I agree with you but the only thing I wouldn't do is use them for commercial purposes without explicit permission. Other than that, yeah I should be free to do anything else with it

to make it clear and fair for everyone, i think the best way to handle it would be if the commissioner stated what they wanted to do with the art, before the artist starts working, if the purpose is anything else BUT for private use.
if you as the commissioner plan to use the art for studying, for commercial purposes or to modify it in any way, then they should inform the artist about that.

Of course they should inform. But if the commissioner feels like some colors need to be changed and some forms need to be reshaped, why not? If the commissioner will still link the original piece and creator

as i said, it depends on the artist. some artists take such changes very personal. i myself don't mind if the commissioner wants to do some changes to the picture afterwards.

I like to think of Rezillo's Rex model for VRchat as an example. One of his rules has always been that people don't use it or edit it for NSFW purposes. Nobody has ever listened to that rule because it's an arbitrary rule that nobody is actually required to agree to. He cannot actually stop anybody from doing what they want with it and he sells the rights to use it for commercial purposes.

The point is that just because you make a rule because you don't like someone using it in a way you don't personally agree with, doesn't mean they're actually required to do so. Legal stuff is different, and is why artists charge more to give up those rights.

yes, but here's the catch: products have usually different prices for different licenses.
a private license is usually cheaper than a commercial one. by not informing the artist about the intent to use the art for commercial purposes, the artist might assume it's a private commission and charge the lower price.

you can apply it to your example as well. since the model you mentioned is being sold for commercial purposes, people can do with it what they want because they paid for the commercial license :)

Right, but I'm pointing out that people don't have to listen to arbitrary rules like "don't edit my art or use it for AI"

Those are nice for someone to follow but people don't actually have to follow them. Just like people never followed Rezillo's "no NSFW" rule for his avatars. I brought up the commercial thing because that has real legal ramifications if you break that rule. The others, not so much.

(sorry for reposting, had to rephrase something)
technically, people actually do have to follow such rules since the artist is the main copyright holder. unlike big companies like for example nintendo or disney, artists don't have the cash to go against violations though. also technically, an artist should give the commissioner the terms of service to agree on, before taking the commission.

but the reality often is: art commissions are rarely done professionally. they're casual transactions based on mutual respect.

just because there are no consequences for not following an artist's rules
and there's nobody to police whether the copyright of an artist is being respected or not doesn't mean that people are free to ignore these rules ^^'
just means that nobody has to care about such rules.

and as i said before: i respect my commissioners enough to give them some freedom with the finished art, but i also wish my boundaries to be respected.
that's why communication is crucial :)

That's the point though, you can't just make up your own copyright rules. These things are governed by federal law. "No NSFW, no edits, etc" wouldn't stand especially when it's just for personal use. The commissioner can edit something they got from you, they can throw on a peen on an avatar. No one respected Rezillo's boundaries and there just wasn't anything he can do about it. At most you can just not take their money in the future but at the end of the day there's nothing stopping anyone from doing stuff like that for personal use.

I don't mean to go back and forth so much about it though, just trying to get across why some things are silly and just not really possible to enforce. So I'll fall into Greeb's camp here

I may be getting it wrong though lol It just seems like a tough thing to enforce

i'm not saying that i'm against greeb's opinion. just saying that misunderstandings can be avoided with better communication :)

i understand the arguments of both camps.
commissioners paid their hard earned money, so they want to be able to modify their commissioned art piece.
artists don't want to be stepped on and forgotten in the end.

TL;DR:
it depends on what you paid for. did you pay the artist to draw a picture of your character for you? then they should be okay with giving you the .tiff or .psd or whatever, but they shouldn't have to send you the custom tools, scripts, apps or addons they used for making the art.
...

interesting.
since i'm an artist myself who doesn't really commission others, i don't have much experience with how other artists behave or treat their work or their customers.

in my opinion, the artist should make it clear if there's anything they DON'T want the commissioner to do with their work.
by commissioning an artist, you are paying for their service. different artists offer different services.
some artists offer only their drawing skills, some offer help with brianstorming or other stuff. even their creativity is a service, as it solely depends on how much freedom the commissioner gives to the artist (that's also why in most cases, art will look better the more freedom you give the artist ;) )

now, to answer your question "who owns the art?"
... it depends >_>
technically, the first copyright holder is always the artist in question. that's why you should make clear what you want from the artist beforehand.
from my personal view, the artist should tell the commissioner what's okay and what's not *from the start*

at least that's how i do it.

