FA+
Shop
The rights to adoptables and TOS'
11 years ago
I am all about artists' rights. Seriously, I am. and I hate it when customers take advantage of an artist or seriously bitch someone out because they're too jealous of an artist's work because they can't afford to pay them what they should be paid for their work. That pisses me off.
But you know something else that pisses me off?
When artists think they can strong arm into unrealistic and stupid Terms of Service rules. Point and case: adoptables.
I love getting an adoptable here and there. I have a project or something I want to do that's new. Sometimes I can't seem to come up with a design I am happy with, so I find something I do like. But then you go to read the rules...
This is from an anonymous artist's adoptables clause...
"Do not claim the design as your own."
Okay, fine! That's totally reasonable.
"Do not resell the design without my permission."
This is where it starts to get sticky... and I will explain below.
"I reserve the rights to the design you have bought. I may revoke permission to use a design if it is being resold without my permission."
Sorry, but no... Read that aloud...one more time. "I reserve the rights to the design you have bought." What?
"You may make minor changes to any design you purchase."
This is a silly rule to stick someone to, but it can be a legally binding part of a contract.
Here's the problem. If you were doing someone a commission, it's TOTALLY legit to say that you cannot re-sell that image unless you buy the rights to it. The payment is for the artist's service to create a project at the client's request. Adoptables are different. The design IS the product. Telling someone they can't re-sell their purchase and telling them they cannot have the rights to their purchase is the SAME THING as if you say: purchased a laptop from dell, then them telling you "Sorry, you can't re-sell your laptop if you want to get a new one or you just need the money. The rights to own your laptop that you paid for actually belongs to us." Any judge with that kind of case would laugh and dismiss it. An adoptable IS a product, you are specifically paying for that design, and you can't just take that away from someone because they want to sell it to someone else who will take care of it. Infact, you're just kind of shooting yourself in the foot!
A lot of people in the fandom think they know how a contract or term of service works, they claim many things without understanding those things. I say this not to make those people feel bad but rather to try and get people to do some research on what it is they're trying to commit their customers to. AND to protect themselves and their own rights.
I'm sorry if this angers a few people, but... lately, I have been seeing a lot of things going on... I have been getting pretty stressed out and I feel like I need to vent. So... there you go.
But you know something else that pisses me off?
When artists think they can strong arm into unrealistic and stupid Terms of Service rules. Point and case: adoptables.
I love getting an adoptable here and there. I have a project or something I want to do that's new. Sometimes I can't seem to come up with a design I am happy with, so I find something I do like. But then you go to read the rules...
This is from an anonymous artist's adoptables clause...
"Do not claim the design as your own."
Okay, fine! That's totally reasonable.
"Do not resell the design without my permission."
This is where it starts to get sticky... and I will explain below.
"I reserve the rights to the design you have bought. I may revoke permission to use a design if it is being resold without my permission."
Sorry, but no... Read that aloud...one more time. "I reserve the rights to the design you have bought." What?
"You may make minor changes to any design you purchase."
This is a silly rule to stick someone to, but it can be a legally binding part of a contract.
Here's the problem. If you were doing someone a commission, it's TOTALLY legit to say that you cannot re-sell that image unless you buy the rights to it. The payment is for the artist's service to create a project at the client's request. Adoptables are different. The design IS the product. Telling someone they can't re-sell their purchase and telling them they cannot have the rights to their purchase is the SAME THING as if you say: purchased a laptop from dell, then them telling you "Sorry, you can't re-sell your laptop if you want to get a new one or you just need the money. The rights to own your laptop that you paid for actually belongs to us." Any judge with that kind of case would laugh and dismiss it. An adoptable IS a product, you are specifically paying for that design, and you can't just take that away from someone because they want to sell it to someone else who will take care of it. Infact, you're just kind of shooting yourself in the foot!
A lot of people in the fandom think they know how a contract or term of service works, they claim many things without understanding those things. I say this not to make those people feel bad but rather to try and get people to do some research on what it is they're trying to commit their customers to. AND to protect themselves and their own rights.
I'm sorry if this angers a few people, but... lately, I have been seeing a lot of things going on... I have been getting pretty stressed out and I feel like I need to vent. So... there you go.
Now in some cases i can kinda understand the point of 'rare traits' to add onto your species adoptables, but there are times when it's grey area that makes me a little nervous such as "large horns are a rarer trait in this species and cost more." and then they'll have a chart of slightly larger horns than the 'standard'. Now if i was to buy one of these adopts, I now how to constantly worry about the horn length being the 'right size' and it seems kind of limiting style-wise. Some people just naturally enlarge certain character traits (I tend to make ears/nose bigger on characters), so it's kind of hard to understand why horn length is such a critical factor when the 'rare traits' are just really small minor tweaks to the original species design…
Wow this is kinda long I'm sorry BUT YEAH I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY NONETHELESS.
Honestly, I would just ask the artist about it beforehand.
Asking is definitely a good idea, just sometimes its hard to ask "hey I kinda accidentally draw things bigger because its my style is this /okay/" in a way when it feels like that should be a freedom you naturally get with a design XO so much grey area.
It's their product, they are the costumer. They purchased it and could add dick nipples to the suit for all they care.
If the builder is worried about their work being represented in that way. Understand that the product they display on their website is what they made. Anything else that happens to it, what is done to it, what it wears, how it acts and what photos turn up of it. It's the customers product, you have 0 rights to it once it leaves your hands, hell 0 rights once they paid you to build it for them.
I'd imagine the same should go for artwork and adoptables.
There was someone I ran into a while back... had a Terms of Service that stated that their commission could be downgraded if they were annoyed by the person. After they had already paid.
Then again, they weren't really that concerned about what people think. Considering they made folks wait years on already paid commissions... and were rather good at excommunicating former friends.
you can copy right pics, but not chars. in a meaning of if someone draws your fursona you cant harm them because they can draw what they want.
no idea how much truth behind of this can be found. i just heard it from someone i usually trust a lot. you seem to know a lot about those rights, so can you explain it better to me? or is it just rubbish i was told?