https://medium.com/@noahbradley/minimum-wage-artists-4f8e00024a4

I know this must be bull! Please debuk it FFG. Where is he getting this?...

Edit: I`m not using "I don`t believe this" as the "I`m shocked"-expression. I am actually saying I don`t believe it, just to clear up any misunderstandings.

I have more faith in FFG`s high standards and profession conduct that is reflected in threir products and I also know there are no reason for the experienced, talented and professional artists they use to sell themselves low.

Why do you find it hard to believe? Frankly, the artists themselves are just as much to blame. I've done freelance work (not art, but other areas) and I refuse to do work below a certain billable rate. I'd rather walk away than work for lower rates. Any contract can be changed before being signed. You don't have to accept the contract as written if you don't like some of the terms. Maybe add clauses that gives you pay for each use of the image (so you get paid for each book sold that contains the image or each card printed that it is used in).

Why wouldn't they pay that little if talented artists actually agree to those prices?

Why do you find it hard to believe? Frankly, the artists themselves are just as much to blame. I've done freelance work (not art, but other areas) and I refuse to do work below a certain billable rate. I'd rather walk away than work for lower rates. Any contract can be changed before being signed. You don't have to accept the contract as written if you don't like some of the terms. Maybe add clauses that gives you pay for each use of the image (so you get paid for each book sold that contains the image or each card printed that it is used in).

Because all the art I have seen in FFG books so far has been done by experienced, professional artists who I have a very hard time believing would "fall for" any of that exposure nonsense and would not do a full painting and days of work for $100. It just wouldn`t happen(would it?). I have more faith in FFG and in the high standards of their products and art.

Blame the digital age. Blame China. Blame Eastern Europe. Blame Russia. It may not be right but artists are competing in a global economy and with the rise of the digital medium, the payouts have plummeted. I have a friend who is very well established in the business and has been for 20+ years, and he says there is no way he could start out and duplicate his success in this time.

Why do you find it hard to believe? Frankly, the artists themselves are just as much to blame. I've done freelance work (not art, but other areas) and I refuse to do work below a certain billable rate. I'd rather walk away than work for lower rates. Any contract can be changed before being signed. You don't have to accept the contract as written if you don't like some of the terms. Maybe add clauses that gives you pay for each use of the image (so you get paid for each book sold that contains the image or each card printed that it is used in).

It is really difficult to feel like you have any sort of leverage when you desperately need the money. Walking away rather than accepting meager wages is a very tough thing to do when your rent is due and you need to eat this week.

Companies doing shady business to get ahead doesn't surprise me, and I'd never believe the FFG is exempt from that. It's normal, if sad.

That being said, while the article does make a valid point comparing artists and carpenters (about working for the love of it), it's only technically true; like most technically true things, it often doesn't work out that way in practice. I'm sure there are many artists willing to work for small amounts of pay only because they choose to. People are funny like that and do strange things.

Why do you find it hard to believe? Frankly, the artists themselves are just as much to blame. I've done freelance work (not art, but other areas) and I refuse to do work below a certain billable rate. I'd rather walk away than work for lower rates. Any contract can be changed before being signed. You don't have to accept the contract as written if you don't like some of the terms. Maybe add clauses that gives you pay for each use of the image (so you get paid for each book sold that contains the image or each card printed that it is used in).

It is really difficult to feel like you have any sort of leverage when you desperately need the money. Walking away rather than accepting meager wages is a very tough thing to do when your rent is due and you need to eat this week.

And if you never ask, then the answer is always No. If your situation is really that desperate, then maybe a job at McDonald's is needed to fill in the gaps as you'll make far more (at least consistently) than you will by accepting such low-ball commissions.

I have a friend who has been coloring comics professionally - big titles, mind you - for over 20 years and she's living paycheck to paycheck and barely breaking even. The hobby industry is not kind to illustrators, with the exception of those who are household names.

