self-fulfilling-prophet:
saathi1013:
professorfangirl:
milarvela:
marybegone:
milarvela:
marybegone:
bluebellglowinginthedark:
marybegone:
mid0nz:
Here is where I display my true colors. I am a little heartbroken to see this. I commissioned the piece and the image is very meaningful to me. I don’t begrudge Alice making a profit off of it at all, and I don’t mind that it was the LP cover– how cool is that?! But to know that somebody out there is going to win a copy of the print with Benedict’s signature on it? That guts me. I need another hobby.
I personally see it like this: when I commission and pay for an artwork, the copyright for said artwork belongs to me and it cannot be sold to someone else. Bad style.
No, rights always belong to the artist, if you didn’t buy them too, there are different types of rights for different costs, so if you want it to be only yours you buy rights.
Rights don’t belong to the artist when they’ve sold them. And what am I paying for, please, when I don’t obtain the rights to an artwork that only exists because I commissioned and PAID it?
I thought fan artists always asked the person who commissioned and bought their work if they could even post it online, let alone do something else with it. Isn’t the whole idea that it’s supposed to be unique? Something personal and special that belongs to the person who paid for it?
I’d demand my money back.
Really, that’s why I have such a deep mistrust towards fan artists. I’ve already commissioned and paid two artworks which I never received (in other fandoms than Sherlock).
When I risked a third attempt (in this fandom), everything worked out beautifully though.
Now I hear of Midonz’s experience and am disappointed again.
She says she was only sad because her copy didn’t come with Benedict’s autograph. Doesn’t change what I think, though.
No. Owning the actual painting is not the same as owning copyright and reproduction rights in the painting: “It is important to know that copyright nearly always rests
with the artist, regardless of who owns the artwork” (“Copyright Law for Artists,” Writers and Artists: The Insider Guide to the Media). Copyright is rarely included with a commission, and requires a special contract. The idea may have been yours, but the creativity that made that idea material belongs to the artist: you can own the artistic product, but the artistry ain’t for sale. Fan artists are artists, and should be respected as such. (See also the “Moral Rights” section of Harvard Law School’s Artists’ Rights page.)
THANK YOU PROF. As an artist - a professional artist who creates original work for pay, as opposed to a fanartist who does it solely for the love of it (which is a sliding scale, btw, not two separate boxes) - I will fight tooth and nail for fanartists to be treated fairly, to be granted the same rights and respect as any other artists.
Which means: commissioning artists should always always come with the assumption that the artist retains all the rights to the finished work, unless specified otherwise in the negotiations. That’s not nicety or convention, that’s the law. (at least in the US, though I know it’s not uncommon in other countries, as well)
A lot of fanartists kind of handwave this part but, in discussions like this, it’s very important to make that clear: unless specified otherwise, the buyer has no rights to display, license, print, (re)sell, or otherwise “own” the image, including the copyright or license to same. “Rights don’t belong to the artist if they’ve sold them,” sure, but commissioning an artist does not include, by default, all rights to that image. Copyright and licensing is not a single package deal like a salad bar, where you pay one low rate and get everything; rights to an image is more like an a la carte menu, unless you want to throw a bunch of money at the artist and buy the whole damn menu outright.
Many times, the negotiation is informal, like “hey can you make an [x] icon for me?” - which usually means, “can you make an image of [x] that I can use for digital display, possibly across multiple platforms?” However, the artist still retains all rights to that image (including display on their own page(s), resale, printing rights, etc), unless the buyer specifically requests exclusivity.
The only reason you can reblog someone else’s art on sharing sites like tumblr is because in signing up to the website, every user grants tumblr the right to re-display our content on other blogs/pages - it’s in the TOS that basically nobody reads. But that’s also why reposting (making a new/separate post containing) someone else’s artwork without permission is not only tacky, but it’s also illegal, because you don’t own display/distribution rights to that work.
Artists, if you’re not charging extra for exclusive rights, you are underselling your work. Licensing and copyright are important - yes, even if it’s fanart. (See: Hot Topic ripping off fanartists - that’s a violation of those fanartists’ rights, yeah? no matter who commissioned the work)
And the rest of ya’ll? stop treating artists like pretty-picture vending machines, where you pop a quarter in and hit a button and get whatever you want. You don’t own rights to shit, unless you negotiate and pay for it.
(I totally get Mid0nz being kind of bummed, though - from what I understand, it’s not that she thinks she owns the image, just that she wishes she’d gotten a signed copy, which I can grok.)
If it helps, think about it in the reverse. Would you argue that for the small amount a comissioned piece costs (seriously, most comissions are very reasonably priced), the buyer has the right to reprint and sell it as much as they want, even though they did 0% of the work? Say you spent $30 on a drawing, are you going to turn around and mass produce it to sell for $10? By saying you own the rights, you are saying that the comissioner has every right to do just that. Copyright laws exist to protect artists from that very thing. While most artists are totally alright with not selling copies of a comissioned work, ultimately it is up to the artist. Contracts are very important.
(The irony is how this post is about a piece of fanart, which muddles the matter even more, since you have to consider the “source material” as well. That’s why everyone is scared of Disney’s lawyers.)