I am so often asked to allow free use my artwork that it is obvious that some people
seem to think that this is how it should be. Many people seem to assume that art is
something that one merely does for pleasure, as a pastime or hobby. 'So why should we
pay?' they ask.
Let's take an example. A non-profit organisation contacts me to ask me to let them
use one of my images on a poster advertising, say, a scientific conference. They are
unwilling to pay, or unable to. In a situation such as this, I think to myself, what
then does this organisation actually pay for? Do they tell the company printing their
poster that, being a non-profit organisation, they have no funds to pay them? Do they
make a similar plead to the telephone company who rents them their phone line? Or to
the people supplying their gas and electricity? No, that would be absurd. But it is
perfectly acceptable for some such organisations to ask a working artist, making a
living from their art, to let them have their art for free. The way I see it, I
provide a service. I provide artwork that will liven up a poster, attracting
attention. Why my services should be provided freely while other service-providers
get paid is beyond me.
As a professional artist, I am troubled that providing free art devalues what we do.
When an artist does not charge a fee for her work, then it is often expected by
organisations that all artists should also provide work for free. So, to make a
statement and to avoid jeopardising the careers of my fellow artists, I charge a fee.
Artists have mortgages. They must buy fuel to heat their homes, food to feed their
families. Materials to make their art!
To conclude, while I am often willing to allow free usage of my work on, for example,
personal internet sites (with my permission in advance — see FAQ #1), there are other circumstances when I will expect
to be paid.