There are hordes of scabs who will do work that's basically free just so they can say they worked on a Star Wars (or whatever) product. Plus foreign artists who benefit from the higher value of the American dollar.

These are the same companies that print their books in China when North American labor is actually competitively priced again. This shouldn't be a shock.

Why do you find it hard to believe? Frankly, the artists themselves are just as much to blame. I've done freelance work (not art, but other areas) and I refuse to do work below a certain billable rate. I'd rather walk away than work for lower rates. Any contract can be changed before being signed. You don't have to accept the contract as written if you don't like some of the terms. Maybe add clauses that gives you pay for each use of the image (so you get paid for each book sold that contains the image or each card printed that it is used in).

It is really difficult to feel like you have any sort of leverage when you desperately need the money. Walking away rather than accepting meager wages is a very tough thing to do when your rent is due and you need to eat this week.

And if you never ask, then the answer is always No. If your situation is really that desperate, then maybe a job at McDonald's is needed to fill in the gaps as you'll make far more (at least consistently) than you will by accepting such low-ball commissions.

What if they do ask, and then FFG says "sorry, that's our going rate"? If you are working a minimum-wage job to make ends meet and you really want to get out of that, someone offering you even just $100 for your artwork sounds reasonable. It will make the repairs to your car happen a little sooner, or it'll go towards your phone bill or gas you've used to drive to conventions or appointments with people who want to look at your art. It is oftentimes not realistic at all to tell starving artists that they need to "hold out for more" when every single dollar they see could be life altering.

If you're already well off and you're freelancing, then that is an entirely different story. But when you are really scrambling to make ends meet, you take what you can get in the pursuit of pulling yourself up out of the paycheck-to-paycheck cycle. A struggling artist should not be chastised for not picking up enough shifts at Burger King to support their dreams.

Any profit-oriented business will pay as little and charge as much as they can get away with. In case of a joint-stock company they're even obliged to, anything less could be considered breach of fiduciary duty. That's free market capitalism for you. There are only three effective measures against a situation like this: customers' boycott, organising the work force, or legislative regulation.

Are you willing to forgo all FFG products until they've remedied the issue? Or, are you just one more pitiable SW addict like we others?

The sad simple truth in this market is artists have to get their name out there which means they have to do the jobs. It generally means you need to have other means of supporting yourself whereas my buddy was able to focus pretty much on the publishing industry when he started out.

His assistant is also trying to get into the business now, but she isn't a kid starting out and has her own airbrush business. She does other gigs as well as jobs for game companies. She has shows and does commissions and has her hands in a lot of different stuff, mostly to generate income.

Any profit-oriented business will pay as little and charge as much as they can get away with. In case of a joint-stock company they're even obliged to, anything less could be considered breach of fiduciary duty. That's free market capitalism for you. There are only three effective measures against a situation like this: customers' boycott, organising the work force, or legislative regulation.

Are you willing to forgo all FFG products until they've remedied the issue? Or, are you just one more pitiable SW addict like we others?

I read this article to my wife, and she said, "so are you going to stop buying Star Wars products from them?" And I was quiet and then said "... no."

As a hobbyist photographer who has occasionally done a paid gig here and there, this does not surprise me in the least.

And honestly, as harsh as it sounds, I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with it.

It's easy to look at the whole thing and say, "There's no way an artist can afford to make ends meet this way!"

But the tougher question that needs to be asked, purely from a big-picture, economic standpoint, is, "Should an artist be able to make a comfortable living from their art?"

As I said, I'm a photographer...I don't make money from my photography in a year even equal to one bi-weekly paycheck from my job, but if I actively pursued gigs, did work for people who weren't "friends", and priced my work competitively, I could certainly make a lot more. Even at that point, though, I wouldn't expect to be able to quit my day job and live off of what'd essentially be a "paid hobby".

