Fascinating read from Marty (Off-Topic)

by Leviathan , Hotel Zanzibar, Monday, August 04, 2014, 19:58 (3554 days ago) @ Kalamari

I don't know about you guys, but "that just seems like a little too work-for-hire" comes across as pretty pretentious to me. I'll be sure to use this the next time I need to out-snob someone.

I just don't get why artists are so afraid of being viewed as selling out, even in the smallest ways. It's like their suddenly reevaluate their artistic integrity once they become famous or well-known, completely forgetting what it's like being unemployed. So much taken for granted.

These conversations can be misinterpreted as pretentious if you're not familiar with the context. There's a big difference between selling out and work-for-hire. Work-for-hire means giving up control and freedom and often a lot of payment. I've even given up credit in work-for-hire contracts. It's a form of employment designed for the employer, not the employee. "Selling out" is doing work that is popular or trendy for money, work-for-hire is about giving up ownership of your work. If I could sell out with a work-for-hire contract, I would probably do it in a heartbeat at this stage in my career, but they're almost mutually-exclusive to me!

As someone who is constantly leaping into unemployment after every job and only getting poor work-for-hire contracts offered to him, I'll take anybody's help in getting the industry smoothed out the other way. It's successful people like these that have the voice to push back against this near-insurmountable wall in the freelance art/music world. People listen to them and they have the luxury to speak without getting crushed by the employers who want work-for-hire to persist. If I speak out against it, no one cares and I don't get jobs.

They're not condemning "sell-outs" by talking about work-for-hire, they're actually potentially helping those people you think they're dissing. See my post below for more of my experience with work-for-hire.