A few days ago, my great friend and esteemed illustrator Anita Kunz made a well-written reply on my blog regarding the Google issue.  I thought it was something that needed to be read by all so with Anita's permission, I am re-posting it here along with my comments.  First off, let me make it clear that Anita is one of my favourite people.  She's a great pal to me and I love her dearly.  She has done more to help me than any other illustrator I know (Anita taught me how to register my copyright and because of her, I have benefitted tremendously from that means of image protection).  She has done more than most artists for illustration advocacy and artists' rights and I respect her as an industry leader.  Anita and I hang out and love having lively chats about the state of the industry.  The exchange below is exactly that.  I also think this is a very hot topic and warrants discussion by all.  I'd love to hear what people think and I am sure Anita does too.  Again, this is NOT me versus Anita, it's Anita and I having differing opinions on an issue.  We both have the same goals for the industry.

WARNING:  Any negative comments that make anonymous snipes will not be posted.  It's my blog and that's my rule.

(Anita's words are in bold):

There as been a lot of contentious debate about the Google Chrome initiative.

Some of my dear friends have a very strident view about it. I'm sorry to say that I disagree with this view. I was one of the first to be contacted about this project and the following is my opinion after much thought . I've never presumed to tell anyone how they should run their business, and I've never confronted anyone about any of their project choices.

TOP TEN REASONS I’M ALLOWING GOOGLE TO USE ONE OF MY IMAGES:

1. Because I think that full credit with a link to my website (and millions of potential hits a day) plus a statement about me and my work is a good exchange for a non exclusive use of a single image. And by using an image from my archive I do not have to make any effort..an image that will probably otherwise languish in a folder somewhere with no further life. Some things I do for prosperity, some for posterity and some for promotion. This is for promotion.

Anita, both you and I know that corporations hire illustrators to help sell their products.  They know that the work has value.  The minute we give away that work for free to these companies, we devalue it.  While exposure is necessary and important, should it be at the expense of devaluing your work?  You state that there was no effort made in this image which was languishing in a folder.  I disagree because that image was borne out of years of hard work.  It's the same argument that illustrators made when giving their work to stock houses and we all know what the fallout to that was. The bottom line is that you are giving your work away for free to a company that makes millions of dollars.  Google doesn't exist to promote illustrators, it's aiming to add value to their own product by using illustrators' works.  Big difference.  You have given Google an image that won you a Gold medal at the Society of Illustrators.  (I remember it well because it was I who accepted the medal on your behalf.)  

2. Because I don’t think money is the only currency. I look for opportunities to get my art into the culture. To me that's what illustration is all about. This is not an issue of morality but simply being practical. It's business. And it's to an audience vastly larger than any magazine or book.

Money is certainly an important currency to Google.  Millions of dollars, in fact.  As I stated above, companies hire illustrators to make more money for the products they sell be it magazines, gum, CD, etc.  Money is a vital part of that equation and while you may choose to abandon it in favour of cultural currency, the company you are serving is not.  

3. Because I’m an independent contractor, not a victim and don't automatically assume that everyone is trying to screw me. Nor do I make business decisions based on peer pressure. I consider each project separately and carefully and weigh the pros and cons of what I'm getting, making sure it's commensurate with what I'm offering.

Empowerment is absolutely important but I fail to see how letting a company profit from getting your work for nothing does that.  I don't think that everyone is trying to "screw" me either.  I'm lucky to have clients that don't.  I've always believed in working with companies, not against them.  But a company that wants my illustrations for free is not working with me at all so I have automatically created an imbalanced relationship whereby the respect goes only one way.  Me to them, not the other way around.

4. Because I know a paradigm shift when I see one. Darwinism says survival isn't about being the strongest but rather the most adaptable. Longevity in this field requires flexibility and open-mindedness . In this new information age we are witnessing changes that are as monumental as those of the industrial age. I think that what we as illustrators do is great, and I think we should be out in the larger world, not solely existing in our clubs and associations.

I think every working illustrator would agree that adapting to a shifting paradigm is essential.  However, I still fail to see how navigating successfully in a new media climate entails not charging for our content.  This sets a bad precedent for what we do because if adaption includes rolling over and letting companies profit from our content, we are setting the stage for more companies to follow suit.  It's fear-based thinking to assume that moving forward in digital realms means letting companies having our work for nothing.  

5. Because print is unfortunately increasingly redundant as a medium and I think l for one need to develop an alternate strategy for making art, making money and getting my work into the public.