Similarly with artwork, there are some truly dazzlingly talented artists out there (who have far more talent that I do in any field really), and while they can (and should) certainly make more from their work than I would from my photography, when you look at it from a finite, closed-system economic point of view, a publisher like FFG needs to find the most economical balance between filling their books with beautiful art and not breaking the bank (keep in mind that if they're spending on art, the next outcry will be "Why is FFG only paying their employees 3% over minimum wage?!" and the answer will be "Because you wanted that part of the budget to go to freelance artists."...and then when you want them to pay those people well too, the next outcry is, "Why do FFG rulebooks cost $90 when every other company charges $55?!" followed quickly by, "Sad news, FFG announces cutbacks, cancels product lines, sells Star Wars License." and then, "FFG to close its doors.").

So back to the art.

While there's certainly a base minimum quality level to be considered acceptable for publish (assuming you don't want my stick figures from a college ruled notebook in your shiny new sourcebook), once you've reached that threshold, there's a sharply diminishing rate of return to be had by spending more and more and more on artwork. Even if that artwork would get better and better and better at the same rate as the budget (it won't), that artwork is not going to bring in significantly more sales. So once the art in the book is good enough that people don't look at it and go, "Wow, that's bad.", they only want to spend a tiny bit more to get it into the, "Wow, that's pretty." zone. At that point, they've got all the potential gaming book customers they're going to get because of artwork. A truly magnificent, gorgeous book filled with original works might get some sales from fans of Star Wars art, but they'd be buying it in spite of, not because of the fact that it's a gaming book, and their numbers would be tiny.

That being said, when FFG's art director goes looking to fill a new sourcebook with art, they're given a budget, and they pretty much already know what's "unacceptable, okay, good, great, and fantastic" in terms of art quality. The less they spend per piece, the more great art they can fill the book with. So rather than go to the established and acclaimed professionals only, they may decide to go through Flickr or 500px, or DA and find some talented artists doing it for the fun of it and offer them a bit of cash for their work. The artist gets a commission they wouldn't have otherwise gotten (it's more than zero, so they're in the black right there), the art director gets a good, great, or fantastic piece to add to the book for a proportionally tiny chunk of budget, and the only ones who lose are the artists trying to make a living on their art, getting undercut by the hobbyist.

While it'd be nice if there were plenty of money to go around everywhere and everyone could make a comfortable living doing exactly and only what they enjoyed, things would be great. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and the harsh reality of the internet age is that there's a lot of talented people that aren't trying to make a living off their talent, and as such, they're willing to sell cheap(er). While it's easier than ever for an artist to make money from their work, it's also probably harder than ever for that same artist to make a living from that same work. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? Depends who you ask. Personally, I'm a firm believer that the economy is (ideally) the best indicator, so I'd say that the average artist who is upset at not making a living wage from their art is simply out of touch with reality.

Any profit-oriented business will pay as little and charge as much as they can get away with. In case of a joint-stock company they're even obliged to, anything less could be considered breach of fiduciary duty. That's free market capitalism for you. There are only three effective measures against a situation like this: customers' boycott, organising the work force, or legislative regulation.

Are you willing to forgo all FFG products until they've remedied the issue? Or, are you just one more pitiable SW addict like we others?

I read this article to my wife, and she said, "so are you going to stop buying Star Wars products from them?" And I was quiet and then said "... no."

the sad truth

Just as a person involved with an actual artist. (My brother is a professional artist of several mediums)

Firstly, Unless you are Really well known/sought after, The majority (99%) of artists out there do not Freelance full time. They do it on the side and have a real job to put food on the table. If they happen to work for some one as an artist, Bonus!

My brother happens to have always gotten a job with companies as n in house Artist. He does his Freelancing on the side.

Now, I am not saying he gets Paid $100 a piece for commission work, But that is, of course, Commission work, so in those cases, companies are coming to him and asking him for something specific.

Now he does a lot of extra stuff, Just because he enjoys it. the Majority of this art will go unsold and he will not make any thing for that work at all.

Unless He submits it in "lots" to places looking for random art of certain kinds.

