Orbit Trap Blog and the Calendar

Once again, Orbit Trap is on the attack about the calendar.

As far as I know, in years past the publishers and editors have never responded to the accusations that Orbit Trap has made against them. Good for the publisher and editors. Why should they respond to Orbit Trap? In spite of what they might think of themselves, Orbit Trap is nothing. No one owes them an explanation for anything.

Some of you might buy into Orbit Trap's calendar propaganda, so for your benefit I will give my views on some of their accusations. I was an editor for one year so I know how the editor's role in the calendar works. I am not an editor now.

Orbit Trap's conflict of interest and self jurying accusations are simply false. The editors do not suggest which specific images to put into the final cut of the calendar. The images that the editors select, along with their own images, are "thrown over the wall" to the publisher . There is no back and forth negotiation between the publisher and editors over the final 13 images, including for the editor's own images. The publisher might ask for specific images from various artists, but beyond the batch of images that the editors select and provide, the editors do not suggest images for the final cut. There is no way that a conflict of interest can arise. Even if the editors did make some suggestion for the final cut, like if they wanted to be sure that one of their friends was included (implying a kickback for a true conflict of interest), there is no way to force the publisher to take the suggestion. The publisher always has the final say. A conflict of interest cannot and does not happen. By agreement between the editor and publisher, the publisher is required to include one image from the editor in the final cut. That's how the editor is paid. The editors do not decide which of their own images are to be included in the final cut. Terry Wright is full of crap on this one and anyone who buys into his conflict of interest/self jury theory is an idiot.

Speaking of idiots, the equation 400+200=600 is too complicated for Terry Wright. One of his burning questions in his open letter to the publisher was why I was paid $600 for my images in the 2009 calendar. I know that this is complicated, at least for some people, so I'll do my best to explain it: I have two images in the 2009 calendar. One is on the cover. The publisher pays an extra $200 for cover images, so that is $200 for one image plus $200 for the other one plus $200 for one of those images to be on the cover. That's 200+200+200=600, or (200+200)+200=600, or 400+200=600. I'm not sure that Wright has the brain power to comprehend this complex math so if he has access to a first grader he might ask him for help.

It is obvious that the publisher prefers a specific style for what they put in the calendar. The calendar is mostly consistent from year to year. "Mostly" because it does change, but slowly.

Whether or not you or I like the style of the art in the calendar is irrelevant. The publisher runs the business of the calendar. They pay the artists and print, market and distribute the calendar. They also profit from it. The calendar is not a community, club or democracy. It is a business. The publishers have found something that works for them and they are sticking with it. In spite of what anyone thinks, they can do that. It's their business.

Most of the people who submit images to the editors are observant enough to see the style of the calendar, so that is what they submit. With a few exceptions, most of what the editors have to choose from is that style. The editors can and do select images that are exceptions, but let's face it, the publisher will probably not select those images for the final cut.

None of the images that I submitted this year made it into the 2010 calendar. I did not provide what they were looking for. So much for Wright's accusation of insider trading between current editors, the publisher and former editors.

Because I was a 2009 editor, the publisher was obligated to pick one of my images, but not the second image. The second image was a derivative of an image that made it into the 2005 calendar, four years before I was an editor. For the 2009 calendar I submitted at least one image that was consistent with the calendar style. The publisher selected it in addition to one that they were obligated to select. I did not suggest to them what their first selection should be, nor did I negotiate with them or force them to select a second image from me. I also did not suggest which image to put on the cover. I don't know how to make this any clearer: The final 13 calendar images are not self juried. There is no potential for a conflict of interest.

It is obvious that some of the same people do make into the calendar from year to year. Some are former editors, some are not. I don't know why the publisher does that and I am not going to speculate on why. One might ask why there is a public call for images at all - why not just privately solicit images from the ones who consistently make it in? The publishers would be well within their rights to conduct their business that way, so why not do it that way? I don't know, but I am glad that there is a call for images because there are also new artists in the calendar every year. It's not black and white. There is a mix of former and new artists in every calendar.

Ken Childress has written a detailed response to Orbit Trap's accusations about the calendar. Like me, Ken does not speak for the publisher or editor but what he says he makes a lot of sense to me. It's right in line with what I have just said here and he doesn't have the insider's view that I have. It's amazing what a little common sense can do.