Legally, you're getting nothing. Adopts are as grey area as you can get on IP. The artist can claim ownership whenever they want.

So basically you get a promise they won't try to claim copy right, not nessicarly a legally binding promise. So say you adopt a Renamon OC the won't claim copy right, but Bandi could make claims as they own a copyright to the original character.

Normally with things like that because the character Renamon is a "monster" they are more so looked at as a species when it comes to oc versions of Renamon. So unless its the direct version created by Bandi they normally wouldn't be able to make claims because its a variation of a monster species. It follows the same line of thought as Mickey Mouse is a black and white mouse with big ears and wears red. Doesn't mean Disney could copyright any and all black and white mouse characters that wear red if that makes sense. This is normal as can be seen among many show/game/etc franchises a lot of things are very similar in designs, monsters, and more because they are inspired from one another but not direct copies.

Not just that. The artist themselves can claim copy right of that character. Adopts get you zero rights to the character, despite that being ostensibly what the buyer thinks they're getting. You are indeed buying a promise.

Characters based on other IP (like Pokemon/Digimon) is an even stickier issue, since technically the artist was in IP violation to begin with. Nintendo can legally DMCA every pokemon "character" ever created, should they find you.

An artist can't claim ownership rights for something they sold. A bill of sale is a legal binding contract in itself. Again they can only claim that they have created it.

DMCA have rules and regulations when it comes to things of that nature it has to be a direct copy of design, color scheme, often trademarked names, and patterns.

This is why so many companies and people are able to legally create similar or inspired works of different things. Because they are not a direct copy of an established character.

All you have to do is go over how DMCA and Bill of Sale contracts work for these two instances. I was just giving a short explanation of them since I've worked with both in my own business and others I've worked for over the past 12+ years.

It's great to always go and research yourself as well. I just wanted to help avoid confusion or misinformation.

You can sell art. But you can't sell a character just with an adopt. The artist can claim ownership of it at any time.

I just want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying a person can't sell something they made? Like if I knitted a scarf I can't sell that's scarf, or if I create a logo design I can't sell it either?

I'm genuinely confused by your statement because if a person makes something they can sell if because it's their property.

Here is some quick information

Bill Of Sale: A bill of sale is a legally recognized documented record of a transaction. A bill of sale may take the form of absolute or conditional depending on the terms therein. Today, bill of sale is commonly used when transferring title to property from one person to another.

For example the character designs I sell are my property as I created them. The person buying those designs from me becomes the new owner of that property, because I in writing agreed to sell it to them making it a legal and binding contract.

Legally Binding Document: A legally binding document is an agreement that has been made between two parties where specific actions are prohibited or required on behalf of one or both of the parties.

In the manner of Adopts the ONLY time a artist could reclaim ownership of a design is if the seller VOIDS PAYMENT, because making payment is the requirement for the contract and voiding payment is prohibited. Voiding Payment would be charging it back via their bank because it takes the money away from the artist which means the buyer never really paid for the item. It could also be failure to pay off a design since some people allow payment plans if you pay part but not all of it then an artist can reclaim the design if you never pay it off fully. So the artist can reclaim the character in those instances.

What is a Legally Binding Document: A document that's legally binding can be upheld in court. Any agreement that two parties make can be legally enforced, whether it's written or verbal.

All of this to say an artist agreeing to sell you something in writing and you paying them is in itself a Legally binding contract.
This is why a seller cannot just "claim/take back" something you paid for.

The art of the character is one thing. The CHARACTER is another. People who buy adopts assume they're getting the CHARACTER and can then do whatever they want with it afterwards, but they're just getting the art in almost every case because no one is writing up any legal documents.

I have repeatedly said they're not taking back the art, so yes, you do not understand me.

I am talking about THE CHARACTER people who buy a character ARE getting the character to do whatever they want with it. That is why its called a CHARACTER SALE and any written or verbal agreement of a sale IS A LEGAL AND BINDING DOCUMENT not to mention the T.O.S of just about every artist is a LEGAL AGREEMENT. At this point I honestly think you have to be trolling/joking with me so I am a bit over this conversation. I wish you the best in understanding how things work, honestly you can just look it up for yourself at this point.

I remember a while back someone was buying up adopt characters and permavoring them, in order to show how much of a sham adopts are. Predictably, tons of artists rushed to assert their "rights" to characters they had already "sold."

I mean that would reflect on those particular artist in question, because once you sell a character unless they have rules of sale the buyer can do whatever with a character. That doesn't mean that all adopt artists operate in the same way. Most artist will tell you the same thing once a character is sold they have no say over what is done with it, I don't work with a lot of types of content but I know full well characters purchased from me have been used for said content because the owner wants to use them in that way.

As the owner of that design they purchased they can do whatever they want be it permavoring them or whatever else. Now if that artist had rules to their sale that the buyer agreed to then that is another thing, for example there are some artists whom have rules in place that if you purchase a design from them you cannot resell/regift the character for 1 year. So in that case you would just either follow the rule or not buy the character and even then if you break a rule like that one they can't take the character back because its not a void of sale its just a void of rules so they will just block/ban you from buying from them.

Legally they can only take the character back if the sale itself is voided. Now if they have a rule that specifies content like "by purchasing this adopt you agree not to use the character in (insert content type here) or I the artist will reclaim rights to the character" Then YES they could because it was in the agreement of purchase BEFORE the buyer bought it meaning they agreed to it. HOWEVER if it is not listed in the agreement prior to the buyer paying for the character the artist at that point would be SOL because an artist CANNOT claim or control the way a character is used/presented/etc once sold because they no longer own the character.

In the example you gave in all honesty and in all legal terms if the artists did try to "take back" the character they would need to pay the person the equal amount they spent on it to get it back. So the person whom "permavored" this character would be entitled to a refund of the original price of the adopt and the cost of any commissions they purchased of the character since in that instance the artist would be the one voiding the terms of their sale.

Considering FA sided with the artists and took down the content of the characters they "sold" even without these provisions I guess you aren't as correct as you think you are.

Lol I am correct legally and if FA sided with the artist then there is more than likely a reason, cause if there wasn't that person would clearly not have had their stuff taken down. Either way I have explained it to you from a legal standpoint including breakdowns of what a bill of sale is and so forth lol if you just refuse to accept it and just want to base your stance on opinion from a obviously flawed incident then I will let you have that. I just try to avoid the spreading of obvious misinformation and I see this is going nowhere so have a wonderful day.

Not always you paid for a design so legally as long as you have proof of sale you get ownership of the design. The only thing the artist can claim after sale is creation rights as in they made it. That is what credit is just the right of creation.

Also, they can only claim rights to the artwork done so if they used a base the base owner can claim credit for the linework, adopt maker can claim credit for the colors/design choices. So just the artwork itself but not the character as legally you have purchased it. Any form of sale is automatically a legal and binding verbal/written contract and so long as you have proof.

Well, exactly. They can reclaim rights to that character and prevent you from using it again, which is what the buyer usually thought they were getting. All you keep is the first piece of artwork.

No I think you misunderstood me. They can't reclaim rights to the ownership of the character you would own the character. They only thing they own is the right to say "I made this" you would have the rights to say "I own this".

It's legit the same as buying anything else, you own a house when you buy it but I was still built by someone else. They can always use your home as an example of their work by claiming credit for building it. They can't come take it from you though just because they built it, because you paid for it and own it.