I agree what you say about print.  But doesn't that just mean we have to then assert value in online media?  Illustration has been suffering for sometime due to stock, declining fees and unfair contracts.  An economic downturn has caused many of our clients to abandon ad campaigns, downsize publications and declare bankruptcy.  So if we are to look at the web for a means of a thriving illustration marketplace, why then do you think an alternative strategy for making that happen is to let companies not pay us for our work?  Unless we begin to think like businesses and strategize favourable methods in which we can license our imagery online, we will essentially serve only to strategize our way out of having careers.   Again, this is not a fight, this is an assertion of value for what we do.  

6. Because allowing Google to use an image in trade for hundreds of millions of web hits doesn't mean I'm FOR free copyright. I'm not. I disagree with the free content zealots of the world . I simply don't see this as black and white issue.

Anita, don't you think a company that provides instant one-click acquisition to millions of images clearly would be in support of the free copyright and free culture movement?  Such a company could very well be positioning itself to create an image registry system that makes illustrators beholden to them if the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act becomes law.  Just a guess on my part but from where I'm sitting it's a pretty good one.  

7. Because Jenny Holzer, Jeff Koons and Karim Rashid see the value in this project. And Vivienne Westwood. And Wes Craven. And Kid Robot. And Kate and Jack Spade. And Dale Chihuly. And many others who have said yes to this initiative. All understand the value of this kind of exposure.

You are right, there are many great artists and designers who all said yes.  However, it is important to understand that we make our living from 2D pictures, Vivienne Westwood and Wes Craven do not.  Even fine artists like Jeff Koons (who does license images) does not rely on creating illustrations for money.  We do.  Ask yourself if those artists and designers would give away the actual stuff their bread and butter is made of and you can bet that answer would be no.   We are not on the same public level of household names as many of these artists and designers.  Their reasoning is their own but you can be sure that none of their reasons have anything to do with needing exposure or "hits" from people using search engines.

8. Because I’d rather get the millions of website hits and autonomy with an image that's my idea and my execution (not heavily art directed), than treat this as an anonymous advertising job with art direction ad nauseum for money but without credit (as most ad jobs are.)

I don't understand this point. Are you saying that actual paying work is inferior to do work for free because you get to control the image?  As for Google's usage of your work, from what I saw it appears it will live (forever?) as decorative texture and window margins.  I hardly call that a respectful use of a Gold winning illustration, even by paying illustration ad campaign standards.

9. Because I remember how sadly ineffective the Conde Nast cancellation campaign was. And after the Tasini victory we now see even worse magazine and newspaper contracts. Because Google is infinitely larger than Conde Nast and the New York Times, and trying to fight them in my opinion is a waste of time and energy. Energy I'd rather use to make art. Because I use Google dozens of times a day, for a myriad of functions. Because Google has mapped the world, mapped the oceans, and has as their express mission to help with the issues of climate fight on this planet than each other.

You are making two separate points here, neither of which I agree.  The Conde Nast cancellation campaign did not serve illustrators to realize the maximal objective but a lot of good did come from that (in addition to other industry issues such as stock, declining fees and unfair contracts).  The first being artists came together to form The Illustration Conference which became our town hall.  From that, many online illustration friendly companies and communities were created including the I Spot, Folio Planet and eventually Illoz and Drawger.  But even if we stick to your point about the ineffectiveness of illustration campaigns, how then does giving your work away for free counter that?  On one hand (your reason #3) you state that not everyone is trying to "screw" you yet here you state that "trying to fight them is a waste of time and energy".  Which is it, Anita?  Is Google on your side or against you?  Even you don't seem to know. Saying no to a company is not fighting them.  

Using Google's search engine is not free, Anita.  They charge millions of dollars for advertising throughout the internet.  While there is no direct charge to use their services, the clicks that are generated equates to the network charging millions of dollars to advertisers.

10. Finally, illustration by its very nature is about compromise on some level. I'm rarely 100 percent comfortable with who I work for. To what degree do I agree with the editorial content? How many publishers have had ethics different from mine? How many trees have been cut to make the paper to print the magazines I've worked for? How toxic are the inks? How much have the magazines I've worked for contributed to climate change? The only thing I know for certain is there will be more and more changes in this industry. And I'm going to try and navigate those changes. I'm going to do my best to swim not sink.

Again, I am unsure of your point.  So now Google is worth giving your work to because everyone else is also evil?  Anita, I don't understand what you mean here.  Either your point is a moral decision or a practical business one.  If your point is about corporate ethics, that is a whole other discussion.  You should read about how they're kowtowing to China.  

Anita, the main thing for me is perception .  How can I expect to get fair fees and terms from one company of I turn around give another company free work? I think that's the worst kind of business model to run.