By the numbers shown for 2015 & 2018, whites are vastly under represented. If an artist or AD is calling for more accurate diversity, are they really?

@Coreyartus

I don't have a side in this as I have never participated in Inktober. You may not like what I am saying and I am not trying to dump on Jake nor trying to have a flame war. But let's not be naive either. Some here will jump to defend Jake because they are his students.

Were artists encouraged to use the logo and phrase for a decade or so prior to registering the trademark? That is simply a yes or a no answer. I'm not saying it was wrong to do so or wrong to register the trademark. However, once you set something loose and encourage it's use with no oversight and then try and enforce legalities/rules/etc., you are going to get hammered.

If someone had an extra $600 or so laying around, they can trademark slowvember and find a use to trademark Inktober in another classification.

@Aleksey said in Twitter Just Got Ugly for Jake Parker:

Jake Parker wanting to make an extra profit from a property he created that he didn’t expect would grow into something so gigantic, is totally 100% valid.

We all DREAM of creating an idea that would get so huge.

People being upset that something that’s been free to use, had no guidelines, and open for everyone (including the official logo) in order to help them make extra cash no longer is and must be altered in order to fit certain rules, also very valid. I’m of the opinion that People are allowed to be upset about a change that’s affecting their ability to sell certain things.

Could there have been some preliminary work done to let the public know of these changes, sure. Did Jake expect this mess would happen? Probably not. I respect Jake for taking the time to apologize and do PR to make sure his own brand can stay marketable and other artists can still sell their art.

You can't blame anyone for wanting to make a buck. My position is the trademark could have been contested as being in the public domain on the grounds that the term was encouraged and allowed to be used freely for a decade without any claim or enforcement of rights.

To happily and willingly give something away and then claiming after 10 years that you own it and in fact are taking it back under threat of penalty in order to now cash in simply does not speak well of a person. I don't know Jake, I don't participate in inktober. But I find the situation fascinating since I honestly don't see how this trademark was approved.

If what I'm reading is true (and again, I don't know the details), Jake copyrighted "Inktober" as a word. His intentions on his blog make it appear that he's only interested in protecting the logo for the sponsors. But since there are lawyers involved, they may be interpreting it literally and now they're sinking their teeth into everything they get their hands on.

Copyright and trademark are vastly different things.

Another entity CAN trademark "Inktober" in addition to Jake but they can't use it in the same classification category as Jake (and of course it would have to valid and be accepted).

A trademark has to be actively enforced in order to remain valid and that will mean people being served C&D letters.

While I feel bad for the blowback Jake is receiving, he brought it on himself. When inktober was something newer, the term was thrown about and used freely. People were encouraged to use the "official" logo on their work. I dont ever remember seeing a trademark bug on it.

The term began use in 2009 and the registration not filed until 2017. It could be argued that the trademark should have been refused due to the encouragement of free use and generic application of the term.

I doubt this is to protect the term from being used by "racists" (do artists really want to start being offended by art they disagree with?) but has everything to do with cashing in.

Who is going to trademark "slowvember"?

This will not go well for Jake. Once it reaches the frenzied and reactionary twitterverse, it does it matter what's factual or not. Whatever book he will be selling in the near future will have its sales harmed incredibly.

If I remember at one time artists were encouraged to use the logo with their work, in Jake's statement it is now reserved for "sponsors".

My standard reply is "I would be happy to illustrate your project. It will be $xxxx total with 1/3 due up front, 1/3 at proof acceptance, balance upon delivery of final art. additionally there is $xx percent of sales, $xxx kill fee and I would like $xxxx advance. The rights you are purchasing are XYZ.

I never hear from them again.

There is always someone who is wanting to have an artist work for free.

This is simply a self-publisher using an app instead of a printer. I always ask myself "why did they ask me?", is my work so amazing or unique that is would make the project stand out or am I the next one he came across as he tries to find anyone?

if he is looking to create a AR app, He should have a development app that you can see.

It comes down to are you willing to do a great amount of work for no return? That's your decision. If you do decide to pursue this make sure you have a contract that spells out the reproduction rights, ownership if the project actually happens but also if half way through it is killed.

@Lee-White said in PODCAST FEEDBACK NEEDED:

One of the questions that I find more interesting than the one you are asking (which is "Should an illustrator have the skill to depict something from another culture and/or race?) is to look at what is currently available on the market and are we really being "overly PC" as you are suggesting?

For example, If I walked into a children's book section of a library, and was blindfolded and asked to randomly pull books from the shelf, how many of those books would contain an african-american character? I would bet that if truly asked to do this, you would pull down hundreds of books before you happen to select one with an african-american character. Or, maybe you wouldn't even be able to randomly select one with an african american child as the lead.

So a better question than the one you are asking is "If a professional illustrator can draw any race or culture out there, why are 99% of the books on the shelf only showing Caucasian kids? Why is there not more diversity to choose from? What should non white kids look at that shows them a version of themselves? These are much more interesting questions in my opinion.

That's a very interesting question. If 99% of the books in your area are of white people, what are the demographics of your area? Is it the books don't reflect the demographics or that the books that sell and are stocked don't reflect the demographics? Bookstores will stock what sells and makes them money. But you posed an interesting question and I will stop at the book store in my town and go through a random stack and report what I find.

@Lee-White

Lee I get what you are saying but again I say this is being made overly complex for political correctness sake.

If you or I or any of the amazingly talented people here were awarded an assignment from a publisher that involved a foreign culture, specific traditional dress, symbology, etc., of course they should perform some research and have an understanding of the topic they are illustrating. That should be expected for any work an artist is creating.