The blog Love in the Time of Chasmosaurus is conducting a survey of paleoartists to understand how paleoartists practice their craft: how they research their work, what they charge their clients, how they work towards scientific rigor and avoid repeating errors in existing work. The anonymous survey can be found here.
Two organizations - (1) the American Society of Illustrators Partnership, Inc. (ASIP),
teamed with Artist Rights Society (ARS), and, more-recently formed, (2) The American
Society for Collective Rights Licensing, Inc. (ASCRL) - are promoting distributions of
European reprographic royalties. The GNSI Board has been asked to give their formal
endorsement to or assessment of these organizations.
The GNSI Board of Directors, on behalf of GNSI, Inc., cannot endorse any organization
involved with royalty distribution nor advise members on their personal financial
decisions related to those organizations.
The GNSI Board of Directors acts according to our mission: “GNSI connects professionals
who promote, educate, and celebrate the visual communication of science”.
If a member wishes to understand the future directions of these reprographic rights and
royalties organizations, they can contact ASIP and ASCRL directly.
Most sincerely,
Sara L. Taliaferro, GNSI President
A group of Visual Arts organizations is doing a quick survey to get a handle on how artist use the Copyright system, or even if they use it. Plus they are looking for input on several ideas for how to improve the system in the USA. The survey is pretty easy and you are able to offer opinions on different proposed registration methods (multiple choice answers.) It takes about 10-15 min. This collected information is anonymous and is input for their commenting on the proposed US Copyright Office regulation changes.
Right now Illustrators appear to be treated pretty unfairly when compared to photographers. You might want to take a few minutes and fill this out, even if you have never copyrighted anything, but might consider if it was an easy thing to do.
As an illustrator, I’m frequently confronted with work “opportunities” that do not merit consideration, and I know I’m not alone. The impetus for this article was my frustration at being invited — yet again — to enter a contest where I don’t get paid to submit a design and if my design wins, the prize isn’t worth my effort anyway. These types of contests exploit artists. (I’m using “artists” here to refer to all types of creative professionals, including illustrators, graphic designers, fine artists, and photographers). It’s called “spec work” — work done without guarantee of any compensation, though usually with the hope of gaining some reward. I’ve been thinking that it would be worthwhile for the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators to make a statement on such exploitative contests, and for its website to offer advice to the organizers of such competitions — many of whom don’t realize that they’re exploiting anyone. That way, artists like me can refer contest organizers to the website instead of typing up a long explanation or worse yet, saying nothing at all. We can make a difference in how artists are treated, one competition at a time.
What types of competitions am I referring to?
The contest I mentioned above was a t-shirt design contest held by a not-for-profit scientific organization. The guidelines were thorough; the design needed to be very specific to a location and event, and the organizers even went so far as to say “[We] shall have the right to edit, duplicate, or alter the entry design for any purpose which it deems necessary or desirable, without the need for any further compensation, and/or permission.” So what compensation could one expect for one’s creative efforts? In this case, a free t-shirt. Seriously.
If you are concerned about your ability to make a living as an artist under proposed changes to copyright law, it is time to act. Over 2600 letters were written in the initial comment period. Most by artists concerned about or against the proposed changes to copyright. But now it is time to put a nail in the coffin. Below is a communication we are passing on from the Illustrators Partnership. Please take some time to read some of the letters written and either write a first one for yourself (in case you missed the initial opportunity), or comment on points made by others. This is important to show that those interested in gaining access to your art, on their terms, will not have the last say...
Your GNSI Board of Directors supports strong protection for your copyrights and urges you to stand up and do the same. Writing a letter to the Copyright Office will have a real impact.
In early August, we urged you to write the Copyright office to let them know how copyright affects you and your business. The office is proposing changes to the Copyright Law that would impair your ability to conduct a viable art business. We hope you responded. Now the copyright office has posted the letters submitted (as a very large PDF). They also extended the comment period to October 1st, so you can comment on the letters submitted or add a comment if you missed the initial opportunity.
