Yeah, she got roped into that one once, paid an 'art studio' or something some cash to present her work, they made some words about 'it is highly likely some will sell', nothing did unfortunately.
I hope she finds a home on steem it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Young and naive musicians face this a lot as well. The pay to play model.
Yeah I don't know if it's a very good thing at all.
The places that show such art have a requirement for the artists, not the other way around, it seems backwards for the artist/performer to pay.
Writers do too. Everything that can be exploited will be exploited by one person or another. The thing that artists of all breed must try to avoid are those that, while exploiting, don't have any intention of sales or exposure. Those are the ones that give the entire lot of them a black eye.
It's all in the turn-of-phrase at that point, all about the gimmick where they can say "we never made any promises of sale." I'd love to see people like that have to back up their "likely"s with "if they don't sell, you will be refunded" such-and-such. That's what I'd like to see. I think if I were a curator or some such, I would do just that and offer to give back the money if nothing sells.
The publishing company I went through, I would not have if the contract did not stipulate that I get all profits until the money I paid in is refunded, then they only take 20 cents or something like that.
What you set up sounds good to me.
I just dislike the whole thing of being able to vaguely word things and get away with murder, and case in point the artist suffers from an intellectual impairment and I feel like there is potential they took advantage of her.
Makes me angry as hell.
Definitely. I know there is something called the 'Lemon Law' here in the states for car sales where, if you take it home and there's such-and-such wrong (I don't know all the details) you can return it to the owner and get your money back... at least, that's how I've heard it.
I also think there are some things in that same vein that can be done about people taking advantage of the intellectually impaired. Is there nothing she could do or have someone do to get her money back as she was taken advantage?
I guess, in the end, it would be difficult to prove.
if you pay to get in you invalidate the incentive that the organiser slash curator has to sell.
they've already been paid.
Only made that mistake once, but it was expensive and hard won lesson
I have later made several variations on the same mistake, as befits my creative nature
:)
Hahaha you are hilarious, I'm looking at my comment feed and you've been nailing it.
Yeah, I really don't think it is a quality way to encourage further development of the artist, not only does it encourage sameness because everyone emulates that which sells, but it discourages you because you pay to create, pay to have it seen, and pay in emotions when it doesn't work out.
Thanks for visiting, much loves and respects. <3