So in the future with more pervasive adoption of GPS, and easier, faster uploading of photos your site could be a big success. Meanwhile, look for lots of small, fast transactions, and dare to step in as the middleman or broker. People have to trust your site anyway if you are going to be a success.

Derrick is to be applauded for hosting this conversation and my comments on his Web site…

While doing spec work should be an issue for freelancers, it probably is not the biggest problem with the Pixish model. The real issue usually will be in the details of the contracts you may have to sign with some publishers. If young artists want to use this Web site, at the very least, exercise due diligence:

1. Always try to sell specific and limited rights for a single use in a single Web, print OR broadcast publication for a base fee.
2. Never sign away all rights to a work unless you receive fair compensation for any additional uses.
4. Retain all other rights (All Rights Reserved).
5. Submit your work with a delivery memo and a Copyright (©) mark (Define the terms of the copyright license and sale).
6. Insist on a credit line (sometimes this is not possible) but a copyright mark always should be required.
6. Register your work with the Library of Congress so that it will be fully protected by U.S. law (infringers then are liable for statutory damages and legal costs instead of just actual damages).

Remember, contracts provided by most publishers usually are written with their business interests in mind, not yours. If necessary (and it usually is) use your own contract but be prepared to refine and customize the language and terms to meet the client’s needs, or work with clients that honor contracts approved by artist trade groups. Don’t be afraid to say no if you feel the contract is not in your best interest. It can be a scary step, but it is very liberating.

Perhaps Derek would be interested in working with the Editorial Photographer’s group to develop a base Pixish contract that would be more balanced, and acceptable to smart freelancers.

This sounds like a case of “premature optimization.”

Considering that you don’t have that many users yet, maybe you should have let it run for a while to see if there is really a problem.

Are the people criticizing the site really its target demographic? I think you need thicker skin if you’re going to be an entrepreneur of a successful startup. Mena Trott learned that fast.

Is it because the designers have been more vocal about the issue? – You certainly seem to be going out of your way to placate the designers.
How is slaving over an illustration any different to slaving over design work?

It’s apparently okay to do spec work (or whatever you prefer to call it, be it a contest or just for fun) for the components but not for the whole?

Once again Photography and Illustration are the poor relations to design.

(I guess what I am trying to say is, by all means run Pixish but please don’t help reinforce the publics perception the Photography and Illustration are less than Design.)

We may expand our scope in the future, but I wanted to make sure we got the core right now.

Spec work doesn’t require a big evil corporation to be spec work. You talk about the inequity in your example, but it still exists here. The power still lies with the Publisher/Evil Corporation even if it is voted on by the community. Until the power is handed back to the designer and as long as rewards consist of things like “if I get a design I like I’ll pay you US$50″ this will remain a spec work network.

However, there are good sides to this venture. Even though only one out of 20 contributing artists (just an example) may get paid on a given assignment, the others still get their work published on your site and will benefit from creating a solution to a design problem. But this still doesn’t meet your goal of empowering artists and bring great, undiscovered artists to the forefront.

This is no easy task, but perhaps you should scrap the model of a “collection of contests” and create a “collection of artists”. And ask publishers to invite artists to submit to their assignment. I can’t guarantee this will fix everything, but I think it would be an improvement.

I haven’t written this site off though. I still believe you can turn it into a valuable tool and I hope to be able to be a part of it, from both sides of the aisle. But in my personal opinion, I think it still has a long way to go.

Some people feel that design/photo/etc. contests are just spec work in a friendly disguise; however, I’m not as opposed to them because they are at least up front about it. For the same reason, I feel less of a need to “spin my gragger” about Pixish.

I still disagree with GregM who argue that “designers are empowered by Pixish: they get to pick and choose what they work on in a marketplace.”

Pixish does a whole lot more empowerment for the clients who get to compare a bunch of submissions. Granted if people are just submitting whatever they have laying around it ain’t too bad of a thing.

This latter point is why Derek makes the distinction between designers and art content producers (i.e. photographers, illustrators), and I agree with him there. Designers don’t have spare logos laying around for any old company — everything is usually made to order. Art content producers on the other hand often have a bunch of flotsam and jetsam that they can use for submissions to Pixish.