Illustrators upset over Google's invitation to contribute free art

The NY Times reports that Google recently asked dozens of illustrators to provide art skins for its Chrome browser. They offered a fee of nothing. Well-known illustrators who were invited, like Gary Taxali, Melinda Beck, and Joe Ciardiello, all turned Google down.

Google's two-part explanation is that the artists will get great exposure, and that Google has done it before:

In a statement responding to questions, Google said that the project was modeled after a similar one last year for iGoogle, a personalized home page, where artists and companies (including Jeff Koons, Bob Dylan and Gucci) contributed images to be used as skins.
“While we don’t typically offer monetary compensation for these projects,” the statement said, “through the positive feedback that we have heard thus far we believe these projects provide a unique and exciting opportunity for artists to display their work in front of millions of people.”
But exposure often is a given for illustrators, who are rankled that Google is asking them to work for exposure alone.

I'm one of the illustrators who contributed art last year for iGoogle. (My art, above, is called "Adventure in Lollipopland") I was not directly compensated, but Google did give a very substantial donation in my name to a charity of my choosing (I chose the Jewish Family Services' SOVA food pantries program). I was very happy with this arrangement. It sounds like Google skipped the charity-donation part this time around, though, because it wasn't mentioned in the NY Times story.

Use Their Work Free? Some Artists Say No to Google

Mark Frauenfelder is the founder of Boing Boing and the editor-in-chief of MAKE and Cool Tools. Twitter: @frauenfelder. Come and hear Mark speak at the ALA conference in Chicago on July 1.

MORE: Art and Design • Economy

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

RyanMcFitz

This has happened to me in Canada more times than I can remember. Any saturated industry (mostly the creative ones) get hit with this tactic all the time. I’d take the offer more if only I could go to my bank and say that forgiving my last couple mortgages payments would be good exposure for them too.

To quote talented friend and director Darren Wall, “Yes it might be good exposure. But this is Canada — you can die of exposure.”
Anonymous

Somehow I suspect Jeff Koons, Bob Dylan and Gucci had ready-to-go imagery on file, plus the exposure is for an already-established brand. An artist known only within his or her own professional community would not benefit likewise.

Writing open source is volunteerism. Sure, artists make lots of work for free, but it’s promotional art, personal projects, etc.

It is presumptuous for Google to solicit art in this way.
restaurant_toast

Ive never been a “big-time” anything, let alone an artist so maybe i don’t have the perspective, but this seems a little ridiculous to me. Were not talking about an ad campaign here, were talking about tiny, free skins.

I think Google is going about this the right way, rather than resorting to nonsense like “premium skins” they get them for free and give them for free. Sure, some artists turned it down, but I doubt Google will have a hard time finding a ton of artists who are willing.
daryll

I believe artists deserve to be paid for their work as much as the next guy. But how anyone deserves to be paid, is always up to negotiation.

Google made them an offer. Do some art and get exposure, but no compensation. The artists baulked at that. I agree with them. Doing it for no money devalues their work.

On the other hand, some artists did do it for no money. Google said they got plenty of material. That’s a standard business deal, one party makes and offer and the other accepts or rejects it. It’s all about supply and demand. Google had limited demand (some number of skins) and there was enough supply at a $0 payment to meet demand.

If Google had offered $1 would it make the artists happier. Probably not. Google wasn’t paying them “enough.” What’s enough? I have no idea. That’s what negotiation is about. The skins Google wanted had very low value. Better skins might be worth more. Particularly with art, the value is extremely subjective.

Just because Google has money doesn’t mean they have to patronize the arts. You might like them to, but they are a company and they can choose to spend their money however they like. They paid a fair market price, it’s just not the price the higher end artists wanted set on their product.

C’est la vie.
g.park

@12:
If artists die of exposure, then why don’t we shut down every public exhibition, free concert, and charity auction? THEY’RE KILLING ARTISTS!

