Zompist Bboard Again

So, I received and email a few days ago about one of my writing systems. The gentleman wanted to use random images of my system as part of the cover art for his upcoming book. This is the first time I have been approached like this, about this type of request. So I proposed that he pay me a one-time fee of $400 and attribute the work to me, as well as an understanding that I retain all rights to the system.

He replied that he was on a low budget and that $400 was too much.

So my underlying question is; How much would you think appropriate to charge for various conlang/conscript/conart projects?

On my own site, I have it listed as $5 per image I create, along with copyright acknowledgement. So if he’s mixing, say, twelve images of yours, that would be $60. (It is possible I’m being too cheap about it, but I should like some customers, to be honest with you.)
In your case, though, you could ask him for a reduced fee but continued copyright and royalties in the book--say, 10%--which may get you more than $400 by the end of it.

I don't think there's much of a settled market here - there are too few buyers and sellers, and prices would be too dependent on individual priorities. Personally, I'd charge a very high price, because I don't like the idea. Others, on the other hand, might even be willing to pay to have their work in a published book.

The economic question here is how easily they'd be able to source something like your system but not your system. That depends on your system, and on how specific their requirements are.

I would think that the sensible next step might be to ask what price they WOULD be willing to pay, and see how that meets your preferences.


And Pedant's idea of negotiating for royalties rather than a flat fee may well have merit. Although some people, particularly self-published authors with zero or tiny profit may not be willing to consider that. It's worth floating the idea though, I would think...

We're awash in images— it's good that the guy reached out to you about the pictures instead of just stealing them. My understanding is that freelance artists can charge anything from $5 to $400 for a custom drawing. A quick Googling suggests that full-time illustrators are paid between $25 and $100 per hour. As another data point, stock photos start at $12.

He's not buying the art or the copyright, he's buying a non-exclusive reproduction fee. I would probably ask for $25 or so, on the grounds that you shouldn't be paid something insulting, but $25 is better than $0 and you can build up from there. If he can't pay that, he can draw his own cover.

Don't ask for royalties; it sounds like it's self-published, so a) there probably won't be much, and b) it's a huge hassle.

(If he wants multiple images but it's only part of the cover, my guess is that it's going to be spectacularly ugly. "Let's put a bunch of images of words" is a newbie designer move But hey, that's his problem.)

zompist wrote:(If he wants multiple images but it's only part of the cover, my guess is that it's going to be spectacularly ugly. "Let's put a bunch of images of words" is a newbie designer move But hey, that's his problem.)

Isn't that what you did on the ALC and the Lexipedia?

I used 4 images, which is near the limit of what you can do with a book cover.

I know this is already a month old so the original issue is probably in the past, but I can't help but reply to it more generally...

Wouldn't the more important question be one of artistic integrity? I mean, if you don't like the project where your conlang/conscript/whatever would be used, why would you want your conlang/conscript/whatever to be used in it? Obviously people need money to buy food and pay bills and everything, and I get that under full-fledged capitalism that requires people to do things they don't want to do (and I'm not saying I wouldn't "sell out" myself if the price was high enough), but if you don't like the project, isn't integrity more important than money?

Like, maybe I'm an idiot for thinking this, but if something I made was used in something I didn't like, I'd rather it be in the grey area because then I'd be able to say "I wish they hadn't used my shit in it"; if they acknowledged that they used your shit with your permission, that could well be taken to imply your endorsement of the product. My music has been used without my permission in shit I'd rather not have it used in, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because they didn't claim to have my permission. Maybe my opinion is objectively wrong, but I think having a mindset like "use it in whatever you want, but if I find out and think it sucks, I'll tell you it sucks" is better than having a mindset like "usage requires permission, payment and full credit" because the latter not only gives you a false sense of control but also makes it impersonal and turns art into business.

If your permission isn't acknowledged but you are credited, your silence may just as well be taken as lack of endorsement as it may be taken as endorsement. In those circumstances, silence would be the best course of action if you really didn't want to endorse whatever it was where your shit was used, not even through something kinda like the Streisand effect or whatever. That's why I feel like it's more a question of artistic integrity, since if you'd not only given permission and had that permission acknowledged but had even gotten paid, saying "it's shit" or whatever about it would be kind of a huge dick move. It wouldn't be a dick move if you'd been credited but your permission wasn't acknowledged (regardless of whether you'd actually given permission or not); if they lied about having gotten your permission, well, that'd be such a dick move itself that you'd kind of have to call them out on it so that others would know that they're dick thieves.

