As President of the San Francisco Society of Illustrators, I am writing to express our opposition to the abusive use of work-for-hire contracts between art buyers and freelance artists. It is our opinion that the work-for-hire clause is an unfair loophole in the 1978 Copyright Law. This clause was originally intended for specific instances wherein the artist is a contributor to a copyrighted work ie: artists working for or with Walt Disney Studios. With increasing frequency this clause is being applied to general free-lance commissions; thereby contradicting the intent of the (1978) Copyright Law often referred to as the "Creators Law".

In working under a work-for-hire contract the artist relinquishes any and all rights to the commissioned work. Legally, the artbuyer assumes the role of "creator", the artist then ceasing to exist. A work-for-hire contract leaves the door open for obvious usage abuses. A major factor in determining a fair price for a piece of artwork is the extent of it's use ie: local or national distribution, editorial or advertising market, re-run or reprinting of the book / ad, and intended size (importance).

Under such a contract an artist can, and has, found that a piece originally commissioned (and priced) as a minor work has been extensively used as a major visual ie: book cover, billboard. It's use may also been extended to an accompanying marketing and advertising campaign. Though the value of the artwork to the project has dramatically increased, the artbuyer is under no obligation to pay any additional money to the artist. Increasingly we are seeing that the artist is being penalized for doing work beyond the expectations of the artbuyer.

The work-for-hire contract is most predominant in the publishing industry. Characteristically this industry pays considerably less for artwork than advertising with it's higher money return. What isn't understandable is the demands, without negociation, insisted upon by many of the major publishers. For many illustrators, signing a work-forhire contraxt is mandatory to receive work from a publisher. In doing so the publisher receives the whole package of rights and control for an already low price. Illustrators have long enjoyed the less restrictive expression that publishing assignmentsoffer, but more and more artists are being forced to seek work elsewhere because of the work-forhire demands.

What the artists are asking for is the right to negotiate; to be paid in accordance with the use of the art. A workfor-hire contract is completly one-sided, needlessly instituted by an increasing number of art buyers. Most often the artists working under such a clause are doing so for survival in an already depressed economy. We are asking for a closer look at the work-for-hire clause, and a clear, fair definition of it's application.

Sincerely,

ARA. Ky the

John A Lytle

President, S.F.Society of Illustrators

BRACE (SF) IN JULY 1981.

THE 6 WAS SELECTED FOR

ONE OF

SOC. OF ILLUS. ANNUAL 23
IT WAS EXHIBITED IN NY UNTIL MAR '82 WHEN
MY REP IN N.Y. KIRCHOFF/WOHLBERG) REQUESTED
THAT THEY DISPLAY THE PIECES IN THEIR OFFICES.

IN MAY THE CREATIVE DIRECTOR SUSAN COULTON
CALLED SAYING SHE WANTED TO "MORGUE" THE
PIECE AND COULD SHE HAVE IT BACK. MY REP. HAD
TO WORK OUT A DEAL TO "BORROW" THE PIECE FOR
A YEAR. I DO SIGN WAH WHEN I GOT THE JOB.
I EXPRESSED as APPROVAL OF THEIR ATTITUDE (#BJ=)
BUT IN THE END WAS POWERLESS TO DO ANYTHING.

IT IN APRIL '82 / COMPLETED A JOB FOR

HOUGHTON

MIFFLIN (BOSTON). GOT JOB THROUGH MY REP IN N..
FINISHED BUT DIDN'T SIGN & RETURN THEIR

SEPARATE FROM

P.O. WAH FORMS.

I GOT PAIO

ANYWAY. THEY SENT ANOTHER JOB IN EARLY SEPT.
AND THIS TIME I CALLED AND SAIO I WOULDN'T SIGN
WAH, BUT THIS WAS A SYMBOLIC

PROTEST

TO THEIR ARROGANCE BUT REALIZEO I HAD NO
RECOURSE. THE ART DIRECTOR ARCHLY

1 OBJECTED

INFORMEO

MOST OF THEIR

I AM

BUT REALIZE

WORK IS THROUGH MY N.Y. REP. CUENTS ASK WORK FOR HIRE AND ALL THEY REALLY CONCENTRATE ON IS PUBLISHING, LOSING INTEREST FAST IN THIS MARKET I HAVE TO BITE THE BOLLET TILL I CREAK WITH KIRCHOFF WOHL BERG. ABOVE AND APPROVE of MY VERBAL OBJECTIONS HOPING THEREBY To PUT PRESSURE ON THEIR CLIENTS.

THEY KNOW OF

CASE II

Artists in Print

Fort Mason Center

San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 673 6941

September 23, 1982

Attn: Marty Kobren

Criminal Law Sub-Committee

Room 162

Russell Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

RE: WORK FOR HIRE SENATE BILL

Artists in Print is a non-profit membership organization for graphic artists. We are strongly opposed to the work for hire laws currently in practice.

Our organization, based in the Bay Area, serves over 1200 graphic artists throughout Northern California. A majority of our members are free lance artists, directly affected by the work for hire laws. These unfair laws put middle income artists in a financial and ethical bind. It is often hard, in such a competitive field, for the artist to turn down a paying job. However, accepting work for hire they are continually abused. For example:

1) Artists working usually on a low hourly rate have no control over publication of their work.

2) Publishers may reproduce the work without giving recognition to the artist.

3) Publishers may develop a large market profit that the artist does not share in.

4) There are no employee benefits available to the artist. With these conditions in practice, artists can enormously benefit their employers without recognition and only menial financial benefits.

In conjunction with the Graphic Artists Guild of New York and our own membership, we urge you to put a stop to these practices. We ask you to give the individual artists their rightful professional dignity and basic contractual control of their own work.