Comments on: Google Wants Artists to Work for FREE

By: jane benn

jane benn — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:54:23 +0000

now google wants money for their phones. google isn’t giving the ohones away free!!!!!

By: The Baldchemist

The Baldchemist — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:03:47 +0000

Sitepoint have been doing this for years. Having a competition for logo designs and offering 50-100 dollars as a prize. Then offering their clients a choice of designs.
Get wise!

By: Lori

Lori — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:01:41 +0000

Nail ‘em, sister! What has the world come to when Google won’t pay their contractors? Bunch of putzes. I’m moving my browser setting back to Yahoo! I won’t give them ANY of my business.

Think we should start invoicing them for the “reuse” of our materials in their search results?

By: joe Hall

joe Hall — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:28:06 +0000

Yeah, and that’s the thing, they wanted “big name” artist, not “no nothing’s” that is the nature of the politics in the art world. But, Google fails to understand that “big names” cost “big dollars”.

By: Christina

Christina — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:26:41 +0000

netmeg,

I didn’t say it was exploitation this time, just that it was crap.

By: netmeg

netmeg — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:23:50 +0000

Hey! It’s not like it’s forced labor, okay? God knows I have my own problems with some of Google’s practices, but this sure as heck ain’t one of them. I personally don’t know a single artist who wouldn’t jump on a chance like this like a duck on a june bug. And if the artist doesn’t want or need the exposure, then they are free to say no. Google will just move on to the next one – who will no doubt be thrilled.

I don’t see this as exploitation in any way, shape or form.

By: Christina

Christina — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:20:31 +0000

Joe,

That’s something I can get behind! Basically, Google was looking for “brand name” artists to do work for free. Showcasing upcoming talent as you described is laudable, but that totally wasn’t their intent. (See? I can use their terms against them!)

By: joe Hall

joe Hall — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:59 +0000

There are a lot of struggling artist just coming out of college that are doing amazing work. They would love the chance to showcase their work for free. in fact most do in galleries that allow them.

The big difference here is that Google was going after established artist that already draw an income from their work. If Google really wanted to give free exposure give it to those that need it, not the ones that already have an established career.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:28 +0000

First, they are being paid exactly what they deserve because that was the terms they entered into the agreement under. You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.

Second, they absolutely can be paid if they’re clever enough to make the most of the opportunity Google gave them.

By: Christina

Christina — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:09:56 +0000

Jeff,

Again, yeah, there’s portfolio value in skinning Google Chrome. But just because it’s good for the portfolio doesn’t make the artists any less deserving of being paid. Yeah, my quality rater stint looks awesome on my portfolio… but that doesn’t mean I ever would have done it for free. I have a family to support.