The Commissioner

Actually the artist who actually depicts it, owns the work. Any characters contained still are property of the copyright holder, not the artist. That's by default US and most international copyright/rtm laws. If the commissioner and the artist work a different arrangement, that changes things. This usually requires some kind of proof or written contract.

See bottom comment.

But yeah.

In the commerical world (completely apart from the furry world), almost all commissioned works are performed as "work for hire", in which case the commissioner owns all rights.

So far I've only seen furries do it the other way around and assert the artist owns everything. I assume it's probably because most furry artists are dirt poor and want to control something, even if they have no reasonable means of capitalizing on it.

Go figure furries would do everything backwards.

I do agree the entire piece in general is the Commissioners.

I do not do work for hire. I create illustrations.

That's reflected in my prices, and in the whole workflow i have. In fact, if i did work for hire, i would infringe an italian laws about payments.

Per "work for hire" qui si intende quello che da noi richiede partita IVA? Anch'io sto cercando informazioni su questi argomenti ma non ho concluso molto...

In pratica, io creo immagini per conto mio, e poi vendo un prodotto finito come si vende una lavatrice su ebay. Se lavorassi a contratto, o guadagnassi piu' di 6000 euri l'anno dovrei pagare la partita iva e tassare le commissioni. Questo è quello che mi hanno detto a scuola ed è il modo con cui si fanno fumetti in italia fuori bonelli.

Capisco. Quindi in pratica ci si basa sulla fiducia per il pagamento, dato che non esiste un contratto a priori. :-P

O esiste un contratto, ma solitamente e' cosi' generico che potresti riadattarlo per un taglialegna senza cambiare una riga XD

I still think it's better to be open to what you believe are your rights and the customer ones, instead of just keeping things on the air.

About what laws requires, i've read enough contrasting information to agree with my teachers, you're right until you lose in court :P

Alpha is right to want to clarify a contract, and should mention clearly 'for-profit' and 'non-profit' uses.

Even with what you say Ssvanti, it is checkmate: The artist is not allowed to republish the fursona without consent, and could be sued for royalties on it.

Unless stated: even if the commissioner doesn't pay, the artist shouldn't publish the art if it contains a fursona, without the owner's consent.

In fact I saw on SF a story like that where the commissioner revoked all rights, and did not pay up. So the author replaced the character with another and published anyways. It made a stink, but because the story was never paid AND the fursona was not used, it was fair, with just one pissed furry.

I see artists as for-hire employee, like I am: As an employee I loose all right to anything I create for the company, aka anything in the domain, even if I do it off work hours I believe. I would tend to think a commissioned artist is like that. By default if I pay someone to do work for me, he is hired, unless there is a clear statement otherwise. For me, the artist releases all rights to the art to the buyer, if he is paid to do it.

This is VERY DIFFERENT from an artist making art, and then selling prints. The artist retains all rights, and the buyer owns THAT COPY. If the item is unique, the buyer owns all of it.

So far, nothing any of the three of us has said, has conflicted. I've been reading copyright and RTM laws for a while now thanks to artists like Faint who want to sell commissioners more rights to the image they render, and because of artists that essentially send out full contracts prior to work like Fydbac.

There is an issue with artists getting uppity about "requirements" being set for a commission, and that's also why I've changed my policy 3 times now. Verbal agreements are JUST as legal as written, so a physical sheet of paper, or even digital is not a requirement. Time stamped policies on the web ARE legally binding. I haven't had the need to go full contract route yet. Though it's something I am prepared to do.

Actually my experience with clients is on the opposite spectrum, it's about them believing the have LESS freedom than what i think their money should give them.

I get asked permission for no-profit use and prints regularly.

Well I think if someone wants to sell off the artwork that you did for them they SHOULD take it up with ya.

But if it's non-profit I'd think that's okay.

Have you ever had someone coming across they're commission you did for them trying to sell it to someone else?

Never, in fact, furry commissioners are way LESS fishy than actual editors go *lol*

What buggers me is the "can i post it?" question, because, seriously, you spent money an this and you think you should have to ask? Of course you can.

I agree there, Well they are just making sure your okay with it

But like Triggur said, They do own all right to post freely.

Think of it like this, Your VERY respected for your work!

Wow. That's a great stance; I wish all artists had it.

I've had an artist go moonbat crazy about me reposting his work.

Yup, i got the impression this actually happened, i just get asked that too many times.

