Posts
"I am responsible for the content in the Art Licensing Art News Magazine. My daughter Jennifer Nixon (Editor In Chief) and I (Graphic Designer), collaborated with Art Licensing agents with some of the featured stories in the magazine and our intent was simply to let everyone out there know about Art Licensing and their managment staff, and to showcase many of their artist's artwork. We had NO intentions of impling that Art Licensing International were using this publication to take advantage of artists. They have never done that to me or any other artist I know. Simply the magazine was intended to celebrate their artist and the artist's work. I'd like to address the "fine print" statement in the magazine. It should have never been written and I apologize for publishing the magazine with a legal statement that was not reviewed by a legal professional. It was a stupid mistake on my behalf. I take full responsiblity of the mistake and I am sorry it caused such an uproar."
You can read Jenny Newland's full post in the below comment section of this article.
Note: As is the case for submitting material to any publisher, artists who are considering submitting material to ALAN are still advised to carefully read and make sure that they understand the submission rules posted in the magazine before submitting any materials.
Below is an edited version of the original article.
This first issue of Art Licensing Art News features ALI artists and SURTEX news and plan in future editions to have articles on what is going on in the art world, what is hot and what is not. On page 8, they are soliciting magazine readers for articles of their own story, photo, recipe, tip or other submission. BUT, make sure that you read the entire submission guidelines. The section called "The fine print" states that "By submitting material for publication, you grant Art Licensing Art News, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners and licensees use of all material, including your name, hometown and state. We may modify, reproduce and distribute it in any medium and in any manner or appropriate place. We may contact via phone, e-mail or mail regarding your submission."
I interpret the statement to mean that you give ALAN broad rights to use your submitted material, including any artwork shown to illustrate articles, in any manner it chooses. It also gives ALAN the right to change and reproduce anything submitted and to use anything in the submission for any of their own purposes.
After viewing "The fine print" submission statement, intellectual property attorney David Koehser who practices in art and design licensing stated, "Based on the statement, anyone submitting work is granting the recipient a nonexclusive license to reproduce and distribute the submitted work, without restriction. This could include reproduction and distribution in print, electronically, on merchandise, in advertising (for the magazine or for other goods or services) or otherwise. The recipient (ALAN) also gets the nonexclusive right to modify the work, so they could make any changes that they choose to make, including deleting elements, changing colors, adding other material, changing the meaning or message, etc. This grant of rights is nonexclusive, so the artist would remain free to grant the same rights on a nonexclusive basis to others, but in reality no one is likely to be interested in licensing works under a nonexclusive license, especially if those works have already been published elsewhere and if the prior licensee has what essentially amounts to an unrestricted license to use and re-use the works."
Your comments are welcome. Please click on the comments section (below) to write your comment.
There are some interesting comments posted about this article. Make sure that you read them.
An art licensing magazine that's has a policy that takes advantage of artist's licensing rights.
ReplyDeleteHow ironic is that?
Too bad,.. They could have been a real contender!
Thank you for the warning, Joan. You are serving licensors well by calling attention to what appears to be a free art grab.
ReplyDeleteYes, according to the submission guidelines it does appear that the magazine Art Licensing Art News is taking advantage of artists licensing rights. But some of the dialog appearing on Facebook's Art of Licensing public forum feels that the guidelines are just poorly written and is not meant to take away artists rights. I sure hope so and that "the fine print" section in the submission guidelines will be rewritten.
ReplyDelete"Just poorly written" is bad professional practice, they need to get their act together.
ReplyDeletesu
Wow, Joan, Thanks again for keeping us informed. It's hard to believe, that an art licensing magazine would have a policy like this. Hopefully it's a mistake.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has been in the business of licensing as long as the publisher of this magazine clearly understands the content of the language published. There is no misunderstanding. This business is, for the most part, a joy to be a part of. However, there are always those in any industry who seek to take advantage. Joan, I'm sure I speak for many when I say thank you for being a 'Watch Dog' in this case.
ReplyDeleteKimberly Montgomery, Montage Licensing
Kimberly, your comments make perfect sense. Good for you, the artists you represent and the business of art licensing, which you so obviously respect.