I think it's different if the price is absolutely insanely huge, like if someone was like "I'll give you a million if you let me use your shit" because it would take a very strong-willed person to turn something like that down even if it meant giving up artistic integrity... even if it was falsely believed that you endorsed that usage, and even if you had a "social gag" to not correct those misconceptions, it would probably be worth it because you could regain your artistic integrity with your future work; if you had that much money, you wouldn't have to worry about paying bills or buying food or anything, so you could literally only do things you want to do and exactly how you want to do them (assuming they're things that don't take a ton of money to make).

There's also the "sampling principle" that I think is important to consider, which can be extended from music to every other kind of art: is it transformative? If so, how transformative is it? If someone just takes your shit and claims they made it, that's pure plagiarism and should lead to consequences. If someone takes your shit and someone else's shit and mixes them, that's a mash-up, which I think should be fine if credit is given (but if credit isn't given, then there should be consequences). If someone makes a blatant imitation of your shit, that's "soft plagiarism" and whether there should be consequences depends on what the intent is and how it's presented. If someone makes something resembling your shit but doesn't actually incorporate any of your shit, that should always be 100% fine. Taking bits and pieces of your shit, altering it, and then using it to add extra flavour to their own original shit is "basic sampling" and should always be fine, although in an ideal world credit would be given. (By consequences, I mostly mean "social consequences", not so much legal ones, except for pure plagiarism.)

Not saying "let them do it but don't take the money", even though that's what I'd do (because I'm an idiot with idiotic principles), just saying that things like this go 100% case by case and I think you should always listen to your gut (or face?) and weigh the pros and cons carefully. Compromises can be made, but shouldn't unless they're ones you're comfortable with; if there are more pros than cons, and the cons don't weigh more than the pros... well, you know?

And oops, I'm rambling again... it's what happens when I post tired... And whenever I'm not tired, too... hmm...

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:41 pmit's good that the guy reached out to you about the pictures instead of just stealing them.

Exactly, there are even widely published things involving the stealing of others' work that have never led to any consequences, like that infamous creationist book where apparently tons of photos were used without permission. Obviously it's been pointed out and shat on by literally everyone and their grandma, and I don't know if there have been new editions of the book, but if something like an officially published book sent unsolicited to tons of people around the world can evade punishment for copyright infingement... well, then anything and everything can. That's one reason why I think the copyright system should be seriously reformed (if not abolished and replaced by a "tiered credit system"), but that's another topic entirely...

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK if someone steals something you published online for free and publishes it commercially, you'll no longer have the copyrights to it because you weren't the one to profit from it first? That could be total bullshit, though, because it's only something I've heard anecdotally like "it happened to a friend of a friend's cousin's dad's friend" or "it's common knowledge it happens! I don't have any actual examples, but we all know it happens!" which isn't very reliable. Maybe it only applies if the original artist and the thief are in different countries or something like that even if it is true or something? But in that case, it'd be even worse because it enables international predatory capitalism...

You can publish something online without relinquishing the copyright. Now, if you post on a Creative Commons website (e.g. most wikis), you do relinquish the copyright, and you can never claim it back. However, even with Creative Commons, any later author is legally required to give you due credit. I dont know what youre supposed to do if they dont. But .... there was a fuss about ten years ago when a company named AlphaScript published hundreds, maybe thousands, of paperbound books that were nothing more than printed-out Wikipedia articles, and claimed that they were doing a good thing because some people might not have access to the Internet. There was no indication on the outside cover, of course, that the content was entirely taken from Wikipedia .... it was only after you'd bought the book that you might realize it.

Something similar happened with OpenOffice a few years before that ... I remember seeing boxed software from a brand name I cant remember that was just Openoffice in CD form, selling for $50, with their acknowledgement consisting solely of the label "OpenOffice.org" in the inside flap. I remember comparing the Wikipedia situation to the OOO one when it came up in discussion.

Vlürch wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:10 amAlso, please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK if someone steals something you published online for free and publishes it commercially, you'll no longer have the copyrights to it because you weren't the one to profit from it first? That could be total bullshit, though, because it's only something I've heard anecdotally like "it happened to a friend of a friend's cousin's dad's friend" or "it's common knowledge it happens! I don't have any actual examples, but we all know it happens!" which isn't very reliable.

