offers and artists are free to accept or decline.
exactly. no one is claiming they offered cash and then recanted gave offered goods. it appears that they were upfront about how the payment was being made and folks took it. if anything their agents might be pissed because they only get their 10% if the client gets cash
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.
willing to pay the way you want to be paid you mean. and yes that's very true. if someone is offering you payment in a form you don't like then just don't take the job.
An Apple Watch would be worth a lot more than a cash payment.
That's ridiculous. Apple pays in merchandise because the cost is less to them than if they paid cash.
not necessarily. just because something might only cost $100 to make, they would be losing a few times over that by not selling the item. the value is possibly less about the cash and more about having someone using their product and thus influencing more sales.
Comments
exactly. no one is claiming they offered cash and then recanted gave offered goods. it appears that they were upfront about how the payment was being made and folks took it. if anything their agents might be pissed because they only get their 10% if the client gets cash
willing to pay the way you want to be paid you mean. and yes that's very true. if someone is offering you payment in a form you don't like then just don't take the job.
not necessarily. just because something might only cost $100 to make, they would be losing a few times over that by not selling the item. the value is possibly less about the cash and more about having someone using their product and thus influencing more sales.