DeleteI agree with you too, Kimberly. Like I said on LinkedIn, If ALI has simply "poorly written" the guidelines, then a BIG SAME ON YOU ALI.
DeleteKimberly, your comments make perfect sense. Good for you, the artists you represent and the business of art licensing, which you so obviously respect.
ReplyDeleteThanks Joan for the valuable insights, and thanks also to Kimberly for stepping up and speaking her truth. I find your honesty, and sincerity very admirable.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I've learned in the fifteen odd years I've been posting in discussion groups on the internet is that nothing really ever changes. Having moderated and owned a discussion forum back in the day when I still had the time and stomach for it, some things are as inevitable as the sun rising in the morning.
ReplyDeleteWhen anything is written about in a way that can make someone vulnerable to criticism, I can guarantee you'll find a gaggle of geese gasping, pointing and whispering about evil intents and unsavory conspiracies, the pile-on being no different than what kids in high school do when they sense vulnerability---they attack in mini mobs. I've been reading and moderating this kind of stuff for years. You have the anonymous cowards taking their mealy-mouthed little potshots and running. You have those with agendas (like a corporate competitor who could not possibly be even a little objective) taking a nice, heady swing that must have made her day. You have those who vehemently distrust perhaps corporations in general and agents in particular. You have the thumbs up cheerleading squad on Facebook. And then you have artists who, because of some unfortunate experiences with agents, believe in their hearts that an agent's very existence demands collusion with Satan himself; the drool runs from agents' mouths as they illegally and unethically and gobble up vulnerable artist royalties without a smidgen of compensation.
I won't defend the dumb, overwritten, over the top legalese that comprise those magazine submission guidelines. Attorneys are famous for that kind of overkill. There's a reason Shakespeare wanted to kill all lawyers; in this case, both the attorney who wrote the guidelines and the other who commented on them tossed common sense out the window in favor of sacrosanct legalese. To even suggest that a man with over 300 artists and more clamoring to get in, in business since 1987 with some of the biggest client names through the US and around the world, would open himself up to lawsuits that he'd most certainly lose--not to mention sullying a reputation that would look like London after the Blitz--so he would be able to "steal" art he doesn't need to benefit a non-income producing, feel-good company little online magazine, is nothing less than absurd.
Nobody here knows Jack Appelman, but I do. My husband and I have sat across a table from him more than once. We've visited his facility, we know his staff. The man has been nothing but forthright and ethical in every single interaction we've ever had. He opened the books to my husband---who didn't know what he was doing and didn't even know what to ask to see--and volunteered to show not only the books, but the original contracts between his company and the clients so my husband could compare the two should he so choose. Once, out of anger, I held up a new, rather large contract because the company wouldn't deliver promised samples for past contracts. Some people would consider this insane, and maybe it was--but I was mad. Jack never said a word, just had his team work quietly in the background while the client, one of his biggest, threatened never to work with me again. Ultimately, they caved with both the samples and continued to work with me. Any other business owner with that much on the line would have called screaming to ask me what the hell I was thinking.
Most importantly, Jack Appelman knew where I wanted to go with my career in licensing, and he made it happen. He signed me on potential alone--he found me at a time when I had absolutely nothing that could be considered even slightly viable for licensing. I couldn't be more thrilled with the trajectory of my career and the knowledge that my work is shoved into the faces of the most powerful clients in the world.
This is my own honest experience, and, unlike too many of the comments I have read, my opinion is rooted in a truthful reality.
Mindy Sommers
Hi Mindy,
DeleteI am in total agreement with you on this subject. I'm Jenny Newland the featured artist in the Art Licensing Art News Magazine. I have been contracted with Jack Appelman since 1995 and I can tell you that he has always been honest and a trust worthy person. My career in art has blossomed into a successful business because of Jack Appelman.
The "fine print" in the magazine does not refer to any original artwork only shared stories, photos, recipes, or questions. It never mentions original artwork at all.
This magazine in simply ment to celebrate Art Licensing's Artists and their Artwork. It's not intended to mislead or take advantage of anyone.