Now In these cases we are not talking about massive full sized canvas pieces, 2 foot sculptures, or the like, At most, the majority of these are in the 8x10 size for drawings and paintings, and small sculpts. But he does get offers for random work he has done, and beyond his real job and the commission work he gets, this is just extra pocket change he gets for stuff that likely might never sell otherwise.

It is similar in the Photography business. Now yes, Some might say that photography is not as intensive and time involved as painting or drawing, Though some photographers might disagree as they have a lot more Physical equipment costs, travel to locals and so forth, in order to obtain pictures that a News agency or publishing company (mainly magazines) might have. But they tend to submit 'lots' of photos of things they feel a publisher might want. Then they get paid minimally for these photos, that were never commissioned, and might never get paid anything for in the first place otherwise.

They Have Commission jobs .. Or a Regular day job to make their living by, and sell all the extra stuff, they do in their free time, for a lot cheaper, to make a little extra on what may never actually sell otherwise.

Does it feel Right? Hell no. But when you compare it to getting nothing at all for work you were never asked/commissioned to do in the first place? it is better than nothing.

It is the way such industries work.

Once you get famous and People Seek after your art, That is when you will be able to ask/demand more for your 'extras'. But in those cases, you also won't be likely selling your art to small press companies like FFG.

Companies like FFG only pay larger amounts for Cover work and the like. Filler art for the interior, they are not going to pay much for, otherwise it would end up being either very little art or no art at all.

Talk to Larry Elmore some time, One of the Foremost artists in the RPG industry right now. He doesn't do much in the way of Filler art anymore. He does Cover art, by Commission. But even he has a hard time making a living doing it that way anymore, as RPG companies can't afford to make books and pay much for art in said books. Elmore also has the Pull now to Get a royalty on such commissions. your average every day artist, Like my brother (who has done and still does do both interior and cover art for published books, he has contacts with several publishers) can't demand royalties, because there is always another artist out there willing to do it for whats offered.

Fortunately my brother has a job with a Company, a good paying job doing art work for them, This allows him the freedom to pick and choose his side commissions as well as do other stuff he just wants to do, even though he may never get paid a dime for it.

The reality, in the end, about the starving artist?

If an artist is relying only on freelance work to live off of, doesn't have another job to provide his living, or isn't really sought after for commission work, Then yes he is going to be a starving artist by choice.

#1 there are just way to many artists out there for the average artist to be 'picky' about what he is being paid for non-commissioned work.

#2 The RPG industry itself is to small and to niche to be able to afford to pay more per interior piece. Likely not much more for Cover art either.

#3 if an artist is Lucky, He will become known to those fans who see his art in books, and seek after him on the web to buy his 'extras' or Prints of his work. Selling Prints is more likely to get a somewhat or barely known artist more for a single Piece than he will get by selling the original to a Company.

You want to help those artists out? Feel they should have gotten more for their works? Find out who they are and donate, or buy some of their prints.

$100 for a full painting? I get more than that, working for private customers, doing character lineart commissions(well, 4 or more characters at least gets me to $100 or above). And I have charged way more for the few commercial jobs I have done and so do all other pro artists I know. That is kind of why I find it hard to believe that pro artists would sell them selves so low when they easily could get a lot more from most customers. And yes they can! I do freelance jobs and commissions too. $100 for a full painting is the most unrealistic thing I have heard and very unlikely. If this is an internship or a noob catching a break and getting a chance to be hired by the company later, then maybe I can start to believe it. The artice itself may be faulty.

Any profit-oriented business will pay as little and charge as much as they can get away with. In case of a joint-stock company they're even obliged to, anything less could be considered breach of fiduciary duty. That's free market capitalism for you. There are only three effective measures against a situation like this: customers' boycott, organising the work force, or legislative regulation.

Are you willing to forgo all FFG products until they've remedied the issue? Or, are you just one more pitiable SW addict like we others?

