Jump to content

💙 HEAVY METAL LOVER T-SHIRT 💚

Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram
celeb

Billie Eilish under fire for free labour fan art contest


Teletubby

Featured Posts

moonsago

Are you guys okay? You pay for someone’s services which once fulfilled and paid for there is no reason why they should be continously compansated for... she is selling this merch for a set period of time not forever, just like how you working for any company and designing and creating for them pays you your montly salary for the work done not portion of the profit, like what is so hard to understand and not okay about that? This is such a reach, please... and I am an artist myself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Judas Oyster

It says only the WINNER design they will own.

The winner gets 10.000 $ by making BILLIE EILISH ARTWORK (I mean, who else are they gonna sell the artwork to if they make it about Billie...). It's not like they are taking all their artwork forever. They also get Adobe packs to have even better tools to keep making graphic art.

They get a once in a lifetime achievement in their CV, I mean Imagine being a graphic designer hustling and now you can prove you designed something for one of the biggest artist these days.

I mean, it's a win-win. Bet these people complaining aren't getting paid 10.000 $ + dollars and having the chance to get Billie Eilish under their work profile, for their work (sorrynotsorry). Just join if you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

chun li

I remember making an Alejandro fan art for an official Lady Gaga contest on her website and the winner has never been announced lmao such a waste of time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judas Oyster
4 hours ago, andy232000 said:

I dont know if I understood 100% correctly, but how is this different from the way designing for any company works? 

The contract states that every entry has to renounce to their rights if they are picked as the grand prize. I think the section highlighted in green is creating confusion, making it seem like ALL entries belong to Billie. But just before it, it states that each entrant (unless the grand prize winner) retains ownership. So I think its just a ways of saying that if you win, you have to agree to all those things, but ONLY if you win. 
 

if thats the case, then the winner would get payed $10,000 in exchange for art and rights of distribution. Idk it doesnt seem that bad considering that most designer create logos for other companies everyday and end up selling them too. At the end of the day the logo belongs to the company who is paying for it. Also, if you participate in this contest you are also responsible for knowing the rules 

Now, if I misunderstood this and in reality Billie IS in fact getting rights to ALL entries, then yes all of this is ****ed up. But I have my doubts regarding the people who slammed this have painted it to the public

 

EDIT: Apparently that whole section is made to be confusing and it IS shady as hell. If you do not win, you can still use and own your artwork BUT Billie can use it too and modify it at will without you getting money for it. Id you win, you get the grand prize but cannot use your artwork anymore

I read the writing as remain the right STILL of the WINNERs artwork. By the power to edit I understand it was if for example the artists signature is on it. Or for example the logo of something, or for example Taco Bell logo on it or something relating to third party, that it will be removed by Sponsor.

What made you rethink it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

StarstruckIllusion

Did anyone actually read that paragraph? The fact that Billie owns all entries she gets is blatantly false - it’s literally the second sentence. All that green highlight says is that she’s free to essentially make edits of them - but not revenue fortunately. If her team were to make designs off of them, they could be sued for it.

She’ll only own what the winners will create, and while a $10k prize is cute, they should give out royalties at the same time frame as Billie gets them - aka as long as the merch is on sale. Adobe can definitely afford it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karlillosz
5 hours ago, Kimmo said:

We been knew… artist do this so they can afford their mansion and luxurious life…

I mean you know the rules is up to you to decide if you want to compete or not.. 

In one hand you get exposure for your work so there’s that as well… 

Is like if I’m applying for a job and they tell me I can only get paid in prizes and I won’t own my work, the company will… then I take the job and complain for the way I’m getting “paid”… :partysick:

Just don’t compete and let her flop or teach them a lesson or compete and STFU!!!! 

i get your point

 

maybe they got called out this time

because  its just unfair to be doing this still and get away with it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karlillosz

for this is like your out of ideas for your merch

of course they gonna pick the best drawing because they want to see who has a vision a style they cancopy

Link to post
Share on other sites

andy232000
1 hour ago, Judas Oyster said:

I read the writing as remain the right STILL of the WINNERs artwork. By the power to edit I understand it was if for example the artists signature is on it. Or for example the logo of something, or for example Taco Bell logo on it or something relating to third party, that it will be removed by Sponsor.

What made you rethink it?

I read on twitter that if you submit an entry you can retain rights to ownership (as in, its still your artwork and you can sell it, do whatever you want with it) BUT, so does Billie, as she gets a distribution right when you enter the contest. She just doesnt OWN it like yours, but she can still use it. The winner tho, they cant even use it beyond the contest as they do in fact loose ownership in exchange for the prize. Its also just hella sketchy that they are getting hundredths of work without actually paying what would cost to design so many artworks (but that practice is more common in many companies) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now y’all know she did that with good Intentions. But yeah, the record companies should be paying artists for this stuff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defmix100
14 hours ago, Robinladen said:

Wasnt it won by a Katy Perry fan

I think it was then taken away from them

Link to post
Share on other sites

berlinforme
19 hours ago, Togekiss said:

I’m sure, but Gaga’s not slapping that art on a $10 dollar tee and selling it for $65 unless I’m missing something

She might not be doing that specifically but let's not pretend the quality of that overpriced chromatica merch was great. :wtfga:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...