I feel it's both parties, myself. Character is someone else's, but the art is the artists. That's why I always say that the art was done by the artist and that the character or sona was done by me or is owned by another person.

Pretty much, I say the Commissioner has the right for everything personal.

But the Artist has all the work credit and reproduction circumstances with the Commissioner.

-nods- Gotta give credit where credit is due. Really hate when someone says that they did the art when they didn't of a commissioned work.

And by putting it on written word, i've just irrevocably conceded those sharing rights to all my commissioners, that was the plan ;)

I think this is the type of information artist should put on their profile or commissions page.
Though, I still think the commissioner should get full non-profit ownership of the image if the artist doesn't mention something about it before completing the peice, because there's a lot of art that is made and bought for these purposes (icons. adoptables, and a few more.)

If i give my commissioners full ownership, i would also give them for-profit usage rights. This would open me for serious exploitation but also legal risks. Instead I'm granting them pretty much every right i can, that's a good compromise IMO.

True, though the only case where it'd be unfair would be if they made a ton of profit, but that's not very likely since most of your commissioners go for something more personal.

This is why both parties agree to terms before anything happens. I know I'd never give a cent to someone who won't let me post the commission anywhere, for example.

I'm with this.

Artists who go crazy about my posting a work I paid for no longer get my business.

Especially in the fandom where the stakes are so low. It's not like Proctor & Gamble using the work in a hojillion dollar marketing campaign, it's usually a picture of a wolf penis.

Yeah I also don't think I'd commission anyone who is going to put my work into something else they plan to sell, especially if it was adult work. Just because it's a made up character image doesn't mean I necessarily want it paraded around. There's the point that they drew it but you in turn provided the idea for it.

I suspect some of my commissioners had that kind of trouble: that is, artists restricting their sharing "intuitive" rights.

We recently posted an article that touched on this, with the premise being that the reason that it can be a little touchy is that the art in question isn't simply a nice-to-look-at piece, but is a graphic representation of what a fur would consider to be their Self, or at least a partial aspect of it. That the artist isn't performing work-for-hire and thus maintaining some rights over their image combined with the fact that some of the content is, at the very least, very dear to the person who commissioned the work, some strife is understandable.

As a counter-example,  pseudomanitou posted a journal recently ( http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2840110/ ) about potentially offering prints of commissioned work, since he does work under a work-for-hire model, and the comments received there provide a unique look into how different this is from the norm within the fandom. Some interesting stuff out there, for sure!

Cheers,

[a][s]

 pseudomanitou is super-professional.

I can't work on that model, because it would be illegal here and my prices and working conditions don't reflect that.

But yeah, if a customer wants full ownership for commercial purposes I'm open to sell it too. What i can do, though, is to give them every other possible right.

That's totally understandable. I just bring it up because it's interesting! Doubly so hearing it from a point outside of the States. Furry art commissions in general work a lot like commissions in the music world, where a commission will get you, say, first and limitless performance rights, but it's not as if the song is Yours, capital Y and all. I'm just curious, and feel free not to answer, but regardless of the legal aspect, how do you feel about the concept of character as self, from an artist's standpoint? Is it "just work", or are you drawing an aspect of someone's personality? How does that jive with your understanding of the legal aspect?

I recommend googling for 'art commission contract sample'..

And simply let any commissioner sign one then. Because simply agreeing on something or having them nod off some webpage that states your conditions will do nothing if you happen across someone who has a slightly uninformed, twisted view on copyrights, usage rights, reproduction rights, etc..

Of course, if you are really serious about this - a lawyer. And not just any lawyer. Pick one that specializes in this. Nearby art galleries or art studios might be able to point you in the direction of one in your area since they'll probably have the help of one. Even if you just pay a few bucks so he can help you with coming up with a waterproof contract of your own that does all the things you want.

That's killer advice there, i never thought about actually doing that, thanks :3

It is not customary to have a button 'click this and you agree to terms of service'.

If you mark your commission with 'By buying a commission from me, you agree to the commission terms show here, if terms are not clear please inquire for details'.

I have an awful, terrible, habit of editing commissions into "remixed" versions.
If not that, then just the particular deal about people coloring artists' lineart, or people paying others to color.
Can I pick your brain about possible rights issues for that sort of thing?

For the record, however, I won't put commissions into something I intend to sell later.

Added remixing, and i also specified about fair use, i am open to heavily edited version to be part of commercial work even without me profiting.

