Perhaps a watermark on the HDs that would be difficult to hide is another option? Also I simply cannot comprehend why someone wouldn't ask permission even if it was a commission to repost something. Doing otherwise is just a complete lack of respect.

The whole point of an HD copy for the commissioner is so they have a delicious piece of art they can enjoy. A watermark would destroy that value.

That's about right! You nailed it.

not to mention people might want to print out the work so they can use it as poster or something.

gotta be real cautious with those muthafuckers.
just them in particular. your artwork, now attracts Ad sales traffic/revenue for another site now... to one particular person actually.

otherwise, standard commission rules are fine. you must dictate and enforce your own restrictions. your stuff is great, and i don't want to see you be exploited.

That's kind, but I would not like to make it to the nick of people's fun source. As long as people having fun and enjoying, it's fine, but when theft is spotted, I go: http://youtu.be/rEby9OkePpg?t=17s

Now that's a cool movie.

Is it possible to ask other artists that have had such things happen in the past, and find out how they handled it?

Could help when coming to a decision on what way/ways are best.

Good idea! I'll ask artists around, and let's hope they are about to answer within a Year ;D

Loss of intellectual property? Most artists say that the work is the property of the commissioner once it's done, and that the commissioner is free to post it as they wish. I just don't get why you're wanting to restrict your customers, when that will just drive many potential customers away.

Because I have seen far enough of those stories when those artworks got stolen and thieves actually were bitching about those artworks(originally mine) were done by them(who stole them), and they were not even being the commissioner. I have also heard these stories from many places to actually give legit reasons to be afraid I might be then ext victim.

Once theyh ave the original version, how will you ever be able to prove that YOU did what you draw and they claim it to be their own work? How would you feel about it?

If this really bothers you so much, you can copyright the image.

http://copyright.gov/

If someone steals your work (distinctions are made for work for hire), you have a civil claim against them.

Is it valuable to pursue such a claim? Probably not, there is likely no money to get out of them.

Put your signature on the image, hold onto the raw layered file, and don't worry too much about art theft in this manner.

The thefts happen and there is usually little value in bringing a claim for damages.

Speaking of stealing and copyright, I kind of want to steal your parody avatar. But i'm a thylacine so I couldn't use it, like this collection of road signs I have.

:Slow Children at play:

Fair Use - Parody.

Oh, i'da stole it. >=3

Don't you have a raw sai/ps/whatever file, the one with all the layers and shit? You could use that one as a proof if something happens, and the commissioners rarely want them.

I do, but let it not be my very last Alamo.

> It is just so saddening I have to do the spoonfeeding to make it clear what the commissioner can upload and what not, but hey, I could just write some extra lines in my ToS, and that's it, but really, is it really worth it? I am absolutely sure there will be some halfwit referring to which points I haven't sactionized yet, so they abuse with its holes, which I could just patch till eternity.

Someone will just ignore them anyway. Unless you stop doing it I don't see how you can stop people uploading art without permission or appropriate references. You can refuse services after, but then the damage is already done when someone uploads somewhere without permission. Even if the person who commissioned you follows ToS to the letter, anything that ends up on the internet can be copied, pasted, distributed, and so on.

> Or I can perhaps just stop gifting my commissioners the HD version any further, so I don't need to worry about which picture people will upload anywhere, so it's cool.

Sure, then no one anywhere will ever see it. So why bother making it? It's just extra time and effort for no good reason.

> Should I just rise my commission price to its double of the actual ones so I might be compensated in such loss of intellectual profit... I guess you would definitely downvote such choice.

Charging extra for the distribution of the HD version instead of giving it to the commissioner could be the solution. This would not be an increase in the rates to produce art, just a "fair compensation" for art that tends to get distributed without permission.

> I can probably ask for IDs in case responsibility is in the matter of question.

That has the potential to turn people away. Even then, the person could follow ToS but other issues can arise.

You are right, ceasing giving away HDs would be somewhat the least of the worst solutions.

I know the unwritten laws of interwebz, however it is quite the lack of respect from those people. Oh well, apparently lack of empathy do show itself in that form.

Honestly,  dragonmaster_7777 has the best suggestion. I just wish that artists didn't have to face this sort of problem. Art and music are the heart and soul of humanity. The disrespect and lack of empathy are, I think, not just limited to artists but is more a symptom of having the Ring of Gyges in the form of virtual anonymity.

Anonymity is nice when used well, but not with the power of abusing.

*nods* I wonder if most people will ever have the maturity to use anonymity without abusing it.

So long as mankind is in charge? I hope you are kidding.

I like to make jokes. I'm funny that way.

My liver is in aches of the laughters. D: Ow ow ow...

If I were to comission you, the lack of an HD-version would prevent me from doing so, honestly.