@11:
Your Microsoft example is WAY off base. Google’s not asking them to design an entire graphic campaign, but contribute a skin for a browser’s whose Chrome takes up a single vertical inch. That would be like Microsoft asking an open-source engineer to help them organize the file menu.
Anonymous

I’m a designer and developer. Had google asked me to offer some free designs, I would be torn.

On one hand, spec work is evil, and it flies directly in the face of the company’s motto.

On the other hand, Chrome is an open source browser, and it’s perfectly acceptable to ask designers to contribute.

So I probably would have taken them up on the offer (if I had time) for this project, but had it been an offer to work for free on, say, Adwords/sense, I’d probably say no.
snej

@Brainspore:
I disagree with the Microsoft analogy. It’s more like Google (and Apple) open-sourcing their browser code and then inviting programmers to contribute to it for free. Which they did, and programmers have, and everyone’s happy.

The difference is that the programmers didn’t have to be cajoled into contributing, because the open source software model is well accepted by now. Artists don’t seem to be too used to it though, except for the few who design icons.

This comes across to me as artists being insulted by the very idea of an open-source model â€” that it somehow degrades them, or devalues their work. When of course they’re more than happy to use the open source software the programmers provide. (How many artists use the Gimp, or Inkscape? Not to mention, of course, Firefox or Safari.)
El Stinko

It’s insulting because it creates the false impression that an artist’s work is worth nothing. As a commercial artist I have made all sorts of monetary arrangements for different clients that ranged from zero to “well compensated.”

I have contributed my skills to charities and non-profits because it was a worthy cause I believed in, and the exposure I get from them gives me good karma. And in every single one of those cases they made every effort to recognize the value of my contribution. This is the kind of exposure I am willing to contribute.

But of what value is donating services to Google? They are not a non-profit. Although I can use many of their tools for free, they are indeed getting paid for them. One of their goals, if not their primary goal, is to make money. They do this be selling advertising. They create products that sell advertising. And they are asking people to donate their time and skills for this for no compensation. I’ve worked on similar start-up projects for Microsoft and guess what, they paid.

I can see how a hungry young artist might find this kind of deal attractive, but it’s a fool’s errand. The main thing they will promote is that they are cheap and that their skills are worthless. This a false and dangerous impression to make. It harms them and it harms all artists.
Quothz

I dunno. It seems pretty sleazy to me, if only because it belies a poor work ethic. I suspect Google would be unhappy if they found an employee getting paid for doing nothing; the work ethic goes both ways.

In my mind, it’s not about the insult (which is there) or the fairness of it (it’s fair enough), but a company that feels it’s above common ethics. It’s not a good sign.
Anonymous

SNEJ, I think you hit the nail on the head with the open source model, but Safari is not open-source. [though the WebKit it is based on is].
Brainspore

@ Restaurant Toast #48:

I’m sure Google will find artists willing to work for free if they look hard enough, but what makes this a dick move is that they approached specific, established artists without offering compensation.

That’s like the difference between scoring some free furniture on Craigslist and asking your buddy if you can have that sofa in his living room. Maybe he didn’t want it anyway, but it’s pretty rude to ask if he didn’t offer.
bmcraec

People on the Graphic Designers of Canada (GDC.net) listserv were discussing this situation at length this morning. Hereâ€™s the link to a YouTube video that sums it up pretty well:
â€œNo, I don’t want you to work for free, but…â€
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY

Asking people to work for free, regardless how you couch the asking, is sleazy. Saying that â€œthatâ€™s the way the world works nowâ€ is really saying that you donâ€™t care about what is fair, or reasonable, or that compensation for work done is how an economy should function. Thatâ€™s how the current economic mess happened. People wanting something for nothing (more money for less car, etc.)

When the people who present spec competitions do this, they ultimately hurt themselves, and the society they operate in, for short-term gain. Itâ€™s a lack of respect. And paybackâ€™s always a bitch.

Bruce
failix

Wait, exposure is great for amateurs or aspiring artists. Professional artists would prefer to move on and be able to live off their work. I don’t like googles approach here. It’s not very respectful.
merreborn

Engineers do work for free all the time. It’s call open source. And yes some of us do it for the exposure. It looks good on a resume to have contributed to a well known project, especially when you’re new.

