Should artists allow commissioners to commission in private or should there be a fee involved?

[friskecrisps.livejournal.com]

Sorry for all the questions lately but this group really gives good feedback lol

Anyway something else that I've been pondering. I'm one of those people that has some weird fetishes and such and like to commission some weird out of the ordinary pics from artists. I'm a little self-conscious about when the pic gets done and posted because I'm a little afraid of what other people put in the comments. I know there's that thing about "if you don't like it, dont comment", yet there always seems to be those few people that comment on a commission calling it weird and other stuff. I have asked for a few pics to be private in the past cause I wasnt ready to see the feedback on them but I'm much more open about sharing pics with others. However whenever I asked if a pic could be private, I would sometimes be told that there would be a privacy fee involved so instead of just paying the extra money, I just sucked it up and had it posted.

I guess my main question here is should artists allow commissioners to keep their pics private with no extra costs or should artists tag on a fee for commissioners requesting private pics?

Comments

[slinkslowdown.livejournal.com]

I think artists have a right to be able to charge a fee for that. Submitting an image to their online gallery is a form of advertisement, and they lose out on that with a private commission.

Have you asked about letting the art be submitted, but just having the artist write, Commissioner wishes to remain anonymous rather than identifying you?

[friskecrisps.livejournal.com]

That's always an option however if it is your character being drawn in the commission and you've commissioned your character before it seems kinda pointless cause people can just trace the character back to the source

[mazz.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't charge someone an extra fee but I'm sure other artists might, I don't see anything wrong with doing so but it is a bit weird since the artist isn't really losing much to not post the art.

Is the art of your really recognizable character, if it's just of characters people don't know well you could ask them to leave the name -off- of who commissioned.

[intj-reflection.livejournal.com]

Control over distribution of their work is a primary right of an artist. Asking to keep a piece private is basically asking the artist to give up that right. Since most commission artists use their online galleries as portfolios to draw future work, posting rights are worth what might otherwise be directed into a marketing budget so charging a fee makes perfect sense.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

It also removes the direct income from prints. While not all artists well prints of commissions, it is their right to.

[ryunwoofie.livejournal.com]

Personally I always charge a fee for private images. 9/10 my private images ALWAYS turn out way better than I expect and infuriates me to no end that I cannot share. So a simple fee makes me feel a little better that I cannot share said art. >w> But this is entirely my personal opinion. I'm sure some artists have better reasons. Being an artist our art is our advertisement. If we cannot post some art we cannot gain interest. I think that's why some others charge fees too.

Agreeing with keeping the image anonymous to the owner as well if you are uncomfortable with whom might see your name attached to it.

[friskecrisps.livejournal.com]

What about fetish related pics? I don't know if you draw them but if its a fetish type of pic, would you want it in your portfolio and if not, why charge a fee for it wanting to be private?

[ryunwoofie.livejournal.com]

Porn art is still advertising. Not everyone showcases clean art. I myself am a full porn artist. 90% of the work I do is porn/fetish related. I will put a fee on my art if I am unable to showcase it, especially on porn art. Sex sells. I don't discriminate against the subject matter if they want it private or not.

[chronidu.livejournal.com]

It's fully within the right of an artist to do so since doing so is basically giving up their rights as an artist to use their work how they please. As such I know at least I personally do charge a percentage fee for it being private. The percentage I chose depends on the type of commission, and what the private commissioner intends for it.

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

I don't allow private commissions anymore due to issues with clients lying about having permission to use someone else's character, and trying to hide the deceit by keeping the original owner from ever seeing it.

However, before I ceased taking them I charged a fee. %10 of the final value, or $10, whichever was higher. Every image is an advertisement of my skill, and in by keeping it private the client is removing some of my advertising for it. The artist should be properly compensated for it.

[mistresswolf.livejournal.com]

I had a customer that rubbed me that way recently. She purchased both slots of a YCH I was doing and said she wanted to have it as a Valentines Day surprise for her boyfriend and to please not post it until after the 14th so she could have a chance to show him. I agreed to the post delay. The ref sheet she linked to was off of Dropbox or something like that and didn't have a username on it, so I couldn't check if he linked to her as her boyfriend (I at least try to check that). I went on her word and did the image. It turned out awesome (imo, the female was a big cat and I was super pleased with it) and I couldn't wait to post it.

On the 16th or so I Noted her to ask if he'd seen it yet because I wanted to post it. Then all of a sudden she wanted it to be totally private and not posted anywhere. I informed her of the clause in my TOS that has been there for about a year and she got mad about it and didn't want to pay it. I gave her two options... 1. I post the image as is and just not name the characters or link back to her. 2. I would take the male character back down to sketch level and de-color it and take parts of the lineart for her character back to sketch (leaving some details customizable) and I would re-sell the YCH and she could keep her version private and not pay the fee. Neither was good for her, in the first, others could see it, and in the second she thought it was 'unfair' to resell the same pose. In the end I stuck to my TOS and posted the image (not linking to her).

