Boycott the Obama Poster contest

[Gerry]

The Obama campaign is sponsoring a poster contest to promote their jobs program. But they are offering no payment, artists are required to sign over all rights, and the three winners get a print of their own poster signed by Obama, which is worthless to them unless they sell it. Yes, they would have to sell their "prize" to gain anything at all.

 

I would encourage anyone even remotely considering entering, to boycott this contest.

 

I posted the following comment on the contest website (http://www.barackobama.com/artworks/creative-brief):

 

Dear President Obama:

As a professional artist I have to say I am shocked and disappointed at the poster contest you are sponsoring, asking artists to submit work and sign over all rights for free. The fact that it is to promote a "jobs program" only makes it more tone-deaf and disheartening.

 

It is not just the poor timing, in the midst of a terrible economic climate. This would be a poor idea anytime. Artists, like any other professional group, do what they do for payment. It's called "making a living".

 

I voted for you but I must say, on top of all the previous disappointments with this administration, this is the final nail in the coffin. I would say that the callous intent behind this program leaves me speechless, but believe me I am doing everything I can to encourage my fellow artists to boycott this "contest".

 

With great disappointment,

Gerard Mooney

[NancyGormezano]

Uhhh...at first, I see the irony of course, and feel the outrage. However, this brings up some questions for me:

 

Since this contest is being sponsored by the office of president, and supposedly not by Obama's reelection campaign: Wouldn't there have to be a federal budget item somewhere that would include "miscellaneous contest prize funds to be used for promoting new policies/programs of the President" or something to that effect.

 

Oh yes. We all know how successful that would be in getting congress to allocate funds for that. Can you say "npr"?

 

I would think Jobs for artists would be included in the jobs program, if not directly but indirectly. For example: New roads, public works, etc almost always involve some sort of artistic architectual type visualization, signs etc. I am not familiar with the exact details of the Jobs Program (I haven't done any research to find out more).

 

This president needs our help in getting anything going. Especially a Jobs program. If this was done as a re-election campaign poster, money would come out of his campaign funds.

[robcat2075]

I see it as an attempt to involve volunteers who want to help, much as political campaigns do for many things that normally would require paying people for their time (working phone banks, flyers door-to-door, registration drives, installing lawn signs) if it were for a commercial concern.

 

But instead of getting volunteers for heavy legwork they are trying to get someone who has talents to offer in other regards.

 

A poster from someone who wants to do it might be better than one from someone paid to pretend they care. Think how bad all those "Successories" corporate motivational posters are, made by someone who is paid to be inspirational.

 

 

Still, it wouldn't kill them to give a $100 prize.

[jason1025]

Is it me or are those the same stipulations Martin Had for the Artists who worked on TWO and SO. Except I don't think there was any prize.

[itsjustme]

Is it me or are those the same stipulations Martin Had for the Artists who worked on TWO and SO. Except I don't think there was any prize.

 

Actually, payment was an option on TWO...I don't remember it being an option for SO.

[Gerry]

There are a number of problems with this, foremost among them is that artists are always being asked to work for free, or on spec, or for "exposure", or "you'll get paid once the book is sold". That's first and foremost, and it's a tired assumption that a better considered poster challenge would have gone a long way to dispelling.

 

But there are better ways to have gone about this, and ways that wouldn't have reinforced the above stereotypical expectations. If the campaign wanted volunteers to man a phone bank, say, would they have thrown it open to a national contest, or would they have examined the lists of supporters' names they have? I'm sure there are prestigious artists on those lists who would have been thrilled to be asked to design posters.

 

Second, I wonder how many people involved in this campaign ARE getting paid? There's a pretty nice website, that's hosted somewhere, and maintained by trained professionals, for starters. There must be money available from somewhere. the posters will have to be printed, and distributed, there will be administrative overhead, etc. I can't believe they are asking for free work simply because there are no funds.

 

Third, all entries become the property of the campaign, yet the contract the artist must sign indemnifies the campaign. In other words, the artist no longer owns the artwork, but if there's a lawsuit over its content, the artist is solely responsible for the legal defense.

 

Just last week, cartoonist Ted Rall was approached by the American Cancer Society, with assets in excess of $1.3 billion, to develop and draw, PRO BONO, a series of QuitBuddy mascot designs.

 

This is just more of the same, the expectation that artists are expected to work for free. Wouldn't it have been refreshing for the Obama administration to take a different approach and really value people's work, particularly in relation to a jobs bill?

[NancyGormezano]

This is just more of the same, the expectation that artists are expected to work for free. Wouldn't it have been refreshing for the Obama administration to take a different approach and really value people's work, particularly in relation to a jobs bill?

 

His re-election campaign is hiring:

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/graphic-d...job-application

[Gerry]

Here's something I hadn't seen in the rules, someone on FB posted it: "My favorite condition is that the decision is made by a majority vote. Public voting totals 45% and their judge controls 55%. That means the entire public vote which they plan to do over the next month is absolutely pointless because even if everyone votes for the same pieces... the judge alone represents the majority."

[TheSpleen]

not surprised