Work for Hire

The Art of Action finalists have been chosen, and congratulations to all of them. Now that I am free from the heartache of trying to get on the list I would like to address the Work for Hire clause in the application. During this process, late at night, when I was imagining that I had become a finalist, I was planning my strategy to challenge this during the contract phase. The goals of this project, as stated by Lyman Orton are high minded, community oriented and visionary, but for all that, the proposed terms reveal this as not a purely altruistic endeavor. I can understand the sponsor wanting to retain the copyrights for the work commissioned, but copyright comes in many flavors and Work for Hire is the most bitter. It is probably more than they need, or even want. Bear in mind I am no copyright attorney, but I have researched the subject extensively over the years and all the information is readily available to anyone with an internet connection. As creators, this is important information to at least familiarize yourself with. We have a poor track record of watching out for our own best interest.

With the purchase of a piece of art, when no discussion of copyright even comes up, the artist retains full copyright, as do their heirs for fifty years after their death. That means if someone buys a painting for their wall, they cannot make prints of it and sell them. They have bought the object, not the concept. In some states, if they re-sell the object for a profit, the artist is even entitled to a percentage of that money. In certain circumstances, like commercial illustration where the artist is the hand creating another's concept or when the work is made specifically for reproduction, the artist is compelled to sell certain rights, and can decide which to sell. These can be as restrictive as one time reproduction use for a specific publication, or as encompassing as world-wide use forever. As you can imagine, the more rights granted, the higher the value the artwork has. The creation and sale of fine art is usually immune to these concerns, except when it is going to be reproduced.

Work for hire typically affects employees. If you have a regular job as an employee, not as an independent contractor, and you produce artwork for your employer during your employment, then you are producing work for hire. The owner of artwork produced under Work for Hire can legally take all credit as the creator of the artwork. With work for hire you have sold your authorship and have no legal right to even have your name on the piece. As if that is not enough, it gets even better for the owner. The owner can lay claim to the style and any subsequent artwork made in a similar manner. That's right... your artistic style becomes theirs. This is what I meant when I said it is more than they need or want. There are numerous descriptions of the intricacies of this on line.

By my figuring, Mr. Orton and the VAC have ponied up a generous $300,000 for this project. In all likelihood it is not going to turn a profit and they are just looking to recoup as much as possible, although one never knows . That said, Work for Hire is an unnecessary clause for their stated goals. I'm not sure what I would do had I been chosen and if they insisted upon the clause. Personally, I would have no problem selling all reproduction rights for the money offered. I'd like to think I'd press the point on work for hire at $1000 - $4000 each for 10 pieces of artwork and the required time spent promoting the project. You don't get what you don't ask for, and contracts are contracts. I would hope Mr. Orton and the VAC will either remove this unnecessary clause, or negotiate separate rights into the contract protecting the selected artists from the excesses of work for hire.