I think these are matters of conscience and personal choice in what is thankfully a free market. But I'll try.  Of course anything I say is from an artists perspective. I've read plenty from publishers over at SG.

I can see at least three sides to the issue - "no one is forced to take low paid work".  This I can agree with, though I think that is a little naive to play that card too hard. Those wanting to become professional artists do of course feel a huge pressure to get into print, and would-be employers paying low do often work on that desire, using terms such as "good for the folio", and "good exposure", "name in the credits" and so on.  Its not forcing anyone, of course not, but it is deliberately pressing those pressure buttons for personal ends.  How ethical or inethical that is is again a matter for personal conscience. Having been a wide eyed kid just desperate to get into print, I think you know how I see that.  Thank goodness I woke up to the realities of the market before I became as embittered as some of the young (once) hopefuls I speak to at cons, who have been continually underpaid and underexposed by these kinds of jobs.  No one is forcing anyone. I agree. But it is rarely so simple when you are talking about what is often vocational work.

On the flip side I do think sometimes the excuse "but I'm indie so my budget is tiny" is overplayed as a reason not to pay a decent wage for someone else's labour. I don't think its wrong or wholly inaccurate. And indeed a publisher can only pay what their budget allows.  But the figures we're sometimes talking about for art budgets I could shake out of my jeans and various jamjars full of coppers round the house. If I were producing a game I might consider saving up a little?  Is that an outrageous assertion to make?  When I or others have posted similar thoughts before we've been slated.  But seriously, if I want to buy something expensive, I save up.  A couple of hundred bucks is not a lot of money for what it buys in small press art. There are often false dichotomies raised "We're not Wizards of the Coast". Sure thing - Wizards pay $800 a page.  No one is expecting that from small presses.  But a very modest $150 a page (for example)  is not an outrageous sum to ask either for skilled work.  In terms of bespoke illustration its dirt, dirt, dirt cheap.

On another flipside, I think there can be a lot of entitlement complex going on surrounding work that simply doesn't deserve any better pay. Its very tricky to deal with that.  Those who's work simply isn't good enough to sell for a working wage often lack the objectivity to see that.  And that can undermine the push for decent working conditions for artists.  Not everyone who wants to be an artist has the skill.  Not everyone who claims to offer a professional service can come up with the goods. And those people will always be used against the genuine folks.  Trust me, its all rather embarrassing when you see someone who can barely draw waving the flag and tooting the horn for "fair treatment".  Really in this long ramble, this I suppose is my core point. Much of the responsibility for how artists are treated comes to rest on our own door step.  So I certainly have no interest in debating with publishers any more.

Its a very tricky situation really, with no simple answers.

I think sections of the indie scene do their peers down when they plead poverty too hard using their size/genre as a reason.  Some indies pay a very nice wage, and are happy to do so. To make a sweeping claim that of course no indie can pay a living wage, and to ask for such means you don't understand the market and so on - well it discredits those who do pay good money for good art.  Its ironic to be asked to work for love, by those desperate not to "make a loss" - or "invest in their product" - or even "refuse to take any financial risk at all on their own product", as I could more challengingly phrase it. ( I have a wry grin here, rather than a snarl if that helps communicate the playful spirit in which I say that)

I enjoy working with small press when the opportunities arise and fit my schedule. But on the whole I have to earn my daily bread, so its not often I can do so.  But I do my best since I admire much of what is produced in the indie and small press scenes, and I don't think it hurts to support this grass roots stuff where I can, in an attempt to feed something back.  Now I think that's a situation all parties need to recognise and work around accordingly.   I don't demand my top dollar rates from small presses if I have the time and the inclination to work on a product.  Equally I don't expect to hear "entitlement bullshit" criticised by those who get very cheaply priced professional work, which is in fact subsidised by other larger publishers who do pay a living wage.

Equally there are plenty of artists who don't use their craft to earn a living, so are free to use their hobby time to work for free or very cheap. I have no great beef with that.  I would politely suggest they respect those who do make a living, and don't clog up the spaces where we "professionals" (in the sense of earning a living), self promote and gain work.  If its "just a hobby" it seems a shame to aggressively publicly undercut and/or mock those who do try to make a living wage from their art.  And remember that by working super-cheap or free, you will be held up as an example with which to bash those who expect a decent days pay for a decent day's work.  But that's very much a suggestion and no more. People need to work to their own conscience.

Something I will say about the "fair pay" situation is this - if you're not paying a professional wage (and lets call that an hourly rate suitable for moderately skilled labour, or hey, even shelf stacking if we must) then it seems most unfair to demand a fully "professional" service.  I have many times seen adverts for art jobs which play the two extremes - they have a tight specification, a tight deadline, a requirement for professional quality, and yet simultaneously demand that applicants respect the fact that the small presses never make any money, so the pay is very low.  Again with the "entitlement", hmmm?

And then you read a thread from the same publisher, whereby they list their sales and they are clearly making decent  money, and are proud of it.  Or else they are bragging about their ludicrously well-paid day job which is far too cushy to ever give up for full time work in rpgs.  They seem to quickly forget that they played the poverty card to their contractees.

In my book that's double dealing, and could be seen as somewhat dishonest. Its certainly not limited to the indie scene, and in many ways its a compliment to that scene that it disappoints me to see that happening.   I'm not naive enough to think these situations will ever change wholesale, nor are they entirely deliberately caused. Of course not. But that's my own tuppence worth of thoughts on the matter.

On a positive parting note, I very much enjoyed recent posts over at the Collective Endeavour where the goodly folks there often stress dealing with artists as you yourself would wish to be treated - paying reasonably for skilled work, paying on time, being honest and so on.  I love the fact that some of the core guys of that group - most notably Malc Craig and Gregor Hutton love games as physical artifacts, and respect the work that artists can bring to a game.  Nicely warms the cockles of my cold black heart.  I've always thought that someone must think that, somewhere out there in the small press scene.

Oh and a data point for that SG discussion, without wishing to get directly involved - I have worked for Adept Press and was paid very reasonably for what I did.  :)