whenever someone commissioned me in the past, i had no problems with giving them the work files, if they asked for it; because they paid me for the service of drawing their idea.
but when people commission me to do a 3d story for them, i'm not going to send them my 3d models, only the final pictures (and if they paid full price without my re-sell discount, they can do with the picutres whatever they want, except use it to train ai >_>)

Pretty logical response, ye. Though about AI. Have you been thinking how many are using your art behind your back? I rather know, than guess

i can imagine some people out there might be using it for ai.
the idea does hurt, because it took me decades to learn and refine my drawing style and that some people might just take my stuff and break it down with ai to replicate it feels disrespectful towards all the effort i put into my drawings.

granted, i haven't drawn anything by hand in a long time, but people should at least have the decency to respect my wish not to be blatently copied.
but i feel like that's a completely different topic than what you've posted.

But what if we think about in another way? People are so obsessed with our stuff that they wish to see it animated even with AI. But then they come for more to animate it later with AI. So you still get recognition and commissions

And actually, it's part of this conversation! Like can person use commission they got from you to animate it with AI?

If you create something, then you've got the copyright, you've got control over how it's displayed, reproduced, distributed, etc.
The only way to transfer those rights is by deliberate consent, even if payment was involved.

If transfer of copyright was not discussed during the process, then it stays with the artist, you hired their time as an independent freelancer, you aren't buying a product.
In the US there's a specific term called 'work for hire', this is where there'd be contracts in place that specifically outline that the IP for all the work belongs to the company not the artist.
But it's not a US-only concept, here in the UK the default is that freelancers own the copyrights, employees do not (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - Section 11).

So,
A, are you entitled to the source file (PSD, max res image, etc) - I would say no, not unless you specifically asked for it during the preliminary discussion (If you only asked for 'A pic of X character' then that's all they're obligated to give)
B, do you own the product - no, you're paying for a service not buying a product,
C, are you renting the art? I'd say it's more like an implied, non-exclusive and personal license. One that can be withdrawn.
D, can the artist demand it gets taken down from a site, even if they were ok with it originally? Absolutely. They could file a DMCA claim over it if they had to.
E, can they demand you don't do X, Y, Z with it - likely, but good luck enforcing it.
F, Artists who say "never to change anything in my art" would still have to deal with a case of fair use, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Artists don't have to follow the above, like you yourself say, you've got your own policy, and a number of people I've commissioned have similar ones, allowing lineart to be recoloured and uploaded, etc.

Sounds like "rent" not "own". If I get picture of my character, it's my character, so who owns a copyright at this point?

You own the character, the artist owns that picture of the character. The two rights don’t overlap, your ownership of the character doesn’t transfer copyright of their artwork, and their copyright in the artwork doesn’t give them ownership of your character. They have the full rights to display it because what they’re showing is their own creative expression - the composition, lighting, and style they created, it is not a claim of ownership over the underlying character.

Anything further regarding 'characters' usually crosses over into Trademark law, which is what big companies use to try to shut down fanart, and that's another very different matter.

Such an interesting topic overall

Also you know, what's funny about it? If it's an image of you or your character, you can tell artist to remove it. So this rule goes both ways :p

For me, it’s a pretty confusing topic.

But for me it’s mostly that since art is paid by the commissioner, it’s theirs to keep, but technically the one artist doing commissions is the one who made it.

The only thing I’m against is when they use commissioned art to feed AI and selling them as their own.

It’s a pretty confusing topic, can’t really explain it well, but I do believe that if it’s art that I’ve payed for, I should feel free to do anything I want with it.

Thank you for response. And no "The only thing I’m against is when they use commissioned art to feed AI and selling them as their own" that's Plagiarism which is stealing.

Yeah, I’m not really good at explanations myself, but yeah, Plagiarism is bad, but unfortunately, it’s inevitable.

Should’ve left that part out, since I didn’t explain very well. But yeah, if you’ve paid for the art, it’s yours to keep and Plagiarism is bad!

