As an artist, do you sign your work?
-
Back in architecture school during our final thesis 'crits' my classmate who was the professors' favorite had a brutal crit. A visiting critic (who apparently didn't know her star status) brutally attacked the fact that she had signed each and every image on her thesis presentation panels. That critic saw it as incredibly pretentious and didn't hold back -- he shredded her to tears. Apparently in agreement, the other even higher profile critics didn't find the project worthy of any comment. The crit that followed was my wife's. My wife was far from being a star and her humbly presented thesis, in complete contrast, received considerable praise. The other visiting critics, the great Aldo Van Eyck and Canadian architectural legend Eberhard Zeidler said her thesis was absolutely brilliant -- the best they had seen. In contrast to the previous presentation they loved the substance over style and my wife's quite competence. Those 20-year old crits have remained in my thoughts since. One thing I learned was if you sign your work some will see it as a self-important pretense of artistic merit. In general I do not sign my own works choosing to avoid that implication that I believe its "art" connotation. I prefer to just let others see only the illustration and get what they can from them without having them think about the 'meaning' of any signature.
Regards, Ross
-
If its for FormFonts or for other work related things I don't sign my work, it belongs to them they payed me to make my work become theirs, however if I have to do digital art or something similar as a commission Im signing that, I even had the experience that I forgot to sign and someone asked me to sign it after all.
Also on all my architectural renderings and 3D models and stuff like that, you can bet your ass that my signature is on that, though I have learned that it's appreciated if you sign it small, and almost invisble unless you start looking for it a watermark so to speak. There have been several cases of fraud so I am not taking any risks...
-
It has been standard that I cannot sign any of the work I do for my full time employment or own the copyright because I am employed with benefits and do my work using the tools provided to me by my employer. As for the freelance work I do, I definitely place my "John Hancock" (signature) on it!
The Graphic Artists Guild stated under Work-For-Hire. "Work-For-Hire" is a provision of the U.S. copyright Act intended as a narrow exception to the general rule that the artist or author who actually creates the work owns the copyright to it. The provision confers initial authorship and ownership to the employer or other hiring party who commissions the work, leaving the artist with no rights whatsoever. While such a result may be justifiable in a traditional employment setting, the freelance artist, considered to be an independent contractor for all purposes except copyright, has no access to employee benefits that may compensate for the loss of that copyright and future earnings it may represent.
Under the law, a work made for hire can come into existence in two ways: an employee creating a copyrightable work within the scope of employment; or an independent contractor creating a specially ordered or commissioned work in one of several categories, verified by a written contract signed by both parties and expressly stating that it is a Work-For-Hire.
An employed artist is usually defined as one who works at an employers office during regular business hours on a scheduled basis, is directed by the employer, and works with tools supplied by the employer. (More importantly, an artist is considered an employee if he or she is entitled to employment benefits and has taxes withheld from his or her paycheck.) (Graphic Artist Guild Eleventh Edition Pricing and Ethical Guidelines).
Well, that took me way to long to write, man I'm slow. I hope that helps and doesn't create more confusion.
-
Good subject and good to see others' opinions. I was asked by the leading architectural magazine (here in Hungary) for four different pics of a building I've modelled. (The architecture part is about an in situ museum building over some 4th century Roman ruins which I reconstructed).
So according to the above opinions, I should sign them even though if they give the credit printed in the magazine? -
Wow, thanks for the great array of responses. Even though they read differently so far, they still boil down to the same. What's mine is mine and what's my companies is my companies. As Ross stated, it may not be viewed as art by others and seem rather pretentious to sign the work, but as others have stated, there are several reasons to want to do it.
I see the subject in a different light now and don't feel as bad for not feeling like I should be able to sign them.
Here's another question though...
A couple months ago, we did a charity project that some of you may have seen posted. It was a childrens playhouse and the designer did all his work on the clock, whereas, I did the modeling and color work on my own time, after work, at home and on the weekends. When I finished it, I put our company logo on it, but also put my signature on it too, as I felt this part was done by me, the artist, not the employee. My boss saw the final rendering hanging in my office and commented on the signature. He asked if that was my signature and about how many hours I put in it and if we were billing the client. I corrected him and mentioned it was on my own time and yes that was my signature. I didn't get a "yay" or nay" about it, but its what prompted the thought.
The question is, do you think that was appropriatly signed?
-
Well, in the context of the above posts I think you were right when you put your signature onto the work. It was your time, it was your charity work so you deserved the recognition.
However explain it to your boss! He might feel differently - as all company owners have this kind of general corporate sense (see.. ahm... this Google and SU and forums stuff). He would have probably been much happier if you had handed in the charity work with only a company logo on it thus he (the company) could have collected all the credits - even though if he cannot really do anything now (or at least he does not seem to make a fuss about it). Bosses like when their a***s are being kissed.
-
Generally, any renderings I am requested to do at work I do not sign. I have created renderings/posters of my work which I was not asked to do, simply because I wanted something decent to hang up in the office - those I have signed.
I am currently working on my first freelance rendering, for another architect. The rendering will be enlarged and displayed on a building to be restored. I told him upfront that I wanted to sign it, and be able to post it (as an example of modeling/rendering only), and he agreed. My reason for signing it isn't for vanity, but for advertisement. Maybe someone else will see it and want to hire me.
-
Daniel:
It is precisely for your reasons that I agree that a free-lance illustrator should sign his/her work, and receive printed credit if the work is published.
Years ago, as a freelancer, I prepared several dozen renderings showing underutilized buildings and sites as if they were developed. The work was often published in the local paper and other media outlets in stories planted by the client (a city department.) In the beginning, my work was uncredited. I asked my client to ensure that it was, and he agreed to do so. Nevertheless, the paper continued to run the work without credit.
After several irate phone calls from me to the editor, they finally began crediting the work. I can't say that I received a lot of follow-up work as a result, but my professional reputation as an architect did increase, and many people commented positively on the images they had seen. So yes, receiving credit for my work is important to me, personally and professionally.
I wonder what policy the big-time renderers such as Schaller and Gorski follow. Anybody know?
-
In the not too distant past craftsmen placed a descreet yet unique mark on the article that they manufactured. This was a way to identify articles made by individual craftsmen working in the same company. As time went by these marks became a way to identify works of value that could be attributed to a particular artist.
Maybe one could take a cue from history...
-
A few years ago I had to create a SU animation, and found away to add a signature of sorts. Gee, maybe I am vain.
-
Ha! That's cool!
-
@ray brown said:
I wonder what policy the big-time renderers such as Schaller and Gorski follow. Anybody know?
I would venture to say that they use a method using this as guidelines..... but I can't say for sure.
http://www.asai.org/Copyright
Advertisement