In answer to my peeved letter posted yesterday, today I received this:
Jaleen,
Thank-you for taking the time to voice your concern, I wouldn't have wanted this to go unspoken.
When developing the concept, we did give this serious thought to make sure we were being ethical. Your concern is huge, and I do agree with it. I’m completely aware of the issues designers have with design competitions and am empathetic to the potential devaluation of creativity. As a professional in the commercial arts world, I can relate to the feeling of being ripped off by corporations holding contests. Added to that, I understand the issue of competing with amateurs and the absence of a proper briefing. In no way, was our intention to highlight any of these concerns.
TBWA\Vancouver is a local, Vancouver based advertising agency working with the Vancouver Film Festival to help them get awareness in the community and to further show our support for local talent. As a pro-bono, non-profit client we donate all of our time to this project as do production companies, directors, sound houses, editors and other suppliers involved in VIFF work. It really is a portfolio showcase opportunity for everyone involved.
The challenge for us every year is to develop and produce a concept without a budget, or the film festival would simply be without advertising. In the past, we’ve had positive feedback from photographers who get credited right on the poster. This year, we thought it would be interesting to open it up to select designers, artists and illustrators allowing them to interpret a theme as they wished – therefore honouring their true talents. In return we’d offer back a bit of recognition, appearance on the VIFF website and via an on-site gallery, a press release and some tickets. It is not much, I know, but it is a great opportunity for those who may be interested.
While we will likely be choosing to highlight one of the submissions, we are planning on showcasing all of them as our way of paying respect to those who have given their time and energy to pay us any attention. Our intentions were never to abuse the system or to take anyone's expertise for granted. Instead, we just wanted to celebrate the amazing ability of some of our local artists in a way that our client has done for so many years.
This may not have changed your view on the issues raised, but as a fellow artist, I wanted to say thanks for sharing your opinion and I hope this hasn't left you with a bad taste about us or our client.
I’d be happy to discuss this further if you’d like,
Paul
Paul Little
Creative Director
TBWA\Vancouver
paul.little@tbwavan.com
MY REPLY:
Dear Paul,
Thank you for sending this polite letter. The vehemence of my opposition is directly proportionate to my love of the VIFF, which I support apart from its marketing bungles.
I'm afraid you have not changed my opinion at all. In fact, I find it seriously problematic and disturbing that a fellow commercial artist would knowingly breach industry protocol. Over twenty years ago my teachers drilled us students about this issue; now I do the same with my students. Now I feel like I have to educate even the people already in the positions where they have a responsibility to establish and uphold norms of business.
Look at it this way: if VIFF needed a trailer or TV commercial, would they contact a "select" group of independent filmmakers and ask them to drop everything and in the next two weeks make at their personal expense a bunch of shorts, so that VIFF could pick and choose among them, partly compensating the few and to hell with the rest? This is not a "great opportunity" and shows little respect to people with true talents, who would be more "honoured" if they were approached specifically and with certainty to work with you.
How did VIFF approach you for pro bono work? My guess is that they asked around for someone willing to do it, and you felt it was a nice thing to do for them and for you. You were undoubtedly right. If you had approached me in a similar way, saying "We really like your work and wondered if you might consider pro bono..." - well, I would have considered it. I bet so would a lot of people, because VIFF is pretty glamorous. There was no need to take the route you have.
If you are an ad agency, then you must have the skill on staff to design a decent poster around a hot image. Why not send out a call for people to submit already existing images (rather than have them work afresh at new designs) for consideration? (Naturally this would best occur before the slogan/theme had been decided on). Then purchase limited use rights. This is another better way to find what you need.
Poster design is an established subdiscipline; some creators specialize in it. As I'm sure you know, a truly great poster is rare, but even a really good one can still make the difference between an average event and a spectacular one. To treat the advertising with such a cavalier approach really diminishes the campaign, and potentially compromises VIFF's promotion, which ought to be one of its most important priorities.
Naturally, it is too late to rescind the call, so I encourage you to do everything you can to reward all the people who submit ideas. Yes, show their work. Maybe they could have passes too. Or tax receipts for the value of their labour. They have, after all contributed as well: it is more difficult to pick a winner when there is nothing to compare to. By providing choice, the rejects help you narrow down and define what you want. Don't let that go unacknowledged.
Thanks again for taking the time to give me a response, and for reading this reply.
Jaleen Grove
jaleengrove
J a l e e n G r o v e
a r t ~~ d e s i g n ~~ i l l u s t r a t i o n ~~ r e s e a r c h
- VIFF response

Rage against the machine
(Anonymous)
2009-07-12 05:21 pm (UTC)
Rage against the machine
(Anonymous)
2009-07-12 05:25 pm (UTC)
Hi Jaleen,
I applaud your principled stance, and your effort to educate and sway the VIFF organizers on behalf of all the artists who, whether they know it or not, have a right to guard their talents and work and exploitation.
All the world wants something for nothing - particularly businesses and organizations whose representatives shelter behind the cultural norm mantra, "it's not in the budget".
Well, faceless corporate machinations, either put it in your budgets or as you rightly proposed, Jaleen, enlarge and expand the nature of a budget beyond only capital, to intellectual capital. The problem is compounded and perpetuated, however, by the unrealistic expectation that said machines should offer to protect and honour copyrights, and remunerate artists for the limited use of their proprietary images, and the like. For the time being, this is an alien precept.
It is only common between businesses, between machines, responding to requests for proposals or information (RFPs, RFIs). Submissions regularly include legal text that protects the rights of corporate non-entities for the intellectual worth of the information or solutions that they offer, in the eventuality their work does not "win". Moreover, submitting businesses anticipate both successful and failed efforts and are further suited to play this game.
Artists, especially amateur or emerging artists, don't think or behave like businesses, of course.
Ultimately, an artist produces emotions. Unfortunately our cultural and societal attitude towards emotion is to devalue them as common and intangible. Again this is particularly true for entities that cannot feel, or for those who abdicate their duty to feel in the pursuit of their activities as representatives of these entities.
But emotions underscore perceptions, and perceptions can make or break a business. Even this truth is underestimated by business, however, so it is virtually impossible to expect that businesses can understand or reward the notion that artists translate one into the other.
An artist must protect him or herself against this institutional failing through the only recourse offered, copyright. Sincerely, I believe the right to have the individual products of our individual talents acknowledged and honoured is as basic a right as the other rights we have enshrined in Charters and constitutions. The knowledge of this right, and the ways and means to protect it, should be as much a part everyone's early education as the right to free speech, for instance.
In the meantime, what's to be done?
As you have done, we can instruct the machines that unfeelingly operate to approach and deal with artists to grant these rights without being asked. It's a lot to expect, and unlikely, I regretfully believe.
The solution lies on the other side of the equation. As painful as it is, artists must act like businesses when dealing with businesses. They must be taught and/or provided the means to guard themselves against exploitation by proactively - as individuals and collectively - agreeing to participate only if they are allowed to claim and jealously protect their copyright.
To work against the insidious temptations that the machines can offer to entice artists to release this right, artists' solidarities must be universal, impenetrable and elemental.
Is this foolish? No. It is evolution.
It is a basic as our ever-increasing understanding as sentient beings that life is not enough; we, not machines, strive for quality of life.
Yours in Unison,
Michael Symonds