On the flip side of this, Are you also Willing to pay $100 or more per book? If you knew the artists were getting paid more per piece? Most/many RPG players balk already at the 60 per core and $30 per supplement.

\

I get more than that, working for private customers, doing character lineart commissions. That is kind of why I find it hard to believe that pro artists would sell them selves so low when they easily could get a lot more from most customers. And yes they can! I do freelance jobs and commissions too. $100 for a full painting is the most unrealistic thing I have heard and very unlikely. If this is an internship or a noob catching a break and getting a chance to be hired by the company later, then maybe I can start to believe it. The artice itself may be faulty.

#1 Your getting Sought Commissions.. Some one asking you to do a specific piece of art... I would Hope you get more than $100 for a commission.

#2 Most Freelance art, piece meal art for book interiors, are not full sized paintings. I say most, as Some companies will buy a full Sized Painting then Cut/Edit is up (not literally cut) to use as multiple pieces.

#3 most art like this is not a Hiring Job or a commission, It is the company making it known they are looking for art, you submit a series of pieces and the publisher makes you an offer for the pieces they want and for how much.

#4 that being said, My brother has taken some "Free lance" commissions, But again, Then it is a Commission for specifc work, and he gets paid more. Not a submission of random piece meal work.

It makes a difference.

Without sources, there are many possibilities of what's really going.

$100 could be the 'opening bid' FFG or other companies approach artists with. If an artist is savvy, he might negotiate for better work, but freelancers with poor business sense (or a devil may care mentality) may jump on the chance without thinking, or reject the offer without realizing negotiation is on the table, leaving with the impression that FFG is trying to cheat them.

Shady business doesn't surprise me, but neither does people doing stuff because they're ignorant. Both are possibilities, but it really just boils down to 'same old, same old' to me.

Some reasons they would be willing to work on the cheap can be about subject. For an aspiring artist right now to get their name attached to a great piece of commercial work related to Star Wars is nothing but a good move professionally.

All of the other video games, movies, shows, toys yet to come, all of those art directors are looking at material each other are using and the artists they are employing. I'm sure at some some level it all gets viewed in the House of the Mouse as well, and when you think about where this IP is headed over the next decade knocking out that stand out piece of artwork could be like spending a buck on a lottery ticket for an artist.

There are other reasons as well, like maybe they're huge Star Wars fans and just want to do it for fun. The art directors might be really nice and easy to work with at FFG. Lots of reasons.

$100 for a full painting? I get more than that, working for private customers, doing character lineart commissions(well, 4 or more characters at least gets me to $100 or above).

So...in which book that I can pull off a Barnes & Noble shelf can I see these works of yours? Ultimately, this is economics. Your (more) highly paid commission was worth more to your private buyer than one piece of interior art (among dozens, if not hundreds) is worth to a publisher on a budget. That's just the facts.

That is kind of why I find it hard to believe that pro artists would sell them selves so low when they easily could get a lot more from most customers.

So wait, now you're changing gears. Are we still talking about the "starving freelancer" that we're supposed to pity, or are we switching to the "well known industry leading pro" who is now somehow working for next to nothing? Surely you're seeing the disconnect here. You can't have it both ways on a hypothetical like that. If they're a well paid professional, they're not starving. Also, it's worth considering that maybe the reason that these "scabs and scrubs" (which an optimist might call "aspiring amateurs") are getting their pieces picked up like this as opposed to the more successful artists is because those pros are passing on the opportunity to draw for a company that can't afford them.

The artice itself may be faulty.

To be fair, it's a blog.

Assuming the author is not being intentionally dishonest, it would stand to reason that he's picking the extremes of the various ranges of numbers as they suit his point (as is his right, and one must give him credit for taking a more editorial tone on the piece as well).

In the photography world, there's even more bitterness than this guy brings to the table, and I've literally seen instances where "professional photographers" have taken amateurs (who take jobs for low pay) for "killing the industry", "ruining their livelihood", and in one case so extreme as to be silly, the guy even said these amateurs were "ripping food out of the mouths of my children".