It's internet. You can't prevent leaks here and there. Just blame everyone who had access to the HD version, as it's their job to prove themselves innocent given the situation.

I concur. The prices would need to drop significantly for me to consider not receiving the original size. Then again the clause in the ToS that states if the artist feels personally insulted the commission will be cancelled and no refund given is also a concern to me as well. I'm fairly certain that won't hold up against a PayPal claim. It wouldn't fly here in the US. If it were a clause that could be upheld I doubt customer service associates and those in hospitality professions would have to put up with a customer's bullshit as often as they do. ;) Then again it's also a very bad business move too because naturally the customer will feel robbed and even if they do not raise it as a legal issue and just count it as a loss you can bet they'll spread it through word of mouth and that could severely damage a business' reputation and credibility. Word of mouth is a powerful advertising tool... it can also be equally as devastating too. :/

Of course, it sucks for the artist. You ask the comissioner a deal after all, and he breaks it by leaking it to E621. And sadly, it's as you say something that won't hold up in a Paypal dispute.

If I were Jackrow, I would make a list of not-to-comission list.

Meaning, people I won't work for*

Don't worry, I have 2 people already in head for that purpose.

Well, I'm not sure how much that sucks for the artist when the reality of art theft is even at FA standard resolution people do still the works. The higher res version doesn't make it "easier" per se. Lower res files are actually much easier to edit out things like signatures and watermarks and even FA resolution makes a very nice 8x10" print. Back when I worked at camera shop/1 hour photo processing place I printed out most of the furry art I had archived at the time. All on a glorious silver halide print process. I honestly expected the larger versions to have severe quality issues but that wasn't the case up until I tried a 16 x 20" print. Then the jaggies started show up.

Of course I did so for my own personal enjoyment and I had free unrestricted access to the machines so why not? ;) Though now they sit in a box doing nothing. One commission I got had an original resolution of 2000x3000 and I got a nice 24x36 poster print out of it on a wide format 6 color inkjet printer we had specifically for poster and banner prints. It's framed up along with the original sketch. Looks quite nice. But anyway that was nearly a decade ago and nowadays it's much easier to upscale stuff for printing with minimal quality loss, especially with the current version of Photoshop.

If you are interested in restricting the content, then you WILL need to do the following:

1) You will need to update your ToS to specify exactly what the comissioner can do with your art. Please keep in mind that you have to specify the *when*, *where*, and *how*. For example, "..May not distribute digitally or in print, through any means including but not limited to photocopies, digital copies, recreations by any means, or other facsimiles, to any third party not explicity authorized by the artist (Jackrow), to any media, collection, or archive including but not limited to digital copies, physical copies, formulaic recreations, manual recreations, etc. also including alterations and modifications made by the Artist (Jackrow), the Comissioner, or any third party."

2) You will need to have this signed in paper. Verbal agreements on copyright are very, very weak in court and DMCA filings, and a ToS is considered a verbal agreement. Signed paper will give you very, very powerful rights and capabilities (although not perfect) to control your works.

3) You will need at least to state clearly in the ToS that they are transferring exclusively the distribution rights to the product (the art), it's contents, and it's depictions to the Artist (Jackrow), and forfeiting rights to all aspects of the art including but not limited to: The end product, intermediate or incomplete products, mock-ups, prototypes, etc., the contents of the end product (including but not limited to depictions of places, property, people, logos, trademarks, and other intellectual properties) including intellectual properties held or included knowingly or uknowingly by the comissioner and that, if an intellectual property is reproduced, copied, duplicated, or included with or without knowledge that all distribution rights will be void by both parties indefinitely, or until rightful owners of included intellectual content have given express written permission to both the Artist (Jackrow) and Comissioner to allow duplication and distribution, and that any such agreements will not, where legally viable, invalidate any part of this agreement.

4) That by providing payment the commissioner accepts this agreement and waives any right to alter this agreement (unless you want to get into arbitration) and that you, the Artist (Jackrow) accept the terms and conditions of delivery mentioned herein upon this Terms of Service (ToS) as a legally binding contract of goods and services, and rights to further distribution, duplication, replication, and alteration of the transferred intellectual property and the good, services, and services rendered and utilized therein to satisfy this contract.




These clauses are vital, and I can say with strict confidence that by including them, you will be able to control your content within a legal capacity without much chance of violation. Or to put it simply: The above clauses to your ToS will invalidate the comissioner's ability to repost your art, no matter what, in almost every known country (except China, to name the most significant). And if they try, you will be able to easily have it removed without cooperation of the comissioner, or poster, and even if the website (say, e621) refuses to cooperate as well, you can quickly and easily obtain a legal injunction FORCING them to take it down.