So to keep this on topic... I believe that she was so frantic to keep it private because she didn't have permission for his character to be in it. Now I post a link to my TOS when I upload a YCH sketch for sale and I also ask the customer to either get the other person to Note me to give me permission, or I Note them myself.

[ryunwoofie.livejournal.com]

Typically with ANY adult things be it private or not I always require the second party to privately note me that they are ok with being in an 'adult'situation with said commissioner.

I had this happen recently as well, even though the other party was IN STREAM while it happened and they said nothing. Long story short, they tried to place blame on ME for not asking since both were there.

Always ask, private or not.

[kayla-la.livejournal.com]

A fee should be expected, and I would honestly find it a little rude if someone expected me to do it for free. Every piece is advertising, as has been mentioned, and you are essentially asking them to not exercise one of their rights. To expect such for free seems a little entitled to me.

If someone doesn't care and is fine with doing it for free, that's great and their choice. You just can't expect it from everyone. And make sure you tell the artist you would like to not have it posted before anything is agreed to, instead of springing it on them after the fact.

[dustmeat.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[friskecrisps.livejournal.com]

Would you include fetish works as advertising? I'm just thinking an artist would rather have clean pics be advertised and charge fees for them being private instead of fetish pics. Not sure how many artists would use those in portfolios.

[kayla-la.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, yep. A lot of people in the fandom especially want to be able to advertise that they can draw whatever you want, including fetishes.

[friskecrisps.livejournal.com]

Makes sense now lol. The more fetishes you are willing to draw, the more potential customers.

[icedtei.livejournal.com]

Many artists specialize in fetish/nsfw stuff. Why would they not want to advertise the bulk of their work?

[friskecrisps.livejournal.com]

I'm just thinking there's some point an artist wouldn't want to advertise that they don't do certain fetishes and such.

[lurkerwisp.livejournal.com]

And there is. But that's also the same point where they wouldn't be accepting your commission in the first place - private or not.

If I'm willing to draw it as a commission, then I'm happy to show others who might also want that subject that I can do things like it as a commission. That doesn't change just because it's a fetish commission. If it's a fetish I'm not willing to be associated with in my portfolio, then I'm not going to be willing to draw it at all.

[kaputotter.livejournal.com]

The individuals in this thread who are pointing out that artists have all first-rights and reproduction rights to an image, are all quite right. Even if an artist doesn't necessarily want to repost the art they made publicly, it's the principle of thing, and any savvy artist ought to charge some kind of rights-buyout fee for recompense on that principle.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Fee, they're buying you out for redistribution rights which means you can't resell the image as prints or as part of a portfolio nor can you repost to generate more traffic and therefor more customers.

[sleetfury.livejournal.com]

I don't mind fees but I'd rather the artist have them with their prices. If I ever had something NSFW of my husband and I commissioned I'd want it to remain private so I'd just want to know when considering people. But it is something to be expected.

[silvertales.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's an issue of whether or not an artist should be "allowed" to do something. Every image we produce is advertising, and asking us not to publish/promote them is a potential loss.

Personally, not publishing any of my commissions isn't something I've run in to as an artist, but this post certainly makes me stop and consider my options should the situation arise in the future!

Instead of paying the fee, you might ask if they would mind keeping your identity private, that way you don't pay the fee and they don't lose the right to post their own work... unless, you're buying the rights, but that's a different issue.

[mistresswolf.livejournal.com]

It is really up to the artist. In the past I didn't have a 'private fee' for art... but then I got a little annoyed with how much some people wanted to keep private. This is only because when I post new things, it draws new watchers (potential new customers) to me. If I am spending all of my time on art that no one but the customer will ever see, then I don't have time (I had a customer that took up a lot of my time with seemingly endless revisions and things) for art that I can post to my galleries.

So I enacted a $20 privacy fee that guarantees I will never post the picture anywhere ever. The only catch, is that if the customer decides to post it after all, the fee isn't refundable and I can then post the image as well should I want to.

Mostly it is to dissuade people from asking for private commissions since I like to post the things I work hard on. However, if a customer just doesn't want people to know that they commissioned the picture, I do agree to not link back to their account or name them in any way... such is the deal with the "Pokemon Regional" comic that I produce. The customer wishes to remain anonymous, so I just say "Story by Anon" in the description... and if anyone wants to pass on compliments to the customer, I just forward the message to the email I have for them.

[aeto.livejournal.com]

Look at it this way: A commission is a form of contract between you and the artist (even if it's not presented as a formal contract). The key thing in any such agreement is a "meeting of the minds." If you want to have the artist not post/distribute the art, you have every right to ask when discussing the commission, and the artist has every right to say "no, I don't take that sort of commission," charge a fee, or just do it without charge.