Below is a report on how to access the comments or add a new one, from the Illustrators Partnership. The issue is not settled, and your attention is still needed.
I am an Anatomy & Physiology professor, and the author/illustrator of a four-book series called The Visual Analogy Guides with Morton Publishing. These books cover the fields of anatomy, physiology, and chemistry and are sold to college students nationwide. In the publishing world, my books are classified as stand-alone supplements. Think of them as a combined study guide/workbook/coloring book all rolled into one. They are very visual and contain all the useful study tips not found in a typical textbook.
The inspiration for these books was born in the classroom. In the anatomy lab, I used to draw sketches for students comparing anatomical structures to things from everyday life. For example, a thoracic vertebra looks like a giraffe’s head. This comparison allowed the student to superimpose the known (giraffe’s head) on the unknown (thoracic vertebra) to better visualize and learn the anatomical structures. I called these comparisons visual analogies which are based on an effective form of learning called contextualized learning. My students used to joke with me that I should compile all of these visual analogies into a book. Initially, I brushed aside their suggestion, but I took it more seriously when I tried to find a book containing these visual analogies and found nothing. This was the motivation I needed to write and illustrate my own books.
This is a summary of the post originally published in Symbiartic , a Scientific American blog, run by Kalliopi Monoyios and Glendon Mellow. Read the full article here.
How do I get started as a Science Illustrator? Kapi breaks it down into five steps:
For those who promote their work to potential clients, one of the traditional methods is through sourcebooks. For the science illustration community, this often means September is a big month when the fruits of your labor are put on display in the latest editions of the Science-Art and Medical Illustration Source directories. The Science-Art.com sourcebook is full of GNSI member's work and the art of Nicolle Rager Fuller graces the cover.
Both these publications will be released to a total of 9500 potential art buyers this September. The cool thing about the internet is that the books are already available digitally for your enjoyment, and is an educational opportunity in how others design promotional material for themselves.
The US copyright office is continuing it's research into Orphaned Works, with the likely outcome of more legislative attempts in the future. Currently, they are looking for input on remedies for Small Copyright Claims.
If you have had successes or failures in pursuing an infringement claim, or considered and rejected an attempt at one, the Copyright Office needs to hear how and why from you by January 17th.
This is a summary of the post originally published in Symbiartic, a Scientific American blog, run by Kalliopi Monoyios and Glendon Mellow. Read the full article here.
By far the most common question I get when I tell people that I am a scientific illustrator is one variation (some more tactful than others) of, “They still use illustrators? Why don’t they just photograph everything?” In fact, it’s a great question. Although photography is fantastically impressive and can offer glimpses into worlds both big and small, it has limitations just like any other medium. That’s where we illustrators get to fill in the blanks.
This post was originally published in Symbiartic , a Scientific American blog, and is reproduced here with permission.
Last week, a very prominent artist in the paleontology community somewhat publicly blew a gasket. His tirade started a conversation that has been sorely in need of attention for some time now. At issue is a fundamental conflict of interests: between science and its tradition of cumulative knowledge, and the rights of the artists who contribute so heavily to such knowledge. It’s a conflict that has irked both artists and researchers, but as budgets tighten and opportunities dwindle, artists are increasingly getting the short end of the stick.
Dear GNSI members and Friends,
The same group that worked so hard to defeat the Orphaned Works bill in Congress is going on the offensive to help secure real benefits for U.S. artists. They will be presenting this month to the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations (IFRRO). The intent is to gain recognition in the international community as an official organization handling reproduction rights funds.
This is an edited virtual roundtable discussion held online. Transcribed for the September 2010 GNSI newsletter column "Ripped From the List "- edited by Stephan DiCerbo, and now edited for online presentation.
Gail Guth emailed the list about a fellow who wanted to avoid the cost of repro rights on someone else’s images by tracing them and was concerned—with good reason—if he was infringing on copyrights. The thread brought out various takes on the issue, some of which you might find surprising. This thread also touches upon “fair use for educational purposes” and “government use and public domain.” – Stephen Di Cerbo
