Back of the tee for my wife’s TNR charity (trap, neuter, return – it’s for feral/stray cats).

We don’t want to spend the charity’s money on tees, so I kept it to one color. We need something, though, to look more official when we’re out doing our thing.

Well, maybe not sleeps. But I bet they cavort. They look like the cavorting type.

The fishman tee design that garnered a lot of interest is for sale at Shirt Fight starting right now. Wee!

Google launches Creative Commons filtering for it’s image search service.

I worry Google will give people a false sense of entitlement depending on the level of accuracy of the service.

On a quick test search, my first using the service, the word “illustration” returns the following “commercially usable, modifiable” images.

Take this result. It’s a “Creative Commons” image embedded in a Flickr set featuring an illustrator’s copyrighted work. The user has it labeled for both modification and commercial reuse, but I’m guessing the illustrator’s estate (as marked in the Flickr photo’s comments) wouldn’t want others to take his image and slap it on the side of a product. Confusing to searchers.

It supports my theory that improperly marked, “found” images from third parties could cause a headache for illustrators, photographers – any content creators really.

That, and might it give unscrupulous designers an excuse to rip off work for reuse? Maybe?

I’m not anti-Creative-Commons, I just have concerns with this particular service. Playing devil’s advocate here. Yahoo has been doing this for a while and the sky hasn’t fallen…

quakerninja: Have you without giving names found higher paying clients to be more or less douche’y as a whole, then lower paying clients or is the douche level about the same.

I wonder of there is a correlation between price and douche.

My theory is that it is about equal but for differing reasons.

I think a low douche would think that we art types should work for free and thus be happy for scraps, where as a high douche would feel entitled to own you because they are paying more.

Typically, and this is not ALWAYS the case as there’ve been notable exceptions, the price one expects to pay is inversely proportional to the amount of douchehood.

The cheapest clients want the most changes for the least money. They seldom have a clearly defined image and you end up hunting and pecking for little monetary compensation.

Big clients hire you because they are intimately familiar with your work, know what to expect, let you do your thing while providing solid input thanks to having an Art Director worth their office chair, and pay well.

Cheap clients are like mean people. They suck.

Coincidentally, I was just told a podcast where I ranted about the evil of spec work is now live. I’ve yet to listen to it myself, so be forewarned that I probably cuss and speak in a fast, nervous manner. Mork with a potty mouth.

The Work in Progress podcast is produced by a few close friends of mine and I definitely recommend checking it out and would do so even if it didn’t prop up my fragile ego. :)