McGraw Hill Publisher charging illustrators a fee to get paid
-
@davidhohn I guess the problem is getting together - we don't all know each other haha... Though by passing the word around as much as possible, maybe enough people will hear about it. On that topic, the petition has reached the goal of 1600 signature and is now extended for a stretch goal of 3200!
vanessastoilova.com
instagram.com/vanessa.stoilova/Check out my Youtube channel for tips on how to start your career in illustration! www.youtube.com/c/ArtBusinesswithNess
-
@NessIllustration Each illustrator advocating and sharing among their peer group will have a significant effect. And I've found that the illustration community is smaller than you might think!
Individual illustrators have gotten together in the past with efforts to combat Orphan Works bills and stock illustration.
I'm pleased to see the Authors Guild going for more signatures! Keep talking and sharing!
-
@davidhohn
done -
@chinachin Sorry what?
-
@chinachin I’m confused, are you saying that because the fee isn’t high it’s something that shouldn’t be considered unfair or exploitative? For me, and this is from someone who is a new professional so my experience at this point is also based on my instincts about this...it doesn’t matter how expensive the fee is. They pay for illustrator services, and yet they take a fee out because their clients are forced to use their payment service? That’s a publishing company on a power trip, that’s what I see. That tells me that they don’t think illustrators should be getting the money they deserve and is in some ways punishing artists for using a service they have to use. It’s more about the thought behind it, perhaps others can weigh in, but the price of the fee is more inconsequential.
-
@davidhohn Is that actually legal? So, you're being penalised for being paid your fee. I can't see how that could stand up in court.
-
@Adam-Thornton-0 If the terms are stated in the contract then I would imagine that it is technically legal.
I could see an argument made that a change like this is coercive, but I don't have any sense of how effective that argument would be after a contract was signed.
But I do not think that McGH is surprising freelancers with this new fee after a contract has been agreed to and signed by both parties. More likely MCGH is hoping that the freelancer either doesn't notice the fee when initially signing the contract or agrees to it because the freelancer is too afraid to lose the project.
