I notice many working in animation tend to do "work for hire" even if they also create their own works, like Bill Plympton. I am curious which you prefer? This is not just about the work, as I am sure a majority would prefer to be creating their own stuff. I am also talking about the benefits, financial or otherwise, to doing so. While Bill Plympton seems to do well profiting from his original shorts and features, I am sure most would agree it is not easy. While creating your own short or feature may be more fun and artistically rewarding, I am including putting food on the table in this equation as well. With that in mind, which do you prefer?
I prefer work for hire.
I prefer it because I get to set my own hours, my own work tempo.
I work at home and do not have to commute.
I can work naked if I want.
My music can be whatever I want to listen to....as loud as I want it to be.....my work space decorated exactly as I choose.
I get a "bigger" cheque because there's no deductions taken off at source, and furthermore I GAIN more deductions because I'm a self-employed contractors rather than an employee. In the end, I make more money because I can claim far more expenses in the course of the work.
Creating my own stuff doesn't pay. I don't have to "sell" work for hire....I just have to complete the work, to specifications and on time. Service work comes far more often than pet projects do, in the sense of providing for me and my household. I have colleagues that have realized their own properties......and everyone one of them went back to work for hire after their own project was done. The dream of it freeing them completely for creativity is, frankly.......an illusion/myth.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)