Whether you feel this is right or wrong is entirely up to you. I am not saying what's good or bad, i'm only telling you what you need to do in order to protect your contents and rights. I'm trying to help, nothing else.

Also if you need help using the right phrasing, words, arrangement, etc. Just send me a note with your revised ToS and i'll point out any flaws that may allow someone to redistribute your art without permission. I know legalese can be very confusing if you're not used to it, especially if it's in another language.

^^^ This is exactly why legal agreements even down to something as mundane as using software tend to have pages upon pages upon pages of legal text. Also, the artist is in Hungary so the DMCA take down process might not apply if e621's servers are outside of the US. I've see quite a few artists actually explicitly state that you cannot upload to e621 simply because they do not like it. Either way, I liked it much better when getting a commission involved less of a political agenda or over-worrying about a problem faced by content creators as a whole.

One thing that I have been amused with in the past is when an artist would raise a fuss about their copyright but had flat out admitted to torrenting things like software, music, movies, etc. ;) Sai is absolutely not a free program as some fellow artists had tried telling me in the past. Many would use either an illegal version of Photoshop or continue using their student editions which actually according to Adobe's TOS prohibits using the software for commercial gain. For-profit art commissions are one example. This is not to suggest this particular artist is using illegal software. Just merely mentioning it since hypocrisy does exist among online freelance artists.

In any event the ToS should also be looked at by a lawyer that specializes in Hungarian and EU copyright law in case they have any additional protections... or lack of protections as to avoid having a ToS that has illegal and unenforceable clauses. Too often people write these things up and believe them to be 100% legally binding without ever having them checked by a proper lawyer who specializes in the field.

DMCA may not apply (fairly sure it doesn't) but WIPO does. Just use that process and definitions system instead.

Really, it takes a pretty lame lawyer to send a DMCA notice to a non-US country when a process is in place identical to it. XD

And yes, a lawyer licensed to provide will always be a good idea, but that is expensive, and I doubt Jackrow wants *that* strong of a level of protections. Just enough to control distribution, which is fairly simple.

And lawyer or not, nothing is ever '100% legally binding'. If it was cut and dry even half as much as people think, we almost wouldn't HAVE lawsuits. But there's always loopholes and technicalities and etc bullshit the average user just will not persue.

Yeah I wasn't too sure if WIPO had a similar process.

At the end of the day though we're talking about relatively inexpensive art commissions with non-commercial entities. Basically people who share the stuff around to admire the work in some fashion. It's ideal that no one would claim credit. I've honestly never understood the mentality of it because you didn't do it and quite frankly there doesn't appear to be much commercial value in furry porn. Plus as tight knit as the furry community is, someone pulling that kind of bullshit won't hold up for very long passing off counterfeit wares with someone else's art (for those seeking to profit from the works they steal). But art theft seems to also be defined as people who will crop it as a user icon elsewhere or a profile picture of a character intended to be a generic representation. To me these things are frivolous. I can understand not wanting someone to use my likeness in their profiles for example but again it costs time to police my stuff and we all have a very limited amount of time on this planet. In turn that time can cost money too or take away from more enjoyable things I could be doing rather than giving some poser attention.

As a personal opinion however, I do believe WIPO needs a set of guidelines that formally spells out irrevocable permissions to the client by default in terms of commissioned works. The Work for Hire clause from my understanding of it basically allows the client to profit from the works as well. I can see where that can be a cause for concern for most artists but given we live in a more.... connected... society in this day and age I believe that an artist that takes someone's cash for works created should never have an option available to them that prevents the client from uploading the work where they see fit so long as for non-profit use. I think it's crazy how much control an artist insists on having on commissions right down to what sites, if any at all, the commissioner can upload it to. It over-complicates getting an art commission especially because people get one from an artist mainly because they like their particular style and it's not always as simple as "get one elsewhere" for that reason.

Uh.. it does outline those. Hence why you need to write a contract and such up (as i've offered) to change the 'default' rights, because what Jackrow wants for distribution rights restrictions are non-standard.

What I am talking about is basically the law being re-written to entirely nullify the possibility an artist can simply spell out their own terms to the point of total control over works they're happily taking someone's money for. In short, making the suggestion you've offered completely null and void in terms of the client uploading the work to websites for non-profit use or collective sharing such as what sites like e261 are for. Artists, at least those mainly associated with the furry community have been the loudest voices in this issue where generally speaking the non-furry ones I've worked with are relatively painless and cut and dry. Non-commercial use and do whatever so long as credit is retained is the general gist of my experience with 'em. However, it seems to be a more common issue among furry artists to behave with the sense of entitlement over the common fears that are a natural part of doing business in the field and in turn wind up imposing restrictions against the people that actually pay them the cash. Some of them impose restrictions because of personal grudges against other sites which really isn't professional at all anyway. It's actually almost regrettable it's limited mostly to furry artists apparently because it will simply allow this nonsense to continue.