That's not true in the US, nor in the EU. When you create something, you own the copyright from the moment of creation, even if you don't register it.

Proving your rights is of course easier with registration.

You do not have to monetize your creation, nor go after infringers, in order to retain copyright.

(Trademarks work differently, and that's probably why people get incorrect ideas about copyright.)

Pabappa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:20 amYou can publish something online without relinquishing the copyright.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:38 amYou do not have to monetize your creation, nor go after infringers, in order to retain copyright.

Okay, thanks. The way I thought it works was that while you technically owned copyright by default as soon as you made something, if someone else "claimed" it and monetised it, you'd lose your copyright since you published it for free and as such "unofficially". So, I guess I may have overestimated the evils of capitalism?

Pabappa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:20 amprinted-out Wikipedia articles ... Openoffice in CD form

What the actual fuck.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:38 am(Trademarks work differently, and that's probably why people get incorrect ideas about copyright.)

That might be why I was confused, then. I'm still confused by a lot of stuff when it comes to copyrights tbh, reading about them more only makes it seem even more like their enforcement depends on all kinds of extrajudicial factors that point to it really being mostly "if you're rich and famous, we got your back; if you're not, we're coming for you" or something like that, but eh... there's nothing people can do about it, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if direct democracy would lead to even tighter laws that were enforced in even more selective and outright draconian ways.

Oh well, at the end of the day, imho artistic integrity would still matter more than profit even if it was literally illegal to make conlangs or music or paintings or whatever without a permit that also required you to monetise your art (and obviously permits like that won't ever become a thing, it's just hyperbole). Again, maybe I'm an idiot and everything I say about this subject (just like everything I say about macrofamilies lol) is best ignored, and it could well be that I'd even disagree with myself if I wasn't a lower-class NEET.

So, just a few days ago I was contacted by someone wanting to use Kala for a video game. It's an indie project and seems to be based on some sort of fantasy world but lacks fully developed cultures and langs. I am hesitant to just let someone use something that I have spent quite a lot of time on, even if they do pay me. I'd rather create something completely and specifically for the game rather than allow something as personal as Kala be used. Besides, they don't seem to have the resources to pay me for the work I've already done for Kala, instead offering me a percentage of the game's profits, which is a gamble I am not really inclined to accept.

Now, if they want something game specific, I may openly recruit for assistance so that the language (and cultures, etc) can have a well-rounded and fleshed-out feel having been created by more than just me.

What would you do in this situation? Hand over your baby, or offer to build something new?

I, personally, *would* do it, but I would want credit on the video game and the opportunity to put more into it than just the script. But thats just me. If it weren't a video game, I'd be a lot less interested.

Having designed a video game myself I can tell you that its like a lot of other art forms .... a tiny number of people make lots of money, but for 99% the profits are quite low, and I decided not to monetize it all and just release it for free. (This is not the game that my avatar comes from ... I never finished that one.)

also i just realized ... i woudl never surrender the copyright of anything Id made. I dont know if this person wants just the permission to use your script, or if your script would become irrevocably tied to the video game everafter and you would no longer own it. if the latter, i would not sell at any price.

I would offer something new, because I would not want my preexisting creation to be from that point on tied to that particular video game. That said, if they did agree to the creation of a new script and a new language, I would go for it.

I'd also advice offering something new. If a video game or film producer asked me whether he can buy Old Albic or some other personal creation of mine, I'd declare that this is not for sale, but I am willing to design a new customized language and writing system. Most of those people will want something new anyway; they have their own ideas how the language should sound, names to be worked into it, etc., and it is extremely unlikely that any of my personal creations happen to fulfill such constraints by chance!

masako wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:42 amthey don't seem to have the resources to pay me for the work I've already done for Kala

I'd put this in the "run screaming" category, or close to it.

If they're serious about this game and getting high quality work, they can find money to pay you. If the game is never finished, or tanks, a "percentage of the profits" is worth nothing. And frankly, when someone wants work for free, I wouldn't be surprised if they become somehow impossible to reach if the game does do well.

I missed that part. I agree with zompist here. If they're serious, they can find actual money to pay you with, and "percentage of the profits" is not actual money.

I concur. I would not be okay with someone using my babies (Tirina and Azen) even if they paid me, to be honest, but even my "lesser" languages, if they intend to make a profit off of their usage, I would want money up front (unless it was a major game studio or something--but not from an independent person).

I would also offer to make them something new, also for pay up front.