I can just agree with you. Such drama is even more than annoying.

I just...dont understand. Its just pictures. Not commercial products not craft or some thing that someone can sell ar steal. I can understand thing with personal images - yes, its something that really close to you and yu dont wanna show i to anyone or only for close people. But such kind of idunnowhat. Meh, maybe Im just tired and my mind isn clear with fiber <__<

I emailed you all my characters, so obviously I have no qualms seeing the work I paid for get put up. :3 I gave permission.

And thank you for that. REally.

Figure it would be easy for you and you'd get around to puttin em up when you could. ^^ Don't let some douche get your scales in a bunch.

*Dragon Hugs*
I think you did the right thing.

Baaw, thank you, dear *hugs back*

No need for violence. If they didn't like something being posted of their character, then they should have just asked you to remove it. Simple as that and you did the right thing

EXACTLY, God please somebody stop him. I cant.

It's not that clear:

There's 2 parts to Intellectual Property (a.k.a. Copyrights): Paternity rights and Owners rights

Basically for paternity rights, the artist keeps all right for the creation of the picture (so nobody else can claims that the picture as been drawn by him). For owner right, someone who commission someone else buys the pictures AND the rights to use it as he see fit.

The law is written that way because otherwise every corporation would owe theirs employees and it would be a total mess

Unfortunately not true. Unless it's an explicit "work for hire" agreement the commercial rights and republishing rights lie solely with the artist - purchasing the rights to reprint/sell/republish/create derivatives of/etc an image is usually MUCH more expensive than just buying the initial image.

Now, corporations who HIRE an employee to create things (art, music, websites, whatever) for them - that's where the "work for hire" agreement comes in. They have usually signed away their copyright to work produced for the company and on the company time in their actual employment contract.

For example, if I create a graphic to go on a website, at home, on my own time, I own the copyright to the graphic EVEN IF it was done for a client who requested the graphic (unless I sign a "work for hire" contract).
If I create the exact same graphic to go on a website, at work, on work hours, my employer owns the copyright to the graphic, because I'm doing it within the scope of my employment and my employment contract specifically states this is the case.

Not exactly, when hired and work for a corporations you sell BOTH rights. That means (for example) that the guy how draw pikachu don't has any right on the character. What you wrote is true only if you are a subcontractor to said corporation.

As for the commercial right, I'll repeat what I said It's not that clear: It depends on what both side have agreed on and since there's probably no written contract it'll be very hard (open to debate, prosecution and else) to say who owns what.

In economic laws, it is vital that you understand this: the fair value of a transaction is what is paid at the moment of the exchange (that is what the stock exchange market is based on). So if I sell you a picture 2$, its value will be 2$ at the moment you'd pay it. If I don't say what's include and what it is not I will both in the wrong. Normally, for arts, it includes the material (files) AND support (canvas) AND rights to show it of (like any traditional artwork in an auction) because there's no particular status for numeric arts. I.E. Numeric arts is considered the same as traditional arts.

That said, it's no reason to not speak with the one that did the commission and agree on something. Also it's good publicity to have its artworks showed to many places (with credits to the author and links)

It actually is quite clear in copyright law as spelled out by the Berne Convention - purchasing the physical (or digital file) representation of a piece of art does NOT purchase the copyright to that art - that has to be explicitly, in writing, given away BY the creator TO the buyer (which is what a "work for hire" or a "transfer of rights" agreement does). Without that explicit written transfer of copyright from the artist to another party, it just plain doesn't transfer. Work for hire has to be explicitly agreed - either by being an employee of a company (like, say, Disney animators working on a film), or by meeting certain legal prerequisites AND signing a contract that explicitly states the work is done as work for hire.

If you sell me a picture on a piece of paper for $2 what I have bought is only and exactly that picture on that piece of paper. I have not bought the rights to scan it and post it online, or to make prints of it on t-shirts to sell it to other people (because I have only purchased the original, not the reproduction rights). I can sell the physical piece of paper to someone else, but I cannot make copies of it (I do not have the right to copy - aka "copyright") to publish or sell elsewhere. And if I DID publish or sell copies of that artwork - at least in the USA, UK and other countries who have agreed to the Berne Convention - I could be prosecuted for doing so.

Now, if you sell me a picture on a piece of paper for $2 and I ask you in writing if I can make prints of it to sell and you say in writing that yes, you are giving me a (limited) transfer of rights to make copies and sell them, then that's what you've sold me for my $2.

And if I hire you as an employee (not a contractor) and pay you as an employee, then if you do $2 worth of art in the course of your work duties as my employee, the art is at that point "work for hire" to which I as your employer would have the right to reproduce, sell, or use as I saw fit.

All things considered, though, as an artist I do extend the courtesy of "Are you happy for me to post this to FA" when I take commissions where I have not explicitly stated in advance that I plan to post it. Upsetting my clients doesn't make good sense for me.

What I say is someone that commission you could very well argue that he had hired you to do the picture and that the price is irrelevant.

That say, you're right about the Berne Convention and I was wrong about a bunch of facts. It's a good read though, so I shall thank you for that.

Moreover, Berne Convention includes the principle of fair use. That doesn't gives you any rights on the artwork, but is it really an unfair use to repost it on the same site and with credits and link the the original author?

"Fair Use" has a couple of very specific meanings in the Berne Convention - reposting on the same site with a critique or review, or an edited version as a parody, or would count, but someone who is not the art creator reposting for the sake of republishing it without specific permission to do so may not count.

