Reed A Prescott III

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Why Pay for Advertising?"

Why pay for advertising when you can be paid to advertise? This is not only something every artist should understand but learn to look for. What branded products like Coke and Nike understand is that having their image visible is a component of marketing. So the movie scene which shows a can of coke or the golfer wearing the Nike logo is in some way promoting their products.

Visibility equates to marketing and helps you to Brand your image or in our case images. I find the most cost effective way for artists to do this is to identify those markets who not only will benefit from using our art but will pay to do so.

This is what a use for your artwork looks like....

When the local bank called and asked if they could use one of my oil paintings "Waiting for Winter" for the background of a debit card. I wrote a "Limited Use Rights" statement. This stated that this bank had the right-(my permission) to use this image for the background of a debit card and any media promotion of that debit card for the fee of $.... This protects them from having me sell the same image to another bank for the use on their debit cards, yet allows me to sell the same image to another business for a completely different use. The image used on this banks debit card has also been used by a Vermont Chamber of Commerce magazine and The Vermont Law School- Environmental Law Symposium. Each time I would clearly define what the reproduction rights were and included the amount we agreed they would pay for this right.

"THAT'S RIGHT" they pay for this right. So you can run a lot of ads in print media and pay those bills but isn't it more fun to pull out a debit card with one of your paintings on it, watch the eyes pop of the person you are showing it to as they become aware that they have the same card, and know that someone sent you a check to do so?

As Artists who create images we always hold the right as intellectual property until we, in writing, transfer that intellectual property over to someone else. Even though we have sold the original painting we still hold the "Creative and Intellectual Property" of that image we painted. What this means is that we always have the right to put it into print, create a product, or use that image for improving another products. In a nut shell- we own the "image" until we let it go and put it in writing. With rights the more we give away the bigger the check we should receive because we are letting go of our ability to reuse an image and generate income. "Limited Use Rights" states that you are signing the rights over for one or just a few rights for reproduction.

They only gray area here is termed "Work for Hire" which is when you are putting a image to someone else's creative idea. The best example of this is commercial work or book illustration. In this case the person doing the hiring is the "Creative or Intellectual owner" and thus holds those rights. The gray area for painters comes in on commissioned pieces which can fall either way. What I do is clear this issue up right off when I discuss a commission. "Now I will be doing this painting for you and I will also be considering putting it into print" A lot of times you can lay on the "But you will have the only Original"

So why pay for advertising... when you can be paid to advertise?


stephanie said...

Thanks for this information, Reed. I am so happy to know people like you and my brother, Kyle who have already ventured down the slippery slope of advertising, and are willing to share your knowledge with all us fledglings out here

From My Easel said...

Your welcome... Keep painting!