My only hope is that everyone get their facts straight first before jumping to conclusions.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Jenny Newland
Artist
I don't know any of the people at ALI, and because of that I am posting anonymously - not because I am a "coward." Who I am has nothing to do with the point I want to make, which is this: Anecdotes and stories about knowing someone personally and believing them to be honorable is nice to read about, but it has nothing to do with the reasons for signing contracts. Contracts are for when things go BAD. Contracts are written to protect people when the relationship between you sours, not for everyday happy, shiny business. If a contract is badly written, it is badly written. If it protects the agency and deals the artist out of the equation, that speaks volumes as to how that agency views artists, especially the kind of inexperienced artist most likely to submit to a magazine of this kind. That is the truthful reality.
ReplyDeleteHi, my name is Jenny Newland and I am an artist represented by Art Licensing International. I am responsible for the content in the Art Licensing Art News Magazine. My daughter Jennifer Nixon (Editor In Chief) and I (Graphic Designer), collaborated with Art Licensing agents with some of the featured stories in the magazine and our intent was simply to let everyone out there know about Art Licensing and their managment staff, and to showcase many of their artist's artwork. We had NO intentions of impling that Art Licensing International were using this publication to take advantage of artists. They have never done that to me or any other artist I know. Simply the magazine was intended to celebrate their artist and the artist's work. I'd like to address the "fine print" statement in the magazine. It should have never been written and I apologize for publishing the magazine with a legal statement that was not reviewed by a legal professional. It was a stupid mistake on my behalf. I take full responsiblity of the mistake and I am sorry it caused such an uproar.
ReplyDeleteMy own experience with Jack Appelman and his staff has been a very positive one. He has represented me for 25 years. He has always been upfront and forthcoming about all deals and I know in my heart that my career would not have happened without his help.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope this will clear the air about this matter.
It's big of you to set things straight and apologize, Jenny.
DeleteThank you, Jenny.
DeleteWe, artist, tend to get lazy...with the fine print. We all need reminders, thanks Joan.
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess some might have enjoyed getting their digs in while they could. So much jumping to conclusions and huffiness...
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading this publication, which is a very well-done, well-written and otherwise impressive promotional magazine for one company, Applejack Art Partners, newly reconstituted and renamed after bankruptcy as Art Licensing International.
ReplyDeleteI recall when Jack Appelman purchased the domain artlicensing.com many years ago and essentially put it aside for a rainy day, having people who clicked on that domain be shunted automatically to Applejack. Jack has one of the first and longest-running art licensing agencies in the United States, and while this incarnation is apparently run by Jack's son Matt, the publication shows Jack's genius for publicity and promotion.
The trouble I have with this publication is that its title is confusing, as is the new name of the company when "International" is dropped from promotions, as it often is. That gives the apparency that "Art Licensing" is where you go for, well, art licensing.
While that title and usage got the Appelman's first place in the art licensing category on Google - a choice spot guaranteed to bring in business and attract artists - it seems to be saying that all the other "stuff" (my agency, dozens and dozens of other agencies, and many hundreds of individual artists who are indeed engaged in art licensing, small letters) just aren't involved in Art Licensing (capital letters).
This confusion extends to the comments on Joan's excellent blog posting as well as to the comments on LinkedIn about this magazine. But all should know that unless this "magazine" truly promotes the works of all artists from whatever agencies and represents all of the field of art licensing (small letters), then it's simply and only a well-presented promotional publication for Art Licensing International, the Vermont-based licensing agency.
As of this date, there are three publications that focus on the field of art licensing and have substance and impact. They all three happen to be British, and include The Art Buyer, Total Art Licensing, and the Art & Design Licensing Sourcebook. All are fine publications with very good articles, impartial coverage of our industry, and sufficient advertising from artists and agencies to present a vibrant picture of the art licensing industry.
If at some point the Appelman publication does include those attributes, then we'll have four such publications, but right now we have the three above, and one promotional piece that sort of looks like a magazine but is instead a dedicated promotion for the artists of one company alone.
Adding to the confusion which Lance explained so well, is something else. Before looking further, readers of the magazine may wonder, because the large, bold title Art News dominates the cover, if there's a connection to ARTnews, the most widely read art magazine in the world.
DeleteJoan - Thank you for the follow-up. I'm also a published author so I've been reading the fine print for years. I'm glad that you presented this information to artists.
ReplyDelete