Kind of not worth it, the commissioner basically gets money for commissioning you and you lose the most

They way I work -- the commissioner holds the rights to what I produce. This is typical of professional work. When I do work for local events, I may be able to use the work to promote myself, but I cannot re-use or re-sell anything of that work without special permission. I consider this fair, though it makes me regret the prices I set for myself (still, they are in proportion to demand).

This qualifies for people who have commissioned me for furry work. They hold the rights. If they demand that I send them the digital files and delete what I have, that is okay.

So it goes...

The system just seems impractical

I think the owners should only be the ones allowed to have a print, or give you rights to sell prints at the very beginning, have a commission form they fill out and say yes/no to it. no problem after that and no need to split cost since it is your art.

My talent, not my art. A commissioner buys my talent to make their art.

This is how I work. When I work professionally, this is the assumed arrangement.

...I was unaware this was not the common practice in furry, or FA.

Well most people on fa, say here's a character, and expect art, not an idea.

Like i said, best case would probably be make a commission form of some sort and let them fill it out with a yes we share, no print, and possible i don't mind what you do option.

I understand your point though, it's more professional, but most people on FA aren't really that professional. Some artists are totally opposite, so it's good your asking around :3 shows what kind of person/artist you are. It ensures customers.
Goodluck though!

Furries and Fur artists have ZERO clue how the real commercial graphics world works. A lot of folks have no idea that by buying a commission they are supposed to be buying complete rights to the picture and the artist is supposed to lose all rights. A lot of folks have no idea that they really should receive the original... which makes me wonder about the arrangements they have regarding digital work. Is it given in proper formats for reproduction!?

Fandom commissions are almost never work-for-hire. The fandom customer is paying to see their favorite artists draw their character/idea, plus whatever kind of extras the artist is offering (mailing the original for instance).
Part of the reason furry commissions are so cheap is that the rights aren't included.

I have never heard of someone splitting the profit of a print with the person who commissioned the work o-o

Most people I know just have a clause in their terms of service saying they own the rights to the image since they drew/created it and can remake prints as they please without claiming ownership to the character in the image. And personally I think that's fine.

I am curious as to why you wouldn't want the buyer reselling the print at a later date if they need to thin their print collection.

Sorry if I'm being too blunt -- but I'm repeating myself in these responses.

It is typical in professional work that the commissioner holds full rights. And since I have already done several pieces of work without any stipulation about otherwise, I think it wouldn't be worth the trouble to change direction now. So this is how I do business -- and I was unaware it was any different here.

If that is clear, that might help clear up why I wish to handle matters this way.

in this fandom there is a severe lack of professionalism. on the good side though prices are much lower then what professional business or fine art goes for which is good since most furs wouldnt be able to pay what rich patrons of the arts or professional use that busineses can pay for.

I'm comfortable dealing in the middle of that -- medium professionalism at an affordable price :)

So long as no one complains about the speed (or lack of speed) that I work at...

No it's alright. I see what you mean to an extent.

But in the furry art 'business' we aren't exactly charging professional rates(usually). So you are undercutting yourself by giving up the rights to the images for so cheap.
But if that is your policy I will not challenge it. That's just my opinion on the matter :)

I think that the first two out of three ain't bad.

To me the third condition is a bit onerous and practically unenforceable.

I don't know... Personally I would prefer to commission artists who work in a professional manner. That is, I would not like to discover later that the artist is selling prints featuring my character. So... It's just a sign of professionality if the artist states the 'terms of service' before the commission. Your terms would seem fine to me.

I once had an art trade, and before I had the chance to buy the original, the artist had sold it without asking me about it. Artwork with a character design that belonged to me. I only got to know about it through the artist's website. (Sure, it was not a commission
but a trade, and some folks don't see them as similar cases, but I won't get into that now.)

I accepted my loss, in silence and biting my tongue. I was never able to see him/her as a professional artist nor a person worth commissioning, even though other people kept him/her in high regard.

Just so it is known (and because I never thought to mention it before), the only 'originals' that exists of my work are the inked line drawings. The rest of my processes are digital. In the past, I used to send these out in the mail to the commissioner. But now, while doing business on FA, I intend to keep them if possible.

As for non-commissioned work -- to date, I have only sold originals at my first AC in 2001. I lost my hard drive shortly after, and all the scans of those originals as a result. That will never happen again.

But this is a wasted opportunity. I would like to propose selling prints of other commissioned work with a few conditions:
1. the profit, minus the cost of the print (if any), will be split 50/50 with the commissioner.

thats fair especially if the character being drawn influences the purchase. it can be hard to tell someotmes if a print is bought because of the look of the character or the skill of how they are drawn. Most artists assume its all their skill and figure even if not that its not worth their time to share. One way around that is to charge more for commissions that cant have prints sold and less for those that can.

2. the commissioner has to approve the sale to the buyer.

while it would maybe make sense for someone to not want certain people to own art with their character in it its not practical to enforce. One can make digital copies.once something has a print made of it "the cat`s out of the bag" so to speak.

3. the buyer must agree to never resell the print.

this one is unworkable.I also find it dumb to say once you buy a copy of something that you can do as you wish with it. I dont mean make more new copies but that one physical copy you buy should be yours to do with as you wish.

That is a really terrible policy... You have no legal authority at all to impose the third clause. Also, a previous commissioner of yours has no right whatsoever to dictate to which private individuals you may or may not sell your work if they allow you to sell prints at all; that is all or nothing, there is no in between.

In addition, you should never hand over all of your rights to your work unless the commissioner explicitly pays you for them for them. Unless I have misunderstood you, what you're doing isn't common professional practice anywhere at all in the US, and I am actually rather worried that your good intentions will be abused considerably one day.

I agree that it is professional to ask commissioners if you may sell prints and subsequently respect their wishes, but I firmly disagree with the clauses you have listed. They are all exceptionally unfair to you.

I strongly suggest you check out Artists Beware for advice from professional artists all over the globe before proceeding with this policy. They will be able to help you work out a policy that is fair for both you and your commissioners, and answer any questions you may have. It really is an excellent community, so I do hope you will consider giving them a shot.

Regardless, good luck with this! Prints can be a valuable source of income, so I hope you'll be able to work out something satisfactory.

I know the system might not make sense -- but as a professional graphic designer who has contracted artists, and freelance illustrator, I can assure you that the common assumption, unless stated otherwise, is: the artist gets paid // the artist kisses the work goodbye.

It has mostly to do with marketing and protecting brand identity. If you were to illustrate Michael Jordan for an event poster, Michael Jordan's agents would not allow you to risk his image by then re-using the artwork inappropriately. You are able to use the artwork for self promotional purposes, but unless you are given a written statement allowing you to do otherwise, you cannot reproduce the work commercially. You can protect yourself by handing the client a different contract, but why bother? --you could risk losing the job, and the work you'll produce most likely will only be of use to the client (client: "so draw a dinosaur wearing our hat and logo, charging over a NASCAR track, while waving a flag with the new tag-line on it." [yeah, okay, this will suck for me, but at least the paycheck will make the memories of what I'm drawing hurt less).

I have run into this a few times with the local roller derby teams. They have allowed me to reproduce their artwork for sale -- ONLY if I go back into the design and remove any and all markings that identify the roller derby team and the WFTDA organization. This was generous of them, frankly.

I have also purchased commissions from artists for magazines and calendars. The work belongs to the client I work for -- end of story. We might relay a request from the artist to the client for rights management, but we're overworked as it is, and tend to just tell the artist it probably won't happen unless they go to the client directly and beg.

What this comes down to for me is thus: my artwork is under-priced; this is not due to my generosity, but due to the demand I assume the artwork has; I sell over the rights out of habit, and, because, with the exception of three commissions that I have done in all my years, I have no idea what I'd ever do with them (I do not feel they are capable of re-selling). So... yeah, I'm being taken advantage of, but I knew this when I signed up to be on FA.

I can understand that. Those examples are all commercial commissions, though, not private. I assume that they include a payment for rights to the work in addition to your time and experience. That's a very different monster in comparison to private commissions, and I agree in that case that you should consider negotiating a contract for royalties (in my opinion, however, the remaining two clauses are still ridiculous regardless xD).

I have assumed you are working with private commissions considering the clauses you've listed though, which is why I said you should not give up your rights for them automatically. This isn't an issue that pertains to just FA. FA doesn't have anything to do with it, really. It's an issue that effects all of your private work, and could potentially endanger your business exponentially if it is taken advantage of.

Again, I really do hope you consider asking Artists Beware. They're really very helpful, and I would personally like to hear their responses to this just for future reference, since I am having difficulty finding anything similar in their archives.


Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me! I really appreciate your response.

It might make things a whole lot easier if you offer two typed of commission; one which is your standard rate (or even a little higher) with the stipulation that NO prints or sharing will be done with the image and a second, cheaper off in which you are allowed to market the image in the form of prints afterwards. Yes, this would mean that you would be selling prints of someone else's character but if that's stipulated at the time of commission AND is reflected in a much lower price, I would think that fair. Obviously, you couldn't make your own images of said character for further sale. Also, with the more expensive, one-time only image, it should be stated and understood that the commissioner does not have the right to market or distribute your commission for them either.

The second rule sounds like a logistical nightmare. Constantly putting yourself between a commissioner and a buyer which allows in all sorts of potential for personality conflicts? Gah. Is this really worth a $15 print sale? Besides, as your commissions add up in number, how much of your time would be devoted to brokering these sales?

Your third rule is utterly unenforceable and quite honestly has no basis in the 'real' art world.

Best of luck as always, dood!

I like this idea...

Although -- I would be VERY uncomfortable selling another individual's character.

But if their character is not heavy on details, and can be made to be rather... unidentifiable... then maybe after hearing their commission details -- I'd ask them to agree to open rights to sell prints.

Good suggestion. Thanks.

Unfortunately, part #3 is unenforceable because it violates the First Sale Doctrine in the US. There's numerous cases (linked in that Wikipedia page) that said that whoever bought an item can resell it.

Would never have known something like this --still-- existed. Listening to the news these days, has left me believing it no longer existed.

It's one of those things that you think wouldn't exist until someone smacks into it or makes a big deal out of it -- usually in a court case.

Since the commissioner has the rights, you could always forward potential buyers to the original commissioner to bug THEM for a print. O_o

Wouldn't that be annoying though?

I don't want to piss off commissioners -- I like repeat business.

You could always ask them when they first request the commission if they're open for resales of the image... and then ask which way they'd like to handle it. If given a way to make prints themselves they might enjoy that 'power' over it.

I tend to subscribe to the opposite beliefs (which are closer to the legal truths from what I've researched) for any art I commission. Unless it's explicitly work-for-hire at commensurately higher prices/costs based on denying the artist the ability to monetize the work I had them do, it's theirs to monetize further. In laymans terms, I'd be adding a 0 onto the end of the price if ti was work-for-hire generally. No, they don't have copyright or trademark or ownership (as legally appropriate based on jurisdiction/etc) on one or more characters in the artwork, but they have copyright on that instance of them in the piece, that performance in musical terms.

And yes, I've gone the additional-zero-on-the-price route a couple times for very personal artwork, but I keep in mind that anything I purchase without paying that higher rate I may well see prints of. Heck, some of the artwork I've commissioned has ended up re-used in con-books (Rain Furrest this year in fact) and other places. One piece I actually got a slight discount because I worked with the artist to make it more marketable as a print.

So, perhaps oddly from your view, I figured you had all rights to the artwork I've commissioned from you. Yes, I may have ownership of the character, but much like the copyright on Beethoven's 5th has expired, you can't post a recent recording of it from a CD you bought at the store because the orchestra that performed it owns the copyright to that instance. The sheet-music? Sure, that's public domain though.

But yeah, if you can sell a print once mine's done? Go for it! All yours, more power to you, enjoy! :)

I dunno... Maybe it's because I've spoken to you on numerous occasions and feel I have no reason to doubt you, but if I were given these terms, I would have no issue with it. I mean, I'd be flattered that anyone would want a print featuring my character, and even more so that you were going to split the profit with me. Outside of what STRedwolf pointed out about the third bit, I see no issue with it if I were to commission you (which I WILL do someday if only to pay you back for years of explaining politics and then helping me when I was considering graphic design in school). Then again, I barely made it through my initial year at art school, and never learned anything about the business end. When I did commissions, I did whatever felt comfortable and seemed right based on what other people did, and I think you should do that too. You don't have a company behind you who has influence in what you do, so you should do what YOU and the commissioner feel comfortable with. Obviously you understand that the furry art market isn't really fair to the artist in question, so I suppose not fighting it and accepting it for what it is is a good start. I mean, if the commissioner has a problem with these terms, I would think they could discuss it with you and if you see trends, you'll make changes accordingly. You're a smart fellow :P I trust you!

I think it's a neat idea.

For what it's worth I was actually surprised you gave over full rights as as others have pointed out, that's not the norm in the fandom. But do whatever you're comfortable with! I think it's pretty neat :)
OTOH most folks don't sell prints of other people's commissions without permission from the commissioner, even if it's within their legal rights. I do agree I would feel wonky doing so as well, though I retain rights to post pieces in my portfolio and galleries.

Forgot to add I'd be more than cool with you selling prints of my commission. 50/50 split of profit is pretty generous!

I think rule 3's not necessary though, like as not it'll do nothing but put people off.