[Icommons] Pixish

Fred Benenson fred.benenson at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 09:32:59 EDT 2008


News for those of you who were interested in this thread: Pixish is closing
on Oct 31st.

Here's the post-mortem:

http://powazek.com/posts/1370

F


On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Fred Benenson <fred.benenson at gmail.com>wrote:

> Interesting response. Happy to hear they are working on clearing up the
> rights issues. It might be a good place for CC.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the responses. I'm not totally clued into spec work so
> pardon the naivete..
>
>
>
>>>
>>> The problem with spec work is that it's exploitative. If there is a tight
>>> market for different graphical sorts of services, then certain either
>>> clueless or bad actors can exploit it to their advantage. Who wouldn't want
>>> to choose 10 different designs for absolutely free when creating a new web
>>> site? But that leaves 9 out of 10 designers (or even 10 out of 10) pounding
>>> the pavement once again with absolutely no reward for whatever labor they
>>> put into it. Just because there are desperate people willing to be a sucker
>>> doesn't make it proper for people to exploit them.
>>>
>>
> Proper / ethical, perhaps, but unfortunately markets don't work like that.
> I think that if the artist can make an informed decision and be privy to the
> terms of the commission, fully understand those terms, and then chooses to
> go ahead, then its all the better.
>
> Think of it this way: suppose there weren't suckers in this world, then
> would you be OK with this site? Arguably Pixish hopes to develop a
> reputation so that anyone using the site will fully understand the
> consequences of their actions and will act rationally. In a way, one of the
> promises of the Internet is to offer enough information to level the playing
> field in these circumstances (for example: Pixish develops a reputation of
> brokering bad deals for artists, or the converse happens) and removing
> information asymmetries.
>
> The interesting part is that if Pixish is based on the premise of spec
> work, and everyone still hates spec work (e.g. they don't make the deal any
> sweeter) then the situation might take care of itself. However, if they
> present it in such a way that makes spec work work for more people, I still
> don't see the harm?
>
> Maybe its because I'm not familiar enough with the evils of spec work to be
> steadfastly against it, but I'm willing to let this play out a bit more
> before I call it evil.
>
>
>
>
>
> F
>
> On Feb 12, 2008 12:15 PM, T. Whid <twhid at twhid.com> wrote:
>
>> Just following up on this...
>>
>> The creator of Pixish has responded to the spec work criticisms here:
>> http://pixish.com/news/3
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2008 4:10 PM, T. Whid <twhid at twhid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2008 2:43 PM, Fred Benenson <fred.benenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting site -- I suppose the reason spec work exists is because
>>>> people will actually do it, so if they're trying to tackle that market /
>>>> demand, then more power to them.
>>>
>>>
>>> First, Hi Fred, nice to hear from you :-)
>>>
>>> The problem with spec work is that it's exploitative. If there is a tight
>>> market for different graphical sorts of services, then certain either
>>> clueless or bad actors can exploit it to their advantage. Who wouldn't want
>>> to choose 10 different designs for absolutely free when creating a new web
>>> site? But that leaves 9 out of 10 designers (or even 10 out of 10) pounding
>>> the pavement once again with absolutely no reward for whatever labor they
>>> put into it. Just because there are desperate people willing to be a sucker
>>> doesn't make it proper for people to exploit them.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its nasty to think of Art art (with a capital A) as being made on spec
>>>> (aren't we supposed to be moving away from patronage?) but this seems like a
>>>> reasonable development with respect to design media.
>>>
>>>
>>> The funny thing is most Art art (fine art) is made on spec. But it's
>>> different as one has no client's requirements to fulfill. It's in the
>>> commercial art field where it's problematic.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I have to agree that the "newbies win prizes" attitude is a little
>>>> disingenuous -- they should make it clear that the site is essentially about
>>>> spec work rather than anything else. I'm also curious why they don't have a
>>>> payment system of sorts implemented -- almost all the prizes are "goodies"
>>>> or "some cash" and Pixish has taken themselves out of the loop, it seems.
>>>>
>>>> Which may be a smart idea -- resolving user disputes over cash
>>>> transactions (especially when you are an intermediary) can take an
>>>> inordinate amount of time and effort and it may subject them to liability.
>>>>
>>>> What's also not clear is what happens with the copyright of works --
>>>> none of the guidelines I could find stipulate who ends up owning the work
>>>> after the deal is brokered, and I can't figure out if there are any
>>>> contracts involved. This might be a good case for CC -- if commissioner and
>>>> artist can both agree the work is to be licensed under CC (BY or SA or
>>>> whatever) then it might make the whole thing feel a lot more equitable.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the community that will arise out of this will be closer
>>>> to a competitive market of artists all creating similar designs and only one
>>>> being chosen.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand it may be enabling more semi-(pseudo? non?)-artists to
>>>> enter the market. This is nothing new and is almost never a bad development.
>>>>
>>>> A question I have: will this site (or those like it) actually increase
>>>> the perceived injustice in spec work? Or will it bring it to a level of
>>>> respectability?
>>>
>>>
>>> I can tell you that to professional designers, photographers and
>>> illustrators spec is anathema. They hate it and see people who do it as the
>>> enemy. I think in some professions it's accepted -- advertising and
>>> architecture come to mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If commissioner and artist are both happy with a transaction brokered by
>>>> Pixish, what is the harm? In other words I don't see any objection to a site
>>>> that matches people with workers who want to essentially volunteer their
>>>> time for prizes. Its a strange way to make a buck, but sites like
>>>> iStockPhoto are very popular among photographers looking to make money on
>>>> their work.
>>>
>>>
>>> The harm is that it drives down the market for everyone. Of course there
>>> are two sides to that. But for someone trying to extract a living from that
>>> market it can be very bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really don't see the site as a place for Art art so much as design --
>>>> I can't imagine established "Art world" artists going for this, though I am
>>>> sure there are many graphic designers with some time on their hands that
>>>> might be interested in doing a job or two.
>>>>
>>>> This is all assuming of course, that the remunerations will actually
>>>> amount to something more than goodies and prizes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link,
>>>>
>>>> F
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 11, 2008 1:37 PM, T. Whid <twhid at twhid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would be interested in hearing what the icommons community thinks
>>>>> about this site:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://pixish.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> My thoughts are here if anyone is interested:
>>>>> http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/spec_ish.html
>>>>>
>>>>> My response above is a bit knee-jerk. I guess my main issue is that
>>>>> with cc and other commons-oriented projects, one's creativity isn't
>>>>> channeled in any way BEFORE the creation. A person creates as they wish and
>>>>> then can decide after to apply cc or public domain or whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>> This Pixish project attempts to set-up client/artist relationship with
>>>>> no promise of any renumeration to the artist other than some amorphous
>>>>> promise of 'community.' What gets me is the hierarchy that is implicit in
>>>>> this. Why would an artist subject themselves to this sort of thing without
>>>>> real benefit (economic or otherwise)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Whidden
>>>>> http://mtaa.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Icommons mailing list
>>>>> Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icommons mailing list
>> Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/icommons/attachments/20081027/72af8829/attachment.htm 


More information about the Icommons mailing list