Two major differences:

1) You choose to volunteer to work on open source. You aren’t asked to do so by a multinational corporation.

2) Your work remains free (as in freedom), and helps others produce free works. It benefits everyone. It does not become sole property of a corporation, exploited for commercial gain.

If google directly solicited engineers to work on their proprietary products without compensation, you can bet there’d be some complaints from the community.
TheCrawNotTheCraw

If Google was a non-profit company, I could see them soliciting artists, well-known or otherwise, for the opportunity to display their work for the exposure.

But Google is profiting, directly or indirectly, by having artists (and others) contribute for free. Apple would like to try the same stuff, because they are “so” cool…and because Steve Jobs is greedy.

Donating your time to an open source project is inherently different than being approached by a huge company and being if you would like to have your work used for free. If I have to explain that to you, you’ll never “get it.” (paraphrasing Louis Armstrong).

I have worked on several projects where the people promised me “great exposure.” My advice: run, when you hear those words, as these guys will pay you nothing and drive you crazy as part of the “bargain.”

If a huge, wealthy company offered to use my work for free, because of the great exposure, I would thank them, and tell them that if they value my work, then they should pay me, because I can’t pay my bills with the “great exposure” they are giving me.

If you want to work for free, be my guest.

It’s called “work” for a reason: because it is somewhat difficult or demanding. Otherwise, it would be “fun.”

I agree with #3.
restaurant_toast

@ Brainspore #49

I definitely understand what you mean I guess i just don’t see how its insulting to ask artists for free art when the project is so community based already.
ncl

@48: That’s kind of the point, really.

You don’t think the work is worth money, because it’s “tiny skins” and not anything challenging.

In that case, why bother going for professional artists?

If it’s such trivial work, then anyone can do it, right?

Like @37 said, try that next time you want your mechanic to make a “tiny” repair and see how it goes.
Brainspore

@ Restaurant Toast #50:

If they’d approached the programmers the same way I suppose I wouldn’t find it so insulting. This may be a free product, but Google is most definitely a for-profit company and they compensate most of their talent accordingly.
MadMolecule

It is absolutely not my intent to offend anyone by saying this, but…

The whole thing still feels, to me, like a thin-skinned group of people overreacting to a non-issue. The artists involved have two options: Do it for free, or don’t do it (which is also free). If you don’t want to do it for free, fine; say no and move on.

Maybe it’s because I’m a lawyer and I do free work all the time, without getting “exposure” for it.

Or maybe it’s because I’m also an indie filmmaker, and if Google offered to let me make a ten-second movie, without pay, that would be seen by millions and millions of people, I would freaking LEAP at the opportunity.

Either way, all this outrage still strikes me as faintly ridiculous, like Sarah Palin’s continued “outrage” over Letterman’s joke about her kid.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  Either way, all this outrage still strikes me as faintly ridiculous, like Sarah Palin’s continued “outrage” over Letterman’s joke about her kid.
  
  Um. You’ve kind sorta been going on and on about this issue yourself. Perhaps taking your own advice would be in order.
Brainspore

@ #19 posted by g.park:

Your Microsoft example is WAY off base. Google’s not asking them to design an entire graphic campaign, but contribute a skin for a browser’s whose Chrome takes up a single vertical inch. That would be like Microsoft asking an open-source engineer to help them organize the file menu.

And does Microsoft do this?

Would the ever approach a specific engineer because they liked his work, and ask for help- even on something relatively minor- without offering compensation? No? Then the analogy stands.

This “open source” analogy is what is off-base. Those projects are generally led by non-profits and invite the world to contribute. Google, by contrast, has plenty of cash to spend and apparently had some very specific artists in mind.

This wasn’t an open call to people with time to kill, they saw somebody’s work and liked it. They just didn’t like it enough to pay for it.
Antinous / Moderator

designers just starting out can use more exposure.