No worry, kitty, you all good. Thank you for your opinion ^^

Thanks and you’re welcome! ^^

I paid for it, I ain't removing it if I don't want to, especially if it's MY Characters
But, I wouldn't alter anything, (can't really do that, anyway) unless the artist who made it is okay with it

Thank you for your response.

I strongly believe that since you paid for the art.It is free for you to use.However, you want and you are entitled to ask for the data and the file sources for it, however, what I will agree with is that if you're gonna use it for commercial use.I would say ask for permission first and most importantly, do not feed it to AI .Because once ai replicates something, it's gonna keep it.And keep replicating that, and that is something I don't want to support.

And another thing even let's say I asked you to take down an artwork that i've made for you.Number one, you paid for that artwork.Unless i'm giving you something else in exchange to take it down like another artwork, because let's just say, oh, this was an old style.And I feel like I cheapened you with my old original artwork, and now it's new and improved.I can give you something better.Then, that's something totally different.But if i'm just telling you to just simply take it down, because I didn't like it, you can strongly disagree with that because i'm not giving you anything in return.

Thank you for response. Yes, AI feed is evil, but some people will keep feeding it behind artist's backs, you can't prevent it, unless you are big CEO :c

As far as I'm concerned, the commissioner's interests come first. The artist is there to provide a service, but it's the commissioner's business what's done with the final product. If anything, the artist is the one who should be asking for any permissions, because the piece wasn't created for themselves. The commissioner paid the artist for the art, so they in turn paid for the rights to whatever is done with it afterwards. It's the commissioner's property, not the artist's.

That isn't to say that an artist shouldn't be allowed to ask for something to be taken down, for example. But they need to respect that the final say is the commissioner's, not theirs. If the commissioner agrees, then it's out of respect for the artist's wishes, not out of some obligation. Any obligation in that regard needs to come with a refund, just like any return of purchased property.

Fully agree with you there

Generally I agree that letting people do as they wish with commissioned art is the better policy but that artists still deserve the right of refusal if permission has not already been given.

This kind of thing should be clarified before the art is made, but it’s definitely easy to forget to do.

I do agree with this one.

I feel it's a co-ownership. The commissioner provided the funds and the artist provided the work.

Personally, the artist will always be the other owner (aside from co-commissions in which case the other commissioner could be considered another owner) and I abide by the rules the artist provides as I would want to respect the wishes they would have for it.

Sounds like rent. Many game devs today allow you to patch and mod their games, which you paid for. Why this should be different with art?

I would say both parties partial own the commissioned piece, the commissioner paid the artist to draw said stuff and their character/s, so that whole initiation, and character/s, belongs to them. But the artist was paid to draw said idea for them, so the pic is also belonging to the artist at the same time just because they were paid to draw it, so really both own the pic. However its still a piece done by the artist, so artistically I'd say the artist has the ultimate ownership of it just because they drew it and can share it on their own platforms (just like the commissioner), this includes the artist posting it on their paywall platforms like Patreon, Ko-Fi, SubscribeStar, ect.

Now as for the commissioner they still have partial ownership to the pic because their character/s is/or are in it, and because the idea mostly may have came from the commissioner. Thats where they (the customer) has their ultimate ownership in, their own character/s which are featured in the pic. Thats the part that they have the big ownership too obviously.
Personally I mostly don't mind people sharing comm pieces of mine elsewhere as long as they give credit to me and such.

On another note, I think it depends alot on the artists? Different fellow artists usually have their own ways and are alright with allowing some stuff to be done with their pieces. Some are more strict, some mild, and some more free willy than others lol. For me I'm fine mostly with customers sharing the finished pieces I've done for them, as long as they give credit to me if they post it elsewhere. I've never had anyone ask me if they could change or alter my stuff but I think for me it would really depend on how much I trust the person, for example if their friends or commissioners that have grown to become friends with me over time or such. Then I probably wouldn't mind, if its someone I've not really worked with much or first timer, I'd want them to ask me and let me decided what to do.

