ethics

Wisconsin Women are Go-Getters

I’m always proud to be a Wisconsin woman. However, this month my heart swells even more as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Wisconsin’s ratification of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote. On June 10, 1919, Wisconsin—movin’ people that we are— was the first state to take such action. We even beat the U.S. Congress, which didn’t ratify the amendment until the next year.

The Wisconsin Historical Society has a great exhibit on display in our beautiful State Capitol Rotunda all the way through November. My pictures don’t do it justice so definitely take time to see it for yourselves.

Certainly, a tip of the hat is due to those progressive thinkers of Wisconsin’s legislature. But the real heroes are the women who fought more than 70 years to bring the 19th amendment to fruition, women like these Wisconsin demigoddesses.

Women’s rights groups began forming in Wisconsin in the 1860s and they rallied for an array of social reforms such as anti-slavery, temperance, education, health, and married women’s property rights. The Wisconsin Women’s Suffrage Association (WWSA) was started in 1869. Besides campaigning for suffrage, these ladies fought to improve public schools. By 1869 they were running for school boards and by 1886 women could vote for issues “pertaining to school matters,” according to the Wisconsin Women Suffrage in School Matters Referendum.

Notice a whole lot of nurturing going on here?

“Bitches get stuff done.” — Tina Fey

When women rise up, they by nature don’t do so with self-serving ambitions. If we examine the motives behind what some label as “women being bitches,” we see they’re most often raising their voices for the welfare of others; family, children, the sick, the poor. Even 19th-century women’s quest for rights to their property was done with their children in mind; to prevent a drunken husband from taking a mother’s earnings or to will a woman’s inherited land to her own children rather than those of her husband’s second wife. Sometimes women being bitchy is the only way people listen.

Today I’m admiring…

These days inspiring Wisconsin women continue to stand up for the good of others. I’m thinking of several in my world alone, caring women who have dedicated time out of their busy lives to basically make things better in Wisconsin. Women like:

Be a Wisconsin Woman

Wisconsin women are gutsy go-getters. They get things done. But really, you don’t have to live in my beloved Badger state to be so emboldened. Just get up and go wherever you are.

And don’t forget to vote!

Shame, Shame, Logo Garden

Shutterstock image

The Logo Garden affair is the buzz going around these days.

It’s not a good buzz.

Logo Garden, in its effort to offer “do-it-yourself logos for entrepreneurs,” has apparently copied work created by other designers. It then resells it without the designers’ permission, all for its own profit. And because Logo Garden is a logo warehouse, meaning it resells each icon over and over, it’s reselling these stolen logos to multiples of unsuspecting consumers who think they’re getting a great deal for only $79.

Of course, designers are upset. Big name logo designers like Rock Paper Ink, Prejean Creative and Jeff Fisher LogoMotives have had thousands of logos stolen and they’re taking legal action against Logo Garden owner John Williams. AIGA (formerly an acronym for the American Institute of Graphic Arts), has posted action alerts and other helpful advice for designers here and here.

But what about consumers? Shouldn’t they be upset as well?

You bet they should and here’s why.

When an entrepreneur hires a professional to design his logo, he’s paying for a unique representation of his business. The designer can only do this through extensive interview, research and creative process, all of which the entrepreneur wisely pays for. But not only is he paying for this service, he’s also buying ownership rights to the logo—solely and completely, as his own personal icon. A logo is intellectual property and copyright laws protect this ownership.

When an entrepreneur brands his company, acquiring a logo is only one part of the process. The entrepreneur must then promote that logo and secure it in the minds of his market. He must build a reputation that positively associates the logo to his business. This is branding and it takes great time and effort.

So what happens when a schmuck like John Williams and his Logo Garden comes along?

When Williams steals a designer’s logo, he’s also stealing the intellectual property of the entrepreneur who hired that designer. And when Williams resells that stolen logo, he’s completely destroying the branding work the entrepreneur did to market his business.

Then there’s the unknowing consumer who purchases one of these 10,000 logos supposedly created by John Williams and “his hand-picked team of world-class logo designers.” (Be real, how could anyone and his team create 10,000 original, well-thought and designed logos?)

I’m going to credit these $79 tightwad consumers and say they were unknowing of Logo Garden’s unethical behavior. I’m also going to say they’re unknowing of successful marketing. Obviously, none of them believes their business qualifies for a professional, unique identity.

Anyway, these Logo Garden consumers are possibly setting themselves up for legal action. The great bargain they thought they were getting could very well be the intellectual property of another owner. They may find themselves forced to give it up. Suddenly, that $79 is not such a bargain after all.

Here’s something to think about:

If you’re a professional, you have to look professional. If you have a quality product, you must have a quality look.

Beware of logo warehouses. Don’t shop at Logo Garden.

Shame on you, Logo Garden!

 

How (Un)Ethical is Our Design?

Yesterday, my daughter and I discussed a recent New York Times article regarding criticism of an Obama cover photo.

The photo was used by the weekly news magazine The Economist for its June 19 issue. It shows Obama standing, head bowed, hands on hips, with an oil rig in the background. And he’s alone. It’s a dramatic shot evoking a strong message.

Turns out, in the original photo, Obama isn’t alone. Reuters photographer Larry Downing shot the image with two people standing alongside Obama, participating in an apparent conversation.

The Economist’s decision to digitally remove these two has caused a bit of ruckus. Some, including Reuters, feel altering the image has also altered the message.

My daughter’s and my discussion was interesting.