I didn't realize commissions were so complicated. I'd hate to have to pay for a drawing if I couldn't actually own the drawing. How lame would that be. If I'm paying for it I should be able to do whatever I want with it. No questions asked.

And i would love to own the movies in my dvds. But i don't.

Still, i do believe commissioners should have the broadest possible freedom to do what they want with the art they pay for. Withing the reality of prices, working conditions, and laws.

Good point.

Bad comparison:

You bought a copy of the DVD, you can sell it.

However the producers financed the film, and get a cut of the DVD sales.

The guy who held the boom or painted the special effects backgrounds was "for-hire" and got paid a fixed price even though he contributed to the "art" of the movie, maybe even with original content. Only the stars get a cut. Same with animation. People doing the drawings get paid minimum wage and a boot up their ass if they slow down the pace.

I've always been under the assumption that art belongs to those who created it.

However, I can see where people may get muddled in confusion. A good example is an art piece sold at a gallery. A patron will pay thousands of dollars to own that piece and display it in their private collection. Does that mean they own it? I would say yes.

Furry art is a little different. We are working with digital media and as such there is something quite intangible about that. We can see it but there is no physical product exchanging hands. I would rule, in that case, that the art is owned by the artist. Characters within are copyright to their respective owners.

An example would be, if you drew something with my character without my permission. My right of ownership of my own intellectual property would come into play and I could ask it be taken down. However, if I agreed to let my character be drawn I have given the artist the right to depict my character in a way I would find agreeable. It is sort of the unspoken rule I suppose, that if you agree to pay someone to draw you something the artist has the right to display it (unless permission is asked, in which the artist can decline).

There is, indeed, a kind of grey area concerning commissions in the fandom. I hope my two cents helped. If it just made things worse, oh well. =p

-Tibs

The actual law truth would be quite shocking i suspect, not only artists have full propriety unless a contract states otherwise, but every fursona is co-owned by the guy who invented it *and* the first artist who invented his visual representation. And since usually furries are more visually unique than unique in writing, it's possible a good chunk of furries lost their fursona to the first artist they asked a commission.

Humanity in and of itself is a far more visual culture. That is evident even in our own fandom where furry literature is almost a starving market. There are always going to be an avid reader fan base but the majority of people want a visual representation of their character. Even some of the most publicized furry writers have had their own fursona's drawn by artists. We, as a fandom, do not give as much attention to someone who simply writes and characterizes themselves only through their writing. I write to contribute to the fandom but I've even had my characters drawn, especially my fursona as that is the outward expression of what I want people to see of me in the fandom.

I do agree that, to an extent, both the creator and the original artist have a kind of "ownership" to the design of the character. However, as time progresses and each iteration of the character is drawn with evidence of evolution, who exactly owns that character at that point?

I have no idea personally, i'm no copyright lawyer. Just stating that i try my best on murky waters. I'm probably a copyright violator myself by drawing characters from the references given to me without asking the original visual creators.

Well, if you want to get right down to the nitty gritty of it all, perhaps. However, in this fandom, IP doesn't really work in such stringent conventions.

I do work with someone who is a copyright lawyer. I should bug him sometime.

From my own experience when working as a web designer, I've worked on a design-for-hire scheme, where the commissioner gains all rights to the product assuming I can use it to advertise or demonstrate, either in my portfolio, on example sites or elsewhere. Honestly I think artists here are a bit too pedantic about art ownership, I'm fairly sure people here won't try to profit off of an artists work (which is what worry most) so really all they need to do is state that rights are transferred assuming the commissioner agrees to a non-profit contract.

The other part of the argument I guess is artist representation, if someone gets rights to an artists work and then edits it to the point of destroying the piece, then it can reflect badly on the artist - however again, this can be solved by a bit of talk, few people are willing to deface art to that degree and if they do they would be shunned by the artist community in the same way artists can be shunned by their own behaviour.

Every artist, should have a fair use contract upfront posted along with pricing. Else ANY for-profit use needs to be discussed later.

In the fandom EVERY fursona is copyrighted as they are a unique image that is owned by its author. This is void if the artist is asked to draw a generic character that the artist helps shape. In general, any work is copyrighted whether explicitly said or not.