Also I don't see it as rental, since you the commissioner would still have partial ownership to it, traditionally as far as what I know, when someone rents something, they don't legitimately own it, their basically just paying to borrow something. In the case of art commissions, the customer is paying to have their character/s in the piece, giving them a level of still being able to also own the piece as well. I'd say same goes for freebies, raffle pieces and such too, making it duo ownership from the buyer and artist.

Sounds logic.

Though you haven't answered about feeding your commissioned art to AI. Is person allowed to do that to animate it with the machine?

And another situation: artist asks you to delete the art completely, because he feels that way, then what?

The problem with that question is that it doesn't outline the initial purpose of the item that's being bought, which makes this too broad of a question.

Much like other commenters here say, whenever you're commissioning an artist to draw your character, you're buying a service - with an important caveat: Your ownership of the character, and the artist's ownership of the artwork.

The end product is separate from the character, in that it's the artists' means, file, time and effort paid as a service to create an image, thus it's in their right and own discretion what to do with it.
Any artists that extend this as a rights transfer in their service can do so, because they own the artwork, but this is outlined in every individual artists' TOS.

However, for example in my case, in all the years I've done commission work, I make it clear that what the client buys is my service as an artist, and I fully give the right to upload and use the piece non-commercially. I also don't upload the image if the client wants it to be private.

All of these things are, should and must be discussed between client and artist, due to how every person approaches these needs differently, so you ought to make sure you're not stepping other people's boundaries and vice-versa - an element of basic mutual cooperation and consensus.

Not every artist is trusting of a bigger chain of consequences/potential misuse (use outside of their initial accord), specifically because of people who instead of asking this, assume and self-entitle their full usage without communicating it, such as making edits that might ALSO potentially impact the overall public image of the artist.
Needless to say, no artist wants that.
It's the same reason why I stopped selling lineart a long while ago - that end result is not reflective of what I want to provide.

In short,
both parties hold ownerships to different things, and both parties have to agree which rights each party reserves or grants. This is not a black and white "rent or own" situation.

Thank you for your response.
I do like the different opinion on this one. And awww, no line commissions because of that? :c

No, because I've had that before and whenever I did, it always ended up being a cheap out just to later see it colored lazily and without the things I myself know about how to color my pieces.
I don't want that kind of image associated to me, so if I do commission work, I want it to be a real reflection of all I can provide.

NGL, if you pay a product you are not getting all the process behind it, just get the result.

I don't see any issues sharing the original file of the project for me personally but with all this AI thing popping up or worst pretenders, I can see why some might not trust this kind of thing.

I do see it like you do, I got the same things too, some are ok with colouring, some no ^^`

Plagiarism sure is stealing. But still your personal opinion about using your art and still mentioning the original piece and you as artist?

I'm totally ok with it, I generally do the other way around since I tend to colour other people works.

Really really someone reposted my works but was totally fine with it with just giving credit, both when I do it and when others do it.

I personally agree that once a piece of art has been commissioned and paid for then it becomes the property of the individual who commissioned it. Even if its digital property it is still property, similar to when an individual purchases a car. Once the car is paid off, the property is theirs the salesman can't simply come back one day and be like "Oh yeah, you know what I need that car back on my lot so I'm taking it back."
I can understand art is seen as a grey area but at the end of the day the commissioner spent money on a final product and once its delivered that's it. Its their property now. As you noted their should still always be some mention of the individual that created it, similar to how artists usual watermark their work so others know who did it. You deserve the credit for creating it, because thats how you get more commissioners later when they see it. Just simple branding and economics, in my opinion. But I was a business major so my views may be somewhat biased haha! <3
Great topic, Greeb!!

Ferrari doesn't agree with you there, hehe.

And thank you for your opinion ^^

Strictly my own opinion here...every artist has their own terms of service. And as a commissioner, I abide by those terms. So, in my opinion, it is up to the artist and what the terms were at engagement. I don't believe either party should make changes to those terms after the commission is completed. I don't think it's a matter of own versus rent, but what the terms were when the commission was agreed to.

Since I have no artistic ability, I personally would never make changes to a commission once the final production version is delivered.

Did you have a recent example of a commission you wanted to personally make changes to? Am curious why you asked the question.

Yes, I had such comms. Gladly the artist cooped with me on it.


And I had artist who asked me to delete her work because she didn't like the result