Trade Issues

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

I did an art trade with a user a while back, everything went a-okay. Both parts are completed. I check FA today and see a 'Prepose' flat rate sale and see something wrong.

It was the trade they did for me.

When I did the trade, they showed me two sketches to pick from, I chose sketch A. The user is now selling off BOTH sketches, including the one I chose, as prepose commissions. They said it was okay because they are not using my character. I told them I felt ripped off, because I expected an original piece, and provided one, and now there will be mass copies made of mine (multiple people can purchase the sketches).

They haven't replied yet, but I'm wondering if it's okay for them to do this because it's a trade, or if I'm right to be upset and feel ripped off?
And if the latter, should I pose a beware?

Comments

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

Trading an original creation for an original creation is what was agreed upon.

Now what I received is no longer original. Even if it's not wrong, they have broken the agreed upon terms.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

What you received is still very much original. The artist did all the work.
It may no longer be unique, though the pose never was in the first place, but it is still all original work.

Like I said, it's iffy, but not wrong.

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

As I said, even if it's not wrong, it was not was was agreed upon. What I received is not what I 'paid' for. That is the main issue.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

Except it is. You 'paid' for a piece of art created entirely by the artist for you, an original. You got that.
You wanted something unique, but that is not what you asked for.

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

Actually, we agreed to draw each other brand new, 'unique' pieces. That's what a trade is.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

Unless the term 'forever unique' is in the description in your discussion, that may be what you thought you were agreeing to, but it wasn't. Unless it is spelled out you can not say 'we agreed to X' because of what you believe something means, especially when the law and the other half of the agreement disagrees with you.

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

I would never agree to a trade where my piece would be copied, reused, or reproduced in any other way; end of story. If I had known he would reuse it, I never would have accepted.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

Then be extremely careful who you commission. Most artists who can sell prints do sell ones of commissions, as is their right.

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

I am perfectly aware of artists rights.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

Then be careful who you commission, since your desires do not line up with law and most pro artists know this. The artist retains all rights to the image they create unless they specifically sell it to you and that is in writing. Legally, you have to ask them for permission just to post it, not the other way around.

If you want to secure the copyright to an image and actually own the distribution rights (posting and print-making), be prepared to spend a great deal more than the commission for the right to tell the artist they can not make prints.

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

Where in the world did I claim copyright or ownership? This isn't a copyright issue, it's a breaking the terms agreed upon and being skeevy issue.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

My reply was to the deleted comment, not you.
That is something as the one who posted this entry you should have known from the notice, since it contains the comment I replied to as well as my own.
It also shows clearly here that my comment was in reply to (Deleted comment), not yours.

[oceandezignz.livejournal.com]

Was the user in question genetiics by chance?

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[genetiics.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was.
I'm new to AB and I deleted the comment because I realised after that I hadn't wanted to keep it there. I forgot that LJ doesn't allow comments to be deleted. Anyways, sorry for the trouble.

[teekchan.livejournal.com]

All it says is deleted comment. I know nothing about LJ, so my bad. It just said it was replied to me.

[genetiics.livejournal.com]

I'm already aware of Copyrights and I'm already in the process of getting one. The price is $65+ here in Canada. I'm just waiting on the papers (which get mailed to you). I'm sorry but I don't approve of people making money off of something that was supposed to be a private commission that I PAID FOR. Especially if my personal character that represents me and my boyfriend is in it. I make it very clear when I commission people that I do not want them selling it and by accepting my commission they are agreeing to the terms. I usually pay them a bit more than what they ask as compensation. My other OC's I don't care about.

It won't matter soon though.
Genetics will have a copyright and I'm fully prepared to shell out the money to protect her.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

Then you need to learn the difference between copyright and trademark.
A character can not be copyrighted.

If you are attempting to copyright the image in question, I hope the artist takes you to court for it. The artist owns the copyright on the image unless they specifically sell it. No piece of paper will change that.

[genetiics.livejournal.com]

I am copyrighting my character not their art. I'm copyrighting my intellectual property. I have my own images of the character that I draw as well as notes of when I first created her. That is what I am copyrighting. Therefore the artist can not sell my commission because the character that's in it is copyrighted/trademarked whatever, to me.

Now kindly stop arguing with me and back off.
I didn't intend to start a fight with you.