The response to those cases is the same as the response to this one: if you want to make more money that most, you have to be able to deliver what most cannot. You've got to be better, work faster, be unique, or have some other advantage that sets you apart. At this point, the "average" artist is a pretty talented, but unpaid hobbyist with a DA account. The "average" artist is going to do a piece for FFG at the price they're offering. Any change to any variable in this situation must be offset by another change in another variable. You want the price to be significantly higher than the going rate? That artist better be significantly more talented than the average artist AND there must be a need for art of that level.

If any artist is upset at amateurs undercutting their business, that's an implicit admission that they don't bring anything to the table (that the buyer wants) that said amateur does not.

Personally and subjectively, I think that rants of this sort reek of entitlement. The author of the piece seems to feel that, regardless of what society and the economy dictates, an artist should be able to make a comfortable living by freelancing. That's not necessarily problematic, but when he extends that opinion to the point of shaming other players for not suiting his vision, that's where it gets ridiculous. Why should an artist be able to make that comfortable living? Maybe if they relocated to a country with a significantly lower cost of living, that $26K figure *would* be enough. Maybe they should move there? In the other direction, how much money is enough? Should a freelance artist be making enough to live on the Upper East Side in a penthouse apartment? Should they be able to support a spouse, own a house, and raise 4 kids on what an artist "should" make? Is six-figures enough?

For that matter, take the girl that comes to my favorite local watering hole on Thursday nights and plays keyboard and sings. She might be making $100 per night with a gig like that, and she's good! Why shouldn't she be making enough to support herself doing that? Ultimately, pricing is determined by need, costs, and competition. If she didn't come sing, someone else would...or nobody would, and the regulars would still be there buying beers, and the world would keep turning. There's a lot of competition, little need, and beyond the cost of the keyboard, there's no real cost associated with the performance, so she's really in a poor position to argue for more money. Doesn't mean that the bar owner is lowballing her, that's just what he's willing to pay for a gig. If her name was Taylor Swift, I'm sure he could find a bit more budget, but at that point, there's absolutely no competition at all...there are no other Taylor Swifts out there to come sing at his bar.

It's so much the same with artists. You think $100 for a piece of filler art in a book for a niche market is insulting? Don't take it. Someone else will be along.

Blame the digital age. Blame China. Blame Eastern Europe. Blame Russia. It may not be right but artists are competing in a global economy and with the rise of the digital medium, the payouts have plummeted. I have a friend who is very well established in the business and has been for 20+ years, and he says there is no way he could start out and duplicate his success in this time.

Not the same medium, but photography is the same way. 10-ish years ago you could make some pretty good money with Stock Photography. Nowendays, with everyone and their phone thinking they are a 'photographer', you're lucky to make a hundred bucks a quarter. My stuff on Getty gets me enough to buy a pizza and some film every other month.

My assumption is that $100 is the lowest they will go and that it's a published rate somewhere. As the artwork's size and quality goes up the payment will go up as well. FFG probably doesn't want to publish their full payment rates because they'll still want to negotiate some and not want to have it set in stone.

I have a problem with him stating that they pull in tens of milliions of revenue annually. Where is he getting that number? Is that based on judging what MSRP should be bringing in or does FFG publish how much money they are making? Is FFG really that big?

Either way, at least they are paying somethign. Will Wheaton recently recived an offer of "free exposure" from the Huffington Post. Now that's an even bigger outrage.

The point still remain though. Artists (writers, creative folks) should be paid what they are worth. It's usually up to the artist to make sure they make decent money. They need to have the backbone to negotiate and walk away from bad jobs. That is good advice.

Either way, at least they are paying somethign. Will Wheaton recently recived an offer of "free exposure" from the Huffington Post. Now that's an even bigger outrage.

Surprised HuffPo didn't just hotlink what they wanted.