[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Logo design and being 'screwed' by dishonest clients



DT,

Yes, going back on spec three times to brainstorm etc would be weird.
However, I think that you have missed some of the thread:
>It seems I misexpressed
>myself in some way - the job was not taken on spec, and >indeed, we do have
>signatures to back ourselves up.

As to missing the point entirely, the message as it arrived at my computer
read (in addition to the earlier clip):
>   We've
> drawn up quite a nice little agreement for our next clients
(your clip)

The operant word here being "next." Sounds to me like a lesson learned.
That was what my message was about, get it correct BEFORE.  That is the
professional way to deal with it. And having spelled out both your and the
client's responsibilities in advance, it is neither unprofessional nor
morally wrong to use the courts to enforce your contract, just as they would
be within their rights to sue if the artist did not meet his or her
obligations. I also did not notice anything in the original post that
indicated pleasure in taking clients to court.

I stand by my original question:
>But what is wrong with spelling out your responsibilities and >expectations
>prior to starting work?

Hal Faulkner

mailto:faulkner@redshift.com

http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
[mailto:BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]On Behalf Of DT Fletcher
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 3:25 AM
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Logo design and being 'screwed' by dishonest clients


In a message dated 5/28/99 9:23:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
faulkner@REDSHIFT.COM writes:

<< But what is wrong with spelling out your responsibilities and
expectations
 prior to starting work? (snip)   if you want to be treated like a
professional I
 strongly urge you to act like one.

 Hal >>

Let's put it this way Hal, you missed the point entirely.   The situation
described was where the artist had yet to obtain the contract for work and
wanted the client to sign "a little something" prior to the work contract.
Sort of a pre-work contract. This was so that the dishonest client wouldn't
steal their pre-work presentation.  Any "professional" trying such a move
would more likely be shown the door aound here. And, if the client really
was
dishonest then it was probably a good thing that they didn't get the work
contract.
dtf

PS - What was really weird to me in this whole story was going back three
times to do presentations and brainstorming.  How many "professionals" out
there would have the time to do such a thing. Then go on to fume and fuss
about it and go to court and waste even more time.


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]