|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:36 pm
Katherdante I am fairly nieve though, I didn't go to public highschool so my friend had to explain to me the other day how 'most girls are'. Like the backstabbery and things that go on... and even then it still goes over my head becuase I dont get why people can get like that... y,y Ahh that's me too XD Christian AND homeschooled since 7th grade... though college was cool enough. I can't comprehend the whole rude/mean/backstabbing thing.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:00 am
I have another question (I have a lot of them).
Copyright issues.
Most of the commissions I engage in (likely all of them) operate under the basic understanding that the art is copyright to the creator (commissioners may not sell it in any way or claim it was created by themselves) and the character/subject/situation etc. is copyright to the commissioner.
Occasionally (and also a few minutes ago, hence this post) I come across more detailed commission terms, and one term I'm curious about (from both artist and commissioner point of view) is permission to make prints. Well, it's not even that - the terms I was just reading were explicit: the artist had the right to sell prints.
For me it's a bit of a grind (or a major one), because there are some artists I would like to commission, but I'm reluctant to engage anyone who would include selling prints of something I had commissioned as a condition. I suppose the biggest concern for me is that if I requested they stop selling the print they would be under no obligation to do so.
If anyone has any thoughts on this subject, I would love to hear them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:01 am
Audley I have another question (I have a lot of them). Copyright issues.Most of the commissions I engage in (likely all of them) operate under the basic understanding that the art is copyright to the creator (commissioners may not sell it in any way or claim it was created by themselves) and the character/subject/situation etc. is copyright to the commissioner. Occasionally (and also a few minutes ago, hence this post) I come across more detailed commission terms, and one term I'm curious about (from both artist and commissioner point of view) is permission to make prints. Well, it's not even that - the terms I was just reading were explicit: the artist had the right to sell prints. For me it's a bit of a grind (or a major one), because there are some artists I would like to commission, but I'm reluctant to engage anyone who would include selling prints of something I had commissioned as a condition. I suppose the biggest concern for me is that if I requested they stop selling the print they would be under no obligation to do so. If anyone has any thoughts on this subject, I would love to hear them. I usually ask if I can sell prints with "Character by so-and-so" written on them. Usually it's no big deal. Some people are even flattered. I handle this on a case-bycase basis pretty much. I mean, it's really just courtesy, though... because ... when you think about it, the laws of copyright are desgined so that an artist, or whomever holds the copyright at the time, can continue to profit financially off on his or work. Thus providing financial incentive for them to create more. That is, the goal of copyright in legal terms isn't to protect artist integrity or the creative property itself. Considering the artist holds direct copyright to the artwork because he or she drew/created it, he or she has the legal right to sell prints of that specific work. If you want to go even further, he or she has to give you a percentage of the profit because it's your character. But most commissioners are nicer than that and relinquish this money in exchange for their name being included with the piece which can be seen as indirect profit (just as recording artists, unlike composers, make no direct money when they record a song - they get get more famous and thus more CD sales). Nevertheless, I'm not likely to sell prints of commissioned characters because a) I want publicity for my own original characters and b) syndicated fan art sells a lot better. I'm more of a give credit-where-credit-is-due person than a give-money-where-money-is-legally-due person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:11 am
Luciole asked me once if she could sell prints of one of my commissions from her. I said it was ok as long as "Character copywrite [my real name]" appeared somewhere on the print. :3 As long as it wasn't an artwork I wouldn't want people associating my name with (can't really think of an example...maybe if it were a naughty image or something...), then I don't mind. Assuming, of course, that the artist asked me first. If I just discovered that someone made prints of my commission without checking with me, I'd probably be seriously annoyed. whee ;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:45 pm
I've politely asked a few people if they would mind if I sold prints of an artwork they've commissioned (especially if it's a piece I"m really proud of and think others might enjoy). I'd never make it a "condition" that I'm allowed to sell prints, but I do like having that option if the person who owns the characters aren't adverse to the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:19 pm
StarMasayume Katherdante I am fairly nieve though, I didn't go to public highschool so my friend had to explain to me the other day how 'most girls are'. Like the backstabbery and things that go on... and even then it still goes over my head becuase I dont get why people can get like that... y,y Ahh that's me too XD Christian AND homeschooled since 7th grade... though college was cool enough. I can't comprehend the whole rude/mean/backstabbing thing. Maybe girls shouldn't be socilzed in larger groups until their hormons settle? whee heart Ahh and I have a few things to say this about the commissioning stuff... In the actual illustration world the illustrator retains all rights for the art work and is just selling a limited use licence to the commissioner. But thats more for something that is printed in a magazine or book or something. This is the reason why I am going to have an invoice/contract sort of thing where things are clear. But I think its just important in the case of original characters where the character is the intellectual property of another individual for them to ask permission/give charater design credit where it is due. Maybe I should practice by offering to make invoice designs for already artists already taking RL money commissions? 8D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:15 pm
I suppose, ultimately, copyright is a matter of profit, but the more relevant aspect for me is ownership (I know that in the non-contract world of dA commissions the adage of "your character belows to you/the art belongs to the artist" is popular, but what does that really mean if one party can sell the character regardless?) and who decides when and where a certain image is used etc. An artist making money from my characters doesn't worry me (I've given permission to one person to make prints before), and being linked isn't really that important, either (I used to think it was, but I can live without credit), but people exerting any sort of absolute control over the use of my characters (in a specific instance, of course) does. I gather by commissioning anyone in the first place that sort of use is implied in some way ...? Katherdante In the actual illustration world the illustrator retains all rights for the art work and is just selling a limited use licence to the commissioner. But thats more for something that is printed in a magazine or book or something. I have no idea about anything in the "actual illustration world", so please forgive my ignorance on the subject - and my subsequent questions (; How can/does an illustrator retain rights to something that is already copyrighted to it's creator? I suppose it's a matter of law (although from where? Is there an international standard or does it apply to where the artist or creator/commissioner is from?). I apologise if any of this sounds at all demented - I'm trying to sound intelligent and reasonable (perhaps not succeeding).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:25 pm