IMHO, the most important thing is for the commissioner to be up front and direct with the artist if there are any restrictions they want regarding the art. The artist has every right to charge extra for any such conditions of the commission which are out of their usual terms (including "private" works), and, honestly, it's just good business for them to do so, as it does limit their ability to use it as self-advertising, not to mention for artists who stream their work, suddenly they have to not stream when they are working on it, etc...

In other words, "should they?" That's entirely up to them, but even from my non-artist, commissioner's point of view, I'd think it's generally good business practice. "Can they?" Absolutely. In fact, as some other commenters mentioned, it's entirely within the rights of an artist to flat-out refuse such commissions, just as it is in your rights to walk away from the deal, as well, if you can't come to a meeting of the minds on the terms.

[armaina.livejournal.com]

Some artists charge fees, because a private commission means work of their own that they can't showcase. It is not unethical or illegal to charge this fee.

The fact is, you are making a copyright related request for something you do not have the copyright to. Yes, you have the trademark for the characters, but you do not have copyright to the publication and distribution of the image itself.

Not all commissioners charge this fee, but it is not wrong for them, to do so, there is nothing you are being 'swindled' out of, if that's what you're ultimately concerned about.

[intj-reflection.livejournal.com]

Hate to be nitpicky, but most people do not even have trademark on their own characters. Unless you are actually doing business using them and have submitted for trademarking that's not how it works.

[armaina.livejournal.com]

I was more making the point that trademark is what the commissioner would own theoretically in terms of the commission, not copyright. (the term that their character is 'copywritten' is a misuse I see frequently, even here.) I did moreso to stop any 'because the commissioner owns the character they own the image' argument, before it happened.

[intj-reflection.livejournal.com]

Oh, I totally get that. ^-^ I see it a lot, myself, so I understand the urge.

[starcharmer.livejournal.com]

It's up to the artists. Especially for pieces I've really worked hard on, I find it a bummer to keep it to myself, not to mention the advertising and example I lose. Also, if the artist is keeping it private they can't sell prints [which may not be an issue with a fetish piece specifically, but I've been asked to keep pieces private that would have made great prints].

If the artist feels that loss of advertisement and print revenue worth money, they will charge you and it's just something you have to deal with or don't commission those artists.

[funkicarus.livejournal.com]

i had a commssioner request i keep their name off pieces they got that were fetishy. this worked okay the first time. the second time, however, the person cut & run without paying, and i couldn't remember their username to find them again.

so i dunno. i'd be okay posting things as work from anonymous commissioners if people wanted their fetish stuff kept secret.

[growly.livejournal.com]

It's just good business sense to charge a little extra for a private commission, because the artist can't use that image to attract new clientele.

[tylociraptor.livejournal.com]

Typically, I charge extra for images that won't be posted. I'm losing out on advertisement if I don't post work I have done, and I'm missing out on the use of that work as an example if it comes out really nicely.

Not everyone will, but because there is typically a loss on the artists' side, there's nothing wrong with charging extra. That and asking an artist not to post something is kind of asking them to give up one of the major components of the rights they hold to that image, so yeah.

[duster.livejournal.com]

A fee is entirely reasonable. I feel for the OP when it comes to kinks you don't feel comfortable being made public, but everyone else is right that commissions are a type of advertising.

Maybe ask the artist to alter the characters to make them untraceable back to you?

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

In short - Yes. Yes it should be allowed, even expected that private work has a fee. You are essentially trying to buy reproduction/distribution rights from an artist. I generally don't even accept private commissions, and yes I'm including fetish related art. If a customer wants something to remain private, then they must seek out an artist who accepts them and agrees to it without a charge, or pay a fee.

Artists build many types of portfolios, erotic art is included in that and if an artist does a fantastic job on a fetish related image then they will want to keep the right to share. I personally have an all-erotic portfolio that I place in resumes to illustration websites/collections for business so it would damage my own business not to share a commissioned piece.

[ithinkdirt.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, most assuredly. As for your question about it being fetishhy possibly changing the situation? Frankly, even more reason for a fee in my opinion, given the general tendency for adult art to get more attention than clean art (and in the case of specific fetishes, since they tend to have a small but dedicated pool of fans, again perhaps even more so since those are the people who are potentially MOST likely to want to commission an artist after seeing they do x_thing!)

*note I don't mean "more so" in more of a fee, but in context of added emphasis.

[tealmoonxiv.livejournal.com]

My policy is actually similar to Mistresswolf's (since I got the idea from her).

And to address what the OP keeps asking people; if I did do fetish art then yes, I would want to be associated with it. Then people would now I draw it and I could get more customers.

[midwinterforest.livejournal.com]

It is well within the artists' right to charge a privacy fee. IMO it's much cheaper than buying the distribution rights to the work, which is basically what you're doing.

The commissioner has the right to control their own personal information, though. I've always had good experiences with artists when asking them to not share any of my information (username, character name, etc.) when they post the work. This doesn't do you any good if you have a recognizable character, of course, but it's worth mentioning.