I don’t think that Google asked any illustrators who are just starting out. I think that Google asked well-known illustrators like Mark. I don’t think that Google asked one single person who needs the exposure. Funnily enough, there are hundreds of animal shelters and land conservancies and free clinics that could use design services. And most designers would be happy to do the occasional freebie for them. For Google, not so much.
Brainspore

@ Madmolecule #53:

But do you do free work for any multinational corporations?

I do free work too- for worthy causes or individuals who wouldn’t be able to afford help otherwise. But if a billionaire ever approaches me wanting something for nothing they’ll get a quick “don’t think so” from a peeved designer.
MadMolecule

Antinous: Up until my last post I had thought some key element of the story was eluding me. I think I understand the basic issue now.

Brainspore: Multinational corporations have never asked me to. If it was a small, interesting, potentially career-expanding job, you bet I’d do it for free.
MadMolecule

I still don’t understand. Google made these artists an offer. The artists said no thanks. End of story. Google wanted something for free, and they asked for it, and they got turned down. I really can’t see that there’s any harm in asking.
benher

Working on Spec is for suckers…

but then again, if you don’t think the top space on google’s site has any monetary value, your head it probably full of meat.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  I interned for BB for about a year for a very modest honorarium. I was already hanging out here and knew everybody. The approach was mutual. And they had the decency to be mortified at how little they were paying me. Eventually they hired me at a real salary. These things can be done nicely. Google’s approach was a failure of diplomacy.
The Raven

Y’know, they don’t ask the lead Chrome software engineers to work for free. They pay them. & some people do make free or “free” contributions to the software, but they’re usually offered for free, not solicited. I want to see Google pay at least their senior graphic designers. It’s the not-evil thing to do.
Stephen

Google spends huge sums of money time and engineering on projects who’s sole purpose is exposure. The argument that they wouldn’t like to be asked to do free work just for the exposure is silly.
Anonymous

@madmolecule:

The point is that artists, and, especially these artists who were propositioned are annoyed, even pissed that their work is not valued the same as other professionals work.

The point is not that the artists were asked and could just have said no, which they did. But the fact that they were asked by a multinational corporation that could have paid them but didnt want to. What Google did was what alot of sleazy companies do to graphic designers and artists. The usual ” We want to use your work but we think we can use it for free since you are a lowly artist and you should be groveling at our feet for the work we offer you”.
The Raven

Top pros don’t need more publicity–their names are already known. There’s other reasons to give some stuff away. Phil Foglio (Girl Genius) commented once that he tells older pros that he’s giving a lot away & still making money & that the older pros heads exploded. But this is part of building up a long-term business relationship with a large public. If you’re really successful and can afford it, there’s something to be said for donating your time. But it’s not clear that other sorts of illustrators can profit by donating time, and they could spend their time on things that do make a profit. Frank Gehry refused to do a spec design for the 9/11 site; Daniel Liebeskind won the competition instead, and the developer has pretty much eviscerated his work–if you give your work away the suits will treat you like a chump, and pros know it.

The people who donate time to FOSS projects have mostly been academics, students, people paid by non-profit foundations, and well-off software professionals. It’s different for pro artists, working assignment to assignment; people in that position–sometimes even relatively successful people–cannot afford to donate time. And, as software engineering becomes more and more like other design practices and less well paid, we may find that fewer and fewer software engineers can afford to donate their time.
Brainspore

@ Madmolecule #34:

They didn’t make an offer, they made a request for free work. It’s not “harmful” in the traditional sense, just insulting. If you disagree, try that approach next time you need some work done on your car and see how your mechanic responds.
Stickarm

Considering how everyone here seems to be a professional artist (not many fine artists, though, which is interesting), I’m sure that everyone here recognizes that the only way you’re going to make money doing illustration or graphic design is by making contact with people who are in a position to pay you for work they want you to do. You could be a god sitting at your drawing table, but unless you can navigate social networks to make contact with people who can pay you, you’ll be more of a folk story than a religion.