Audley I suppose, ultimately, copyright is a matter of profit, but the more relevant aspect for me is ownership (I know that in the non-contract world of dA commissions the adage of "your character belows to you/the art belongs to the artist" is popular, but what does that really mean if one party can sell the character regardless?) and who decides when and where a certain image is used etc. An artist making money from my characters doesn't worry me (I've given permission to one person to make prints before), and being linked isn't really that important, either (I used to think it was, but I can live without credit), but people exerting any sort of absolute control over the use of my characters (in a specific instance, of course) does. I gather by commissioning anyone in the first place that sort of use is implied in some way ...? Katherdante In the actual illustration world the illustrator retains all rights for the art work and is just selling a limited use licence to the commissioner. But thats more for something that is printed in a magazine or book or something. I have no idea about anything in the "actual illustration world", so please forgive my ignorance on the subject - and my subsequent questions (; How can/does an illustrator retain rights to something that is already copyrighted to it's creator? I suppose it's a matter of law (although from where? Is there an international standard or does it apply to where the artist or creator/commissioner is from?). I apologise if any of this sounds at all demented - I'm trying to sound intelligent and reasonable (perhaps not succeeding). The illustrator is the creator. Their art belongs to them period. Selling rights to publish the work publically (magazine - book - etc) and selling the actual piece for personal display ONLY are compleatlay different things. Like someone could buy a piece that had previously been a book cover for example during a gallery show, but they have no right to publish/distribute that image without obtaining a licence from the artist for that. This is basic stuff in that business. An illustrators real bread-and-butter (according to my teacher who has been making a living doing this for the last 30 years) is you have to copyright your piece within 3 months of creation. So he pays a flat 40-50 doller fee (something like that) to copyright all his things and then if anyone infringes on the copyright... for instance a company bought an illustration to run in their fall magazine, and they paid for that but then they run it again the next year without getting permission/paying the artist again he can sue them. Having his work physically registared means that all legal fees will be covered and he can sue for a lot. Not having a copyrighted image registared is bad because if the same problem came up then he would have to pay out of pocket to sue and could at maximum get returned the ammount of money the company would should have paid in the first place to use the image. Thus leaving him in the negative to fight for his rights. So yes, getting things copyrighted is important. XD I'm pretty sure this is an international thing and how these things work according to my teacher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:04 am
That makes sense (amazingly - usually this sort of thing takes me a little while to process). I apologise for the incorrect use of "creator" in this instance - even though someone else has drawn my characters, I consider them (not the artwork itself) to be my creations and I use the term accordingly. I'll keep the proper use in mind from now on (:
Well, it's not that I begrudge anyone from making a profit from their own work, but I suppose I feel slightly uneasy about the idea of saying "here's my character, here's your payment, thank you for the art, now you're free to sell his likeness for the next seventy years" (or however long copyright lasts). I imagine the solution is to simply buy the copyright from an artist, although some don't offer it and I've never really thought about it until I had to (erm, right now).
Mm. Food for thought (: I hope you don't mind if I have any questions for you later - I'm afraid I really don't know much about art-related copyright at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:31 am
I've been asked by artist if they may sell prints and I say HELL YEAH! xd I'd only be happy if the artist would make a buck from "my" picture. 3nodding
It might be different to me cause my "character" is the real me. I don't copyright myself...but I can't see why the artist should'nt be allowed to do what they want with their art. Explain it to me? smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:41 am
ChemieChan I've been asked by artist if they may sell prints and I say HELL YEAH! xd I'd only be happy if the artist would make a buck from "my" picture. 3nodding
Except if it would be a character copyrighted to Zantarni. I don't think I'm allowed to give anyone permission then, since I only half own it xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:13 am
Yup, Kather's said it all right and dandy. We haven't gone over it that much in depth - I've only been in uni for two weeks - but that's the general idea of it.
Audley, I think it just depends on the faith you have in that artist. But o be honest, I think 99.9% of aritsts won't take your character and pervert it just because they have print rights to only one piece they did of your character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:33 am
WoefulInfinity Yup, Kather's said it all right and dandy. We haven't gone over it that much in depth - I've only been in uni for two weeks - but that's the general idea of it. Audley, I think it just depends on the faith you have in that artist. But o be honest, I think 99.9% of aritsts won't take your character and pervert it just because they have print rights to only one piece they did of your character. I don't think they would, either - from what you've said before, it seems right that most artists would prefer to sell works of their own characters (I would if I had any talent in that direction at all, I'm sure). I'm not completely, or even slightly, paranoid about something like that happening at all (in my understanding of the universe, no one really cares about my characters except me - makes sense) - I'm mostly just curious about how something like that works and am inflicting it on the rest of you accordingly (;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:50 am
ChemieChan I don't copyright myself...but I can't see why the artist should'nt be allowed to do what they want with their art. Explain it to me? smile well, some people are overprotective to their characters, and think that somebody would 'steal' the character itself . for me it doesn't make sence, cause sooner or later the personality would be more like the person who took the character, instead of how it was before, but still...some people take it pretty serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:16 am
LittleDream ChemieChan I don't copyright myself...but I can't see why the artist should'nt be allowed to do what they want with their art. Explain it to me? smile well, some people are overprotective to their characters, and think that somebody would 'steal' the character itself . for me it doesn't make sence, cause sooner or later the personality would be more like the person who took the character, instead of how it was before, but still...some people take it pretty serious.Oh, Thanks! Well people steal what they can...yesterday someone took my towels from the laundry room. crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
