Welcome, Guest

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. •  
     CommentAuthorJohn Skylar
   • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2013

    (10984.1)
   What would the reaction be if Gaiman were collaborator with a much smaller firm? Like, say, BERG? Or if he were collaborating with a huge movie studio? Why are some forms of paid collaboration okay, and others are not?
   
   I don't think there would be opposition at all, so I can't say I'm opposed to this either.
   
   I don't buy into the argument that it's not okay because RIM will appropriate user-submitted designs, either, because 1) I don't think Gaiman would be on board for that and 2) There isn't any evidence of that at all, so it's just speculation.
   
   Let's condemn it when there's a reason, I think. Cautious optimism? Is that allowed in Whitechapel?
2. • CommentAuthorOddcult
   • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2013

    (10984.2)
   "I don't buy into the argument that it's not okay because RIM will appropriate user-submitted designs, either, because 1) I don't think Gaiman would be on board for that and 2) There isn't any evidence of that at all, so it's just speculation."
   
   Watch the video. He says 'you'll illustrate them', referring to the stories.
   
   Which I think means one of two things; they'll be submitted to a website, where they can be shared, or they'll be uploaded by their creators and identified using a tag or something like that.
3. •  
     CommentAuthorAlastair
   • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2013

    (10984.3)
   That's a point actually. Uncle warrens comic with berg (which I'm too lazy to walk over to the shelf and look to see what it was called) had loads of adverts for things. And they were presented in such a way as to dupe you into looking at them and even looking them up further.
   
   Nobody said boo about THAT
4. • CommentAuthorSteve Toase
   • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2013

    (10984.4)
   There seem to be two clear issues here:
   
   1) Gaiman's integrity taking RIM money to fund the project , which will be used for advertising.
   
   2) Asking people to contribute creative work for free.
   
   The first point I think John Skylar has got it right. Is there any difference taking the money from RIM than from Warner, or HSBC, or Film4? All of them increase the visiblity of their brand. All of them are technically advertising a product.
   
   The second point as I said before I don't see this as aimed at fans not professional, or even semi professional editors. It's basically a competition to have your work illustrate Gaiman's fiction. Also for clarity he specifically states that anyone whose Twitter prompt he uses will be contacted by RIM.
   
   

   No, you do not have to use a BlackBerry for anything in this, although you might want to follow the @Blackberry twitter account as it would be useful for when they need to DM anyone whose tweets I do happen to use as a story prompt. (But if you don't follow them, I'll wave at you to remind you.)

   
   
   This, to me, is a strong indication that the work is going to be credited. I don't see why they wouldn't credit any illustrative work, no matter what form that takes.
   
   Just some thoughts while waiting for the day's work to back up.
   
   To put a different, positive, spin on this how much investment from a ground roots illustrator would take to pitch their work to RIM/Gaiman to be used on an international campaign? This could be seen as an opportunity to profile raise far beyond the reach of most freelancers. I'm not saying that it is good to give work away for free, but does the submission of work, as long as due credit is given, have an intrinsic value that makes it worth doing?
   
   I agree with fuck you pay me, but can that take a form other than hard cash when the exposure is at such a high level? We're not talking about unpaid extras (Just for the chance to appear on TV), or pay a reading fee to have a story appear in an obscure literary journal.