This is why I'm careful, when I send people who have commissioned me the final piece, to say in words "You have my permission to repost this on your FA account if you choose to." I am explicitly providing that specific and limited right to publication to them.

The commissioner *could* argue that, but without a written employment contract (and all the legal things that go with being an "employee" and not an "independent contractor") it couldn't be proven that way around.

And I agree - if the original artist WANTS to repost the piece somewhere else, they have the right to do it - it is polite to credit the character creator for sure, and also courteous to ask the character creator if they're happy to have it reposted, but it is not required.

So much about this simply isn't true, let me try and explain.

- First of all, and perhaps most importantly, in freelance work the rights default to the creator if there is no contract stipulating otherwise. If a customer wants specific rights, like editing, reposting or commercial, or the rights to transfer those rights to a third party (including commissioned art in a character sale), they have to specifically request those rights be included in the sale.
- - A lot of artists allow customers to repost their work, maybe colour it or crop an icon out of it, but this is a COURTESY. The customer is not entitled.
- Prices matter. Industry standard prices for commissioned artwork is at least 10x what most furries charge, and I'm talking about skilled artists (please no strawman argument of "yeah well furry artists suck lol"). If you pay $20-200 for a commission, don't get a contract and go to court to lay claim to those rights anyway, any judge will tell you "What did you expect for that price?!" and throw out the case. The prices of furry commissions often barely cover labor, and definitely not the rights.
- Character rights; Unlike Pikachu, most furry characters are not registered and protected by law, but even if they were, when you commission someone to draw them you give them permission to draw them. Otherwise they can't draw them, obviously. But that doesn't automatically mean the artist extends rights of the image to the customer.

If you want to give away reposting rights, editing, commercial etc. that's entirely up to you. But unless the artist and customer agree otherwise, they default to the artist.

Some useful links:
http://11amdesign.co/new-blog/2013/.....-work-for-hire
http://aigasf.org/community/legalit....._digital_files
http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?section=General&subsect=Rights+and+why+they+are+important&page=Advice

Totally agree with bleakDragoon above.

And I even add: when you ask a painting to a traditionnal painter, the painter gives / sell you the painting and when you receive it, you can give it or sell it as you want too if you don't want the painting any more. So, why this couldn't be done for digital drawings too? Just because that's digital?

So yeah, I totally agree with bleakDragoon. Or at least, for digital drawings, which can be copied as we want, the rights should be copied too. For the artist, and for the characters' owner(s).

what a douche. I understand, that your arts are your work but come on. If someone would upload my story somewhere with a note, that i made it, it would be ok. Of course if somebody would steal it and claim as his work i would di something about it. "Because this is the place for dragons, to HELP dragons, to be kind to each other and hold as goddamn family. Not to make drama from air ant set your VERY IMPORTANT OPINION as the last instant, okey?" You have goddamn right. Just leave this prick with his art. Hate those kind of ppls. It's actually an ad for him and he's complaining? just one big facepalm.

Anyway have a *strong long hug* so you can calm yourself :)

If only you know what another artist did to me and other users on FA... XD
He made a drawing for my birthday (and drew my character then, and he probably did the same to other users) and just because nobody wished him happy birthday, he asked for the removal of all those drawings made on our gallery and reported it to the admins to be sure they were removed.

All of this to say... I agree with you. The problem, I think, must be that FA doesn't provide for those kind of situations. Indeed, the artist have all the rights with his drawings, but if a character of someone else is drawn, the rights have to be equals. As an artist, crying because our drawing is posted in the gallery of the character's owner or in another with the character's owner agreement is a shame and really immature in my opinion, but from what I see, they would always have the rights to do so. =/

So stupid. ^^'

What a fucking crybaby. Someone call the whaaaaaaambulance on that idiot. *facepalm*

Who's that? Me?
If that's the case, I can reassure you, my gallery is better without a drawing made by someone like this. So, I can reassure you, I'm fine with this.

It was just an explanation of what stupid things can be allowed to do by immature artists and should not be by the way. ^^

Otherly, I just noticed that I didn't understand the message well and that it's the character owner and not the artist itself who complained about the post of his drawing on FAdragons... That's... still weird and incomprehensible. If the artist wants his drawing to be posted elsewhere, it's obvious that he has the right to do it. =/

Nonono, it was about the other guy, lmao! :D

Ah! Ok! XD
Well, yeah. I agree. ^^'

It's a shame that the character owner wasn't happy about the republishing of the artwork - I'll make sure, if ever I choose to submit my own art to this group, that I check with character owners and make sure that they're not going to complain about the repost before I submit the art, just to save the hassle!

Not that I wouldn't have the rights as the copyright-holding artist to repost as I choose - but if it stops problems from happening, great!

what if all your dragon art is based on some existing art but was done so long ago that you dont know who the original artist was?

not that my reditions can even touch the originals
or in any way be confussed with them

Here's a happy dragon pic to make you feel better. :)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/11731123/
You can repost it, if you like. :) I made it for RF's badges in 2013.
Bunnies, guinea pigs, and dragons make everything better!

Aww thanks ^^ Hes just great *__*

Good one. We need to always give credit to the creators of the works we post. I hope to have art of my own someday that I can share to FAdragons. Just my photos are all I have for now.

Omg! The way i see it, the more views of my art the better! Why complain about it.... i really dont understand some artists >.>

Reminds of me a certain someone, with one of the cold colors on his character (green/blue/purple)...