I believe we may need a more organized version of Artists' Beware that will call out artist's with restrictive ToS and better educate clients on what that potential pitfalls they can have by commissioning such artists or go a gentler route and call out artist's that have no obsession with control on non-commercial distribution of commissioned works by the commissioner. On the flip side artists with restrictive terms bode stronger business opportunities for others that are quite the opposite particularly with those educated on why a ToS is important to read and comprehend. So I think the first real step to this problem is in fact getting the general community educated on ToS' and thinking more critically about an artist they're looking to commission rather than just jumping right in and hoping for the best because they see a pretty set of pictures.

These topics are one of the things I definitely miss about having a tap into Amazon's legal team as it was a nice perk of my position there.

Regarding a written agreement: Given the quality of the art that Jackrow produces, printing out a page, scribbling one's signature on it, and dropping it in the mail seems a very small additional price to pay.

I agree.

If you want to strangle your business, sure.

You are adorable.

I personally think you're making a big deal out of nothing.

But I am not an artist. So what do I know, right?

Go watch this film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113957/
Your life can be just one Click ahead of be stolen one day, mind you.

How does The Net even apply here, you're complaining about HD versions being out there when people like PK release their HD versions without issue.

My point is:
Give away the proof you can prove it is your intellectual output, and you can no longer prove it was done by you again. That's what art-theft is aiming. This is why I give a reason to be afraid. I am sure you would not like to give away all your credentials to anyone at all unless authorities ask you.

I assume my identity is already stolen and act from there. I don't use credit, only cash, and even have around 30k stored at a location which isn't a bank since the IRS has literally blackmailed people for depositing large sums under 10k and basically make people "settle" when it's not even their money and the victims(the people making the deposits) haven't done anything wrong.

I think you're just focusing on the wrong sort of civil rights here mate', that's all. In furry or any anime type art, such theft is rather prevalent and I see it as a "time a dozen artists." If you wanted to get in to an art area which had more of the "My IP matters here" then why not get in to the fine art galleries and other areas?

You're popular and your style is well-recognized enough, most people attempting to pass your work off as their own would get called out on it.

You could also just upload the HD versions to your own galleries to claim the earliest timestamp of a particular image's posting in case you ever need additional proof it's yours.

You can still give out the HD file and have proof of makling it, that is with the PSD or .SAI file.

People will share their HD with friends, and someone will upload it somewhere, let me ask you, what is wrong with it being out there as long as no one is selling it for a profit?

It would not be a problem if I don't need to be worried for the point you just stated above.
as long as no one is selling it for a profit There will always be a potential for someone is going to exploit it and claim it their own. Believe me, LOTs of those stories were told once, but once I got information about my high-res version was out (even though I did NOT give permission for that to upload, but the shrinked version), I have a reson to be afraid.

Oh of course. Even if you only use the small resolutions...they are still likely to use those. For nothing is sacred on the internet etc. If you live every day in fear of something happening you will exhaust yourself.


Just have a plan for it, prepare if it does. Commissioners make mistakes all the time, or their friends they share the hirez with don't listen to their requests to no repost it when shown it, so forth.

I have it under control now, thanks for the suggestions. The Master files stay on my backup drives.

The Internet is a vast 24/7 copying machine, with everyone who has access to it a potential or factual thief of whatever is posted on it or sent through it.

Unless the “original” is an actual physical thing, like a drawing on paper, or an image painted on a canvas, then the digital “original” artwork existing in the artist’s own computer is no different from any of the thousands of copies that can be made from it.

The easiest almost-fix for an artist fearful of losing “ownership”(?) of his/her works to commissioners would be to invest in a quality printer and send the commissioned artworks printed on quality paper to the buyers as larger-than-8 ½ X 11-PRINTS.

Thank you for enlightening. This was very useful! =)

This latest method you mentioned reminds me of Mirror's Edge how information is delivered untraceable via runners. Are we really getting there? =)

The idea I suggested (printing out commissioned works for the buyer) is probably the least expensive for an artist and still satisfying for a customer.

There are perhaps one billion people accessing the Net every day. Just declaring that what we have created is “ours” will not prevent someone in Peking or Brasilia or Jakarta or Chicago or Marseille from running off a print of our digital artwork to hang on their walls or attach as decals to tea or coffee cups to sell for their own profit.

I had the very unpleasant experience of seeing one of my created characters painted on the side of a large moving truck.

We have to adapt to the capabilities of the Internet, and the personal computer. The concept of “copy right” may be becoming obsolete in the face of the growing “socialist“ belief among Net users that everything on the Net belongs to everyone to benefit from, not just its creators.