As a visual communications professional, I surmised the magazine wanted to convey a sense of isolation, that Obama is alone in his responsibility of the Gulf oil mess. The Economist’s editor claims not, but given the headline “Obama v. BP” and the story’s content, it’s hard to imagine otherwise. Whatever their motive, editing the extras from the photo creates a very striking composition.

My daughter viewed the issue from a journalistic side. As an attorney interested in government and current affairs, she felt altering the image was a misrepresentation of the event as it occurred. It did not convey the truth.

With today’s sophisticated editing software, this conflict of ethics becomes commonplace. We define graphic design as the use of words and images to visually communicate a message. Photojournalism, on the other hand, is the use of photography to tell a news story. The question we must then consider is how blurred can the line between the two become?

When does editing a photo become unethical?

Is editing software a threat to photojournalism?

Is a magazine cover a journalistic piece or an artistic piece?

How do photojournalism, advertising and art differ, and how should editing ethics apply to each?

What’s your opinion?

WWJP (What Would Jesus Post)

Several times in recent weeks a disturbing “copy and paste” has come across my Facebook News Feed. You know the kind—those irritations we all despise, where if you agree with the statement, you’re supposed to copy and paste for all your other Facebook friends to see.

Well, this particular post is called the Obama Death Prayer and it’s not only irritating, it’s especially hateful. Google portions of the prayer and sites pop up by the millions—literally. I don’t want to retype it, but you can check it out here.

What I find most alarming is the people who posted this are my Christian friends. I recognize the posts were likely sent in humor and people don’t really mean what they’re saying…right? But honestly, how can we even say such a thing? What love of Jesus do we convey when we wish someone to be dead?

Such blatant disrespect for our president isn’t new. Nor is it one-sided. President Bush was frequently battered with death threats and objectional opinions. What’s different today, however, is that social media accelerates communication—in this case, hateful communication—like a wildfire faster than we’ve ever seen.

Hate is contagious. Anger is endemic. But so are positive attitudes. People are easily influenced so why not promote prayers and encouragement instead?

A good response is to the Obama Death Prayer is to join the Facebook group that’s petitioning to remove the facebook group praying for President Obama’s death. Or this group, that says Stop promoting HATE!

Perhaps the best response is this: (and look, it’s even a copy/paste)

WWJP If Jesus were on FB how might he respond to posts that wish our nation’s president dead?

Rom. 13:5-7 says “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities…for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him…if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

As Christians, shouldn’t we do the same? If you agree, copy to your FB.

Even if Obama isn’t your president of choice, you still owe him your honor and respect. God commands it.

Shame on Google

photo credit Debbi Smirnoff
photo credit Debbi Smirnoff

So it seems Google—that search engine magnate labeled the most powerful brand in the world—doesn’t feel the need to compensate its creative talent.

Last week, The New York Times wrote of Google’s invitation to prominent artists to contribute artwork for its new Google Chrome browser.

Compensation? None.

Understandably, many of these artists felt somewhat hung out to dry. And, admirably, as much as they’d love Google’s exposure, many rejected it with outspoken opinions.

How does that relate to us and our work of communicating Christ?

Certainly, it doesn’t, right? After all, our churches don’t have the multi-billion dollar income of Google’s. Nor do we share its wordly mission. The church is excluded from respecting the work of creatives because, after all, it’s for the Lord, right?

Wrong.

God blesses people with creative talents, of which many use  to earn a living. They study their craft and spend great time developing it. Their work, known as intellectual property, deserves respect. God also commands us to respect our nation’s laws and says,  “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men…” (1 Peter 2:13).

Here are a few things to keep in mind as we show Christian respect to creatives and our laws.

  • Graphic design, illustrations, photography, music and written words are all exclusively owned by their creators, including those posted on the Internet. To use them without permission violates the U.S. Copyright Law. It’s stealing.
  • Fair Use, a section of the copyright law, offers a little leeway. However, it’s very ambiguous and contextual, and churches shouldn’t feel it offers complete exemption from the law. Church Marketing Sucks posted an interesting discussion on how it applies to religious organizations.
  • Professionals work hard to create their craft. Just as a church compensates a plumber or electrician, so should it compensate a professional artist.
  • Many professionals donate projects out of love for God and their church. Pro-bono, however, does not mean “no value, no time or no effort.” Creative work can command $50-150/hr., elsewhere. Respect this work. Respect the professional’s time, just as you would someone you were paying.

Politics from the Pulpit?

I’m a writer, not a preacher, so I can’t authorize what comes from the pulpit. But “Politics from the Church Newsletter” just doesn’t have the ring to it, and as we all know, it’s all in the headline.

No matter. Whether it’s from the pulpit or the church newsletter, the same thought applies: Politics are a no-no.

As we approach this autumn’s political firestorm, it’s important to remember the tax-exempt status of churches, religious organizations and ministers. This “favorable treatment,” as the IRS refers to the special tax laws applied to non-profit organizations, does come with restrictions.

What does this mean?

Well, if your organization feels compelled to communicate a political endorsement, think again.

By law, Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations are prohibited in becoming directly or indirectly involved in campaigns of political candidates. Like all laws, this has become subject to interpretation, whether you’re preaching from the pulpit, publishing a newsletter or hosting a speaker.

Interpretations or not, apparently the IRS doesn’t overlook the law.

In Pasadena, CA., an Episcopal church nearly lost its non-profit status because of a stance on the Iraq War. In Minnesota, a suburban church came under scrutiny when it invited a candidate to speak on its premises.

So why take the chance? Why disobey the law? Our nation was founded on the ideals of separation of church and state. That includes us too.

“Render unto Caesar…” Luke 20:25.