Hence: A commission IMHO is owned by both the artist and commissioner and should grant:

- Artist full rights to use the character for that specific commissioned piece (only).
- Artist full right to reuse that piece for portfolio, for non-profit, as long as it is not used to slender the character or owner.
- Commissioner a full right to use this specific piece for private and public use, and non-profit, as long as it is not used to slender the artist name.
- BY DEFAULT neither party is allowed to make a profit on the commission without contacting the other. This is exactly how it goes for photography. A model must sign a release for a photo to be reused. I had that case with a friend who got pasted on bus stops for a bank. She signed a waiver, so she was pissed but got zero compensation. Else she would have sued.

Any for profit use, beyond the commission fee should be agreed upon by both,: Either split between the two parties, 50% each, or have a waver upfront releasing all profits to the artist - or the commissioner. Otherwise, if an artist can make a profit, there is no reason the commissioner should not be allowed to monetize the art either. It is fair for the artist to act on the waiver to adjust pricing, of course.

Any use by any other third party should be approved at least by one of the two. (preferably both, I try to ask both when I color commissioned sketches).

For example for legit artist profit:

For the augmented commission, I think you mentioned you might want to reuse it for portfolio and for making prints. Because of the amount of work you put into it vs the price we paid, we all agreed to that, I believe.

An example of unfair profit:

A commissioner buys a comic from an artist, and puts upfront the cost of generating it. Later the artist is offered a spot to publish in a mag, but has no time to make a comic, and decides to just publish that commission, without notification nor approval. No matter how cheap the commission was, the artist needed/Wanted to do it then. Without a financial release agreement, that use seems unfair.


That said...

I think commissioners are happy to sponsor their artists, hence if they are not cash strapped would usually be willing to release all profits to the artist.
However the argument that because it is cheap, the artist owns the right to make money by reselling I would disagree. It requires a prior mutual agreement.

If i do a piece of visual art, regardless, of the content i am the fully copyright holder of it, unless i state that i'm not (work for hire, or whatever other arrangement, still i need to sign i've conceded part of my rights). If i paint an ipod resting on a table apple can't sue me on the basis of copyright infringement (but maybe could, but on the basis of trademark infringement or on the basis of pure assholery LOL), the same is true for furry characters. Of course i can't steal your copyright on your character by painting it, but at the same time you aren't partial owner of my painting because something you created is in it. In fact, even little work over copyright protected source material is enough to put ownership in doubt (like in the recent famous trial about the Obama HOPE poster) and there's no doubt that transforming text into an image is complete artistic rework.

Models in photography or paintings are a complete different case, they don't sign to give up their copyright claim (because they're not creating the visual piece and have no hold of them), they sign to give you permission for using their likeness out of privacy rights and concerns.

However it is TRUE that in furry commissions there is a form of co-ownership between the artist and the commissioner, and that is: the commissioner got the copyright on the textual description from which the commission is made. So it *may* be true that there is a co-ownership and even the artist could not use the commission commercially without the other party compensation or consent.

Numbered prints:

We chatted about this and here's my take.

When an artist sells a limited, numbered print series, he is selling the print with his signature and a number. The contract is that he will not make more nor sell new series. This makes it a collector item.

That does not prevent the commissioner to reprint his copy and give it to friends. He does not own however the artist's name, signature nor the rights to the series. If there is a finacial agreement of mutual for profit distribution, the commissioner can sell his own series. He can sign it, so it is a distinct series as it is not published by the artist.

Unless the commissioner is more famous than the artist, the artist's series will be more valuable.

Limited series prints IMHO are a good way for an artist to generate good income while at the same time allowing fans to get an original at a discounted price. Most photographers I know usually offer those.

How much is it if I commission Alpha to be mine for ever and ever and ever?

I accept payments in souls and peanuts

Fine I'll pay you with beefy's and dopple's souls and the peanuts will arrive to you after 5 days of air cargo.

One thing most artists and commissioners aren't aware of: there are at least two licenses involved when commissioning artwork.

The commissioner must license you to publish their character(s) (their intellectual property) in your gallery, and, if they desire to, they must obtain a license from you to publish your artwork (which you own and may have intellectual property in). If the commissioner wants to also commission a friend's character, a third license is also needed from the friend.

Licenses can be exclusive or non-exclusive. You might only be licensed to post their character in your gallery or they might be naive and give you permission to use their characters commercially (and not limit the permission to the commissioned work).

However, licenses don't hold up in court unless legal contracts were signed. By not having any paperwork and operating globally we're all working in a grey area, so do whatever the fuck you want. =]

Creative Commons license that covers everything you said (I think): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
More info on CC: http://creativecommons.org/about