You know who is not going to have any further contact with the people at Google who might disburse some of that multinational corporation’s mythic piles of cash? Gary Taxali, Melinda Beck, and Joe Ciardiello.

It’s sort of hilarious to see these folks burn bridges so publicly when they so obviously depend on the channels of communication they’re eviscerating. Their public reputation now includes this little tantrum.

But what do I know? Maybe this is a savvy move — burning some bridges but building new ones. Hey, maybe Microsoft will make a point of paying them all to do artwork for the next Zune. Or maybe Google will pay these folks to work on another project at some point in the near future, just to grab the free advertising when the Internet picks up the story again.

…Yeah, now I don’t care about any of these people. Hooray for the combination of art and business! That really makes both things better.
Anonymous

@stickarm:

They arnt burning bridges with google because google wasnt going to hire them anyway, and based on how they valued the artist’s art, google will never hire them since they dont value their work. However other people and companies value these artists work and time since they were already doing well before google and will do fine without google. Google in this seems like the big socially inept person with aspergers who might be great at what they are obsessed with but understand and treats other areas like shit.
holyalmost

I initially didn’t understand what the problem was. As fledgling freelance designer, I would consider working for exposure for a multimillion dollar company. Even if they could well afford to pay me as the exposure of my work would be considerable.

However, I am new. The illustrators approached seem to be the confirmed best in their field. So I can see why they would say no. The time spent working for free could be easily spent working for a well paying client.
Anonymous

I think this is bullshit. I apologize if this is a repeat but you should all watch this. Old but totally relates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
Anonymous

I think it is extremely rude to ask people to work for nothing, and doubly rude coming from such a profitable company.
MadMolecule

I don’t see what the story is here. It’s not as though Google’s forcing them to work for free; Google asked, the designers said no, everyone goes home, right?
nearxe

@ 57 stickarm: Why are “professional” and “fine” artists mutually exclusive terms? I make fine art for a living. And rule number one is You Don’t Give Anything Away For Nothing. You can lend things if you know you’ll get them back and be able to use them in future, you can negotiate non-cash compensation*, but you don’t part with anything (your time and brand included) for less than it is worth to you.

*”non-cash compensation” can encompass just about everything under the sun, good will, karma and exposure included. Balance, people, balance is key, it all depends on what you need.

Bottom line: If you’re not happy with a deal, don’t make it.
Know the real value of your work, and protect it.
If and when word gets out that you make a soft deal, everyone is going to expect you to do the same for them. And then you’ll have a hell of a time paying the grocery bill.
Anonymous

typical. goole pampers and overcompenastes their “engineers” but also places no value on their customer support teams. Now we see they think artists should work for free. “dont be evil” … sure…..
nearxe

PS;
The art world (un-capitalized) has its own version of open source, and that is the community based project; things such as artist run centres and festivals such as Burning Man. One of the key tenets of open source is that the creators benefit directly by use of/participate in the finished project.
Mark Frauenfelder

@1: Hi Mad Molecule. Maybe it isn’t interesting to you, but it’s a story to the hundred of illustrators who were interested in it when Taxali reported what happened on Drawger.
agger

I believe Google’s proposal is an example of the same kind of exploitation you see in some gaming companies and, notoriously, in Hollywood:

You should be so honored to work for us, you can do it for free – or, in the gaming companies version: You should be so honored to work for us, we can expect you to work sweatshop salaries for sweatshop wages and be happy.

Google can make a competition for CC-licensed, amateur artwork to use in their logos if they want, and they’d probably get a lot of contributions.

But that’s not what they did – they approached professionals and asked them to work for free. And that’s nok OK in my book – companies shouldn’t expect to be able to do such a thing.

If you want to propose an assignment to serious, professional artist, you propose to pay them in some form. Otherwise, *they* are really paying *you* out of their time, which may very well mean: Out of next month’s rent.

