Seeking Advice - How to Handle This Situation?

[kayla-na.livejournal.com]

Ok so...Last year in November, a friend of mine saw that I really wanted an adoptable that went up for auction but it was out of my reach. My friend ended up autobuying the auction, and gave me the adoptable as an early Xmas gift. The premise of the auction is that once the design is bought, it belongs to the buyer 100%. So since my friend bought the adoptable and gave it to me, he relinquished ownership to me.

Fast forward to today, I end up finding the adoptable recolored and raffled off. Confused, because the design was supposed to be relinquished upon purchase. So I asked the person about it, their gf won the raffle and gave it to the person that I found the recolored adoptable from. We talk back and forth, and upon doing some digging through what they presented me, said artist sold the original adoptable to my friend for a lot of money....but two weeks after that, they resold it to the person that my friend beat to get the adoptable in the first place.

Then, said person that lost raffled the recolored adoptable to the gf, and said gf gave it to the person that I spoke to.

At this point I'm pretty peeved because the design was unique, and there were NO recolors presented at the time of the auction. I'm wondering how my friend and I should proceed with this...

Comments

[wuvvumsoc.livejournal.com]

I feel like either one of the parties needs a refund, and it should probably be the second party.

I would write a beware overall. Selling the same adoptable to two people means either the client did it willingly, or is very bad at keeping track of their own business and selling things more than once. Either is not a good business practice of course.

[kayla-na.livejournal.com]

I'm feeling the same way about the refund. I just wasn't sure whether or not if it should be either me or my friend who should write about the beware. I'm hoping the artist will be inclined to listen to our concerns about the matter before we move to the next step.

[kayla-la.livejournal.com]

Since you're directly involved, either of you could likely write a post, though it would probably be easier for the original buyer to do so (since they'd have access to all the info needed).

[kayla-na.livejournal.com]

We both have the info, but he's the type of guy to not get involved cause he doesn't want to cause "drama", or bring "drama" in my direction since I've dealt with it a lot over the years. I'm not even worried about that, I'm more concerned about resolving this issue since he paid A LOT of money for something that was supposed to be 100% to the buyer once it's purchased, as advertised in the auction.

[wuvvumsoc.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a good idea. I also wonder about the second party who bought the recolored adoptable. You said that adoptable #2 was sold to a party beat out by your friend. Do you think the other party is aware then that they got a recolor?

[kayla-na.livejournal.com]

yeah, they were aware from what I saw from the screencap the person that I spoke to provided me.

[bornesb.livejournal.com]

Since you're friends with the original buyer of the original adoptable, I would get them to message the artist as if they were the ones who discovered the adoptable was recolored and resold to the second highest bidder.

Then, if the artist did not give some response akin to an apology and some offer of compensation for the loss of the originality of the purchase, I would write a beware about that artist for reselling the adoptable in the first place.

This is how I would do it, just so I at least I had some sort of closure on the issue...

But if your mind is already made up on the artist being at fault, I'm sure a beware is warranted without contacting the artist first.

I feel like I worded this a bit weirdly, so I hope it makes sense.

[kayla-la.livejournal.com]

Every post is a case by case basis, but typically we'd prefer people make an effort to resolve the issue first and we've rejected posts for that before, telling them to come back if it's not resolved in a week or two.

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

This is a tough one. Was it specifically advertised that this would be a one off? As in the lines wouldn't be reused at all? Obviously without seeing it, it's going to be a tough one because the artist does have the right to reuse their art unless one of the stipulations for purchase was that the lines wouldn't be reused.

[kayla-na.livejournal.com]

It wasn't stated that specifically, but it said:

"- Once this adopt is yours you're free to do whatever to the design, make changes, swap the gender, your choice since this character is all yours now! Have fun."

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

That doesn't particularly stipulate that the lineart won't be reused. I suggest contacting the artist to voice your concerns. However if they never stipulated they'd never reuse the lineart again it may be just a case of not going back to them.

[kayla-na.livejournal.com]

We did, just waiting a response right now. Just kind of worried what to do after this point.

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

Let us know how it goes! I'm definitely curious to see how the artist responds to you.

[kayla-na.livejournal.com]

Well supposedly the person that bought the look-alike was supposed to use the artist's art as a temporary reference, but they never changed the character's lineart design while it was in use and when they raffled it off.

My friend and I are just going to chalk it up as an experience, and to make sure we get everything in writing in the future. The timing of the whole thing was just really suspicious, but not much we can do at this point.

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

We did a little digging, and it definitely is suspicious as all get out. Given the artist tends to recolor their lines quite often this one wasn't uploaded, and not used in a batch like their other batch linearts.

It's really unfortunate, and imo shady. I wonder if this is the only one to ever get this kind of treatment, because it was obvious this one was meant to be a one-off like all of their other one-off designs.

[wuvvumsoc.livejournal.com]

Context is definitely important, yeah. It's normal to see an artist draw over the same lines and use the body as a template, but usually something changes (such as hair/ears/tails). I don't know how often they'll sell a straight up recolor though, I believe it's considered less acceptable unless it's being done for super cheap adoptables.

That is a downside of the adoptable market is that entirely enforced through social capital and good faith. You can't always have a set of clear expectations and rules.

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

That doesn't particularly matter. The copyright to the lines belongs to them; they're free to do as they wish with it without making changes.

[wuvvumsoc.livejournal.com]

It's true from a legal standpoint but it doesn't make for the best business ethics, I mean like selling a character, then slapping on different colors and selling it again.

With adoptables you aren't specifically selling art but you're selling an idea which makes it much muddier territory, but I think selling the same adoptable twice has been considered beware-worthy in the past.

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

It's been beware worthy when it's the exact same adoptable, not a simple recolor. As you said earlier, there are no hard and fast rules.

At any rate, only once a post is in the queue can we determine if something is bewareable. In this instance I feel (I can't speak for the other mods) it's going to come down to:

1. The original agreement. If the artist claimed that this design would never be reused then that's a big no no to do so.
2. How they handle Kayla-Na's concerns.

Edit: Fixed my sentences because I can't type.

[wuvvumsoc.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I didn't know if same exact lines, different colors warranted the "same" adoptable.

[takesu.livejournal.com]

Really hard to tell without seeing how different the two designs are and not knowing what's the TOS of the original post. So you're saying that the design is suppose to be a 100% one-off but the artist recolored the base and sold it to the 2nd highest bidder?

If the design was unique, something about it like the anatomy, that these elements as a whole design are suppose to be a one-off, then yes, a beware is well warranted regardless if the base was re-colored or even if lines or pