FA+
Shop
First impressions from an "odd" conversation (and a PSA.....
a year ago
Among the things distracting me last week was an artist who messaged me over on dA with a question.
They were asking if it was okay to use/reference a few pieces from my gallery for a work they're doing -- a question SO far out of left field I was more confused why they were even asking than anything else. Because unless they are creating a direct study ("copy") of a specific piece, using references is free, right?
Maybe you've heard this story before?
If not, the short version is that it's called the "muse scam". Ostensible artist claims they are creating a large painting for a client, want to use a few of your pieces as reference, and are willing to credit you for it. Which (were it legit) might not be much different conceptually from when, say, Weird Al asks permission to produce a parody song based on an artist (requiring no involvement from the artist beyond simple authorization) -- but the hangup to the story is that for whatever reason their client is unable to pay them directly, and needs someone else to act as a middleman.
It was a few days of noncommittal responses before that last detail came up, but that's what finally tripped my potential-red-flag sensor ... and it only took one brief Internet search to confirm the problem.
Subsequently, I researched the handful of images they attached to one message (as "proof" of their "work") which Google traced to sites like dA, Instagram, and Tiktok. From someone who simultaneously claimed that they didn't keep an online gallery (for phobia of art thieves). Yeah, that's another red flag that I missed the first time around -- but at least I caught it the second time!
I might have mentioned more details than necessary (the ideal amount being, of course, zero) but neither did I give them any "need-to-know" / exploitable information (like a personal phone number). My last reply (as of last night) only pointed out how unusual it sounds if their client cannot just pay them directly. If this made them suspect I was starting to "crack the code" ... well, they're not wrong....
If there's a take-home lesson to all this, I guess it is: you never really know whether or not you'll identify a scam until/unless someone ACTUALLY attempts to push one on you.
They were asking if it was okay to use/reference a few pieces from my gallery for a work they're doing -- a question SO far out of left field I was more confused why they were even asking than anything else. Because unless they are creating a direct study ("copy") of a specific piece, using references is free, right?
Maybe you've heard this story before?
If not, the short version is that it's called the "muse scam". Ostensible artist claims they are creating a large painting for a client, want to use a few of your pieces as reference, and are willing to credit you for it. Which (were it legit) might not be much different conceptually from when, say, Weird Al asks permission to produce a parody song based on an artist (requiring no involvement from the artist beyond simple authorization) -- but the hangup to the story is that for whatever reason their client is unable to pay them directly, and needs someone else to act as a middleman.
It was a few days of noncommittal responses before that last detail came up, but that's what finally tripped my potential-red-flag sensor ... and it only took one brief Internet search to confirm the problem.
Subsequently, I researched the handful of images they attached to one message (as "proof" of their "work") which Google traced to sites like dA, Instagram, and Tiktok. From someone who simultaneously claimed that they didn't keep an online gallery (for phobia of art thieves). Yeah, that's another red flag that I missed the first time around -- but at least I caught it the second time!
I might have mentioned more details than necessary (the ideal amount being, of course, zero) but neither did I give them any "need-to-know" / exploitable information (like a personal phone number). My last reply (as of last night) only pointed out how unusual it sounds if their client cannot just pay them directly. If this made them suspect I was starting to "crack the code" ... well, they're not wrong....
If there's a take-home lesson to all this, I guess it is: you never really know whether or not you'll identify a scam until/unless someone ACTUALLY attempts to push one on you.