This expectation of “popular” companies that they should be able to attract free labor (as Google did) or offer sweatshop conditions (as gaming companies do) is the downside of “Wikinomics”, I suppose.
agger

Hrrmpf, early in the morning:

“we can expect you to work sweatshop salaries for sweatshop wages and be happy”

That whould be

“we can expect you to work sweatshop hours for sweatshop wages and be happy”, of course.
Anonymous

Reminds me of a very old joke.

A guy sitting in a cafe sees another guy walking down the street. He stops and talks to a woman walking past, who slaps him silly and keeps walking. Puzzled, the guy continues to watch. The guy goes another few meters, stops and talks to a woman, gets slapped, and keeps walking.

When the guy gets close to the cafe, our observer steps outside and says, “I’m sorry — but I couldn’t help seeing that you have been slapped by every woman you’ve spoken to — what in the world have you been saying to them?”

“Oh, I just tell them they’re beautiful, and would they like to have sex?”

“Geez – no wonder you get slapped a lot.”

“But, dude, I get laid a lot, too.”

So….Google asks, and in this case, they got slapped. (ReCaptcha: The bidders. LOL)
Anonymous

While I don’t like it when companies and organizations take advantage of creatives and get them to work for free… on the other hand, established designers may easily find paid work, but designers just starting out can use more exposure. I don’t see anything wrong with this particular “contest.” I have much more of a problem with agencies that ask applicants to do work for free before they’ll hire them.
merreborn

I dunno. I’ve heard more than a few stories from geeks in which they were asked to build a website for free, to be compensated only with “exposure”, and they seemed universally displeased and insulted.

Google wouldn’t offer their engineers’ labor for free to another commercial entity. Why should they expect illustrator’s free labor?

It really is a bit insulting for a multi-billion dollar company to ask a professional to work for them for free.
The Raven

“I initially didn’t understand what the problem was. As fledgling freelance designer, I would consider working for exposure for a multimillion dollar company. Even if they could well afford to pay me as the exposure of my work would be considerable.”

This is one of those sharp interfaces between the competitive economy of things, and the co-operative economy of ideas and imagination. This is going to be one of the economic issues I expect we will be working out for decades, at least, to come. No easy answers. If you do it once, the suits expect you to do it again, and they want other artists to do it, too.
Brainspore

Merreborn said it. As someone who works in the visual arts I do find it mildly insulting that so many people think we should be happy to work for “exposure” when they wouldn’t think of asking another kind of professional to do the same.

Somehow I doubt Google founder Larry Page tries this with other contractors. “We don’t have a budget, but you could get great exposure as the plumber who installed the fixtures at Google headquarters!”

If you’re not a non-profit charity, please don’t ask people to work for you unless you’re willing to compensate them.
Avram / Moderator

Yeah, “do it for the exposure” is something I associate with not-for-profit charities and fly-by-night cheapskate businesses. Google can afford to actually pay artists; there’s no excuse for cheapskate behavior.
Dewi Morgan

Graphic designers and artists get real het up about this stuff. We programmers (and interestingly, many lawyers) don’t: we do “expensive work” to pay for all the “free work” we do.

They’re very different cultures. Part of the difference is that nobody would say “who coded this menu? The look and feel fits well with our product. Lets see if we can employ him.” …but they will say that about a skin.

In this case, allowing artists to put up a free banner ad is something they could have *charged* for, and since their revenue is mostly ad-based, it’s kinda surprising they didn’t.

I really like that the successful artists said no. they got successful, in almost all cases, by getting good exposure. That they turned down this chance means that the unsuccessful, less well-known artists get more exposure and sales, and a chance to get some of that success.
Anonymous

I don’t know, asking for artists to donate time/work to a commercial enterprise is a little like walking up to someone who has been working in a particular field and offering them an unpaid internship in the same field. Exposure and resume building are great things, but it sounds like they’ve approached artists who are in need of neither of those things. I’m a reference librarian (I used to work in the visual arts and still do PAID graphic design on the side) and there are plenty of organizations that I do volunteer work for, for all sorts of reasons: exposure, making contacts, supporting causes I believe in, expanding my skills. If Google called and asked be to provide unpaid reference services? I LOVE what I do, but I’d say no as well.
Anonymous

@3:
Building a website and Illustrating are very different in these respects. Web designers get little notability for building a good site, whereas an Illustrator gets recognized much easier.
Plus, the way I see it, pure illustration is easy and a lot of fun, and HTML is not!
-L
TheCrawNotTheCraw

The Ultra-wealthy use this ruse on those less fortunate time and again.

“Think of the great publicity you’ll get for doing something for ME.”

It’s a rather transparent ploy.
Comatose51

@#4 and #3: Engineers do work for free all the time. It’s call open source. And yes some of us do it for the exposure. It looks good on a resume to have contributed to a well known project, especially when you’re new.
Lobster

It sounds to me like if an artist’s work is worth money, they shouldn’t feel threatened if the guy next to them is working for free.

#3, Google wouldn’t offer their engineer’s labor for free because they wouldn’t hire an engineer whose labor no one would pay for.
Church

“I don’t think that Google asked any illustrators who are just starting out. I think that Google asked well-known illustrators like Mark. ”

Who?
Brainspore

@ Dewi Morgan #39:

Graphic designers and artists get real het up about this stuff. We programmers (and interestingly, many lawyers) don’t: we do “expensive work” to pay for all the “free work” we do.

I somehow doubt there are many lawyers who do pro-bono work for Google.
Church

I am outraged that anyone would offer less compensation than I would accept!
Antinous / Moderator

Even with charities, there’s something to be said for charging them something. You can give someone a 90% discount and they’re fine, but as soon as you give it away, they treat you differently, and not in a good way. It doesn’t happen with everyone, but it’s pretty common. Even Freud said that you had to charge patients something or they wouldn’t take it seriously. A charitable donation is a good option. I would let someone take my classes for free if they did an equal amount of charity work.
DWittSF

This is obviously nothing new, it’s an old ploy used at all levels of business–accompanied on the bizdroids’ haughty self-assurance that their company name is soooo great that it’s worth its weight in gold. Right. Obviously, given Douglas Bowman’s recent experience, teh Googlers are high on themselves, and design is nothing but a disposable commodity to them.

Whatever. Just as Google has the ‘right’ to pander and beg for free work, illustrators and designers are free to point it out publicly for the weaselly racket that it is. Goodwill is a madeup item on a balance sheet, and you can’t pay for lunch with it.

In fact, I would like to see a lot more of this pushback, both with biggies like Google, and the local biztrolls who think an unpaid internship is a great way to build their Web 3.0 portal.
Brainspore

@ Stickarm #57:

…I’m sure that everyone here recognizes that the only way you’re going to make money doing illustration or graphic design is by making contact with people who are in a position to pay you for work they want you to do.

That’s the first step. The crucial second step is to actually get them to pay you to do it.
sgj

If someone will provide the graphics work for free, that’s what the work is worth.

Artists (and musicians, and journos, and the recording industry) are all upset because their specialized skills are becoming more accessible to everyone else via software and the internet.
g.park

I don’t know, I think it’s kind of whiney of the artists.

I’m an artist, too (although not a “real” artist like an illustrator or designer- I just play guitar), and I’d be THRILLED to have my work featured at Google-levels of visibility. Hell yes I’d do it for free.

Everyone’s getting exposed in this story. The artists who make the skins, and the ones who bitched about not being offered enough cash. I just wonder who will generate more good will- the artists who willingly contributed their work to the world, or the ones who threw a fit on the Internet because they received an “insulting” offer.
Anonymous

@#5 – Sure, engineers do open source work, but I imagine very few of them are approached by “clients” trying to get them to do open source work, as opposed to approaching a project themselves in order to scratch an itch.
nasalgoat

For those who remain confused, check out no-spec.com. It’s a site that explains the situation very well.

This sort of behaviour is rampant in the design world, because people do not express the same value for illustration and design as they do for other professions.

For those who are still confused and think us designers are crybabies, check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY
mellowknees

Here’s the deal:

It’s not like Google offered the artists contracts for money and then said “Oh, sorry…can’t afford to pay you…how about you work for exposure instead?”

I mean, they’re being upfront about it, they’re not forcing anyone to make illustrations for them. Personally, if I were an illustrator, I would probably contribute just for the novelty of having my image be a part of a global community.

If you find it insulting, then don’t contribute to it.
Anonymous

I’ve done illustration work for free, and certainly wouldn’t for Google.
Anonymous

“Will you design my website for your portfolio?”
agger

In my younger days I remember bands were often being asked to play for free for one cause or the other.

They sometimes did, of course, but the question also came up why the music always were the ones who where asked – why didn’t people expect the beer company to donate the beer, or the restaurants the pizzas?

But these concerts were usually arranged by charities, of course – this move of Google’s is rather like IBM or Microsoft asking the Red Hot Chili Peppers (say) to play for free at a company event because of the “exposure”. It’s kind of ridiculous.

What Google *might* have done is ask for community contributed artwork for Google Chrome and then choose, possibly through some sort of community process. They’d have gotten a lot of submissions, some from professional artists and most from amateurs, and everybody would be clear about why they participate. Like FOSS projects usually do when they need artwork.
Anonymous

Really, doing that kind of freebie is not so much a devaluation of yourself, but a devaluation of others.

Google isn’t strapped for cash. They could hire an army of illustrators to do this. But because a handful will do it for free, no one will get paid at all. Think of those who contribute as strike scabs.

This is a big problem with Web 2.0 stuff. Youtube, for instance, is where you go when you want to host your video and never ever get paid for your content.
DWittSF

Try substituting ‘copyright holder’ for ‘artist’–what would the reaction be if Google were to ask, say, Warner Bros to give them free artwork from one of their movies?
Brainspore

@ Comatose51 #5:

Sure, plenty of Engineers work on open-source stuff for free. But the scenario we’re talking about here is more akin to Microsoft approaching a programmer and saying “Hey, we love the work you did on that browser. How about helping us develop the next version of Internet Explorer? We can’t pay you, but it’s a great resume builder.”

@ Lobster #6:

I don’t feel threatened by artists who work for free, but I’d be insulted if a multi-billion-dollar corporation approached me to do the same. If my work was good enough to get your attention then why isn’t it good enough to pay for?
nearxe

ARTISTS DIE OF EXPOSURE. I learned this very early in my career, which is a large part of why I’m still making art for a living.

You see this a lot from charities and community events where they literally don’t have the money to pay the artist/designer.

The idea with gaining exposure is that your work will be seen and noted by companies and persons who DO have the money to pay you. So the question is; if Google doesn’t have the money to pay their illustrators, who does?

Exposure is becoming a less rarefied commodity as people learn use the internet to create their own exposure. As traditional exposure granting institutions no longer have a monopoly on this vital resource, savvier artists can bargain from a more equitable position. This should mean no more charity to big companies, especially for established artists and designers. You would think that Google, of all companies, should have figured that out by now.
TheCrawNotTheCraw

I agree with @43.

I would like Page and Brin to donate a Google corporate jet to me. I will even let you keep the logo on the side. You will probably never miss it; you have several, right? Don’t you have landing rights at Moffett Field, something no one (not even Larry Ellison nor Steve Jobs) has?

And *think* of the great publicity you’ll get!

I miss seeing U2s fly out of M.F, as they did in the 80s, when I worked in Mountain View. NASA, you’d get great publicity if I could have one of those, too.

OK, I’ve needled “everyone” enough for now… No more from me on this thread.
jonico

Somehow these seems oddly akin to non-monetary compensated internships in the IT and media industry. $$$ vs Experience or plain exploitation, you be the judge.
Anonymous

This doesn’t surprise me, given that Google is know to focus test the shade of blue used on it’s tool bar.

It is upsetting though, because Google is one of the most profitable companies on earth, and they can certainly afford to pay these artists for their efforts. And of course, everyone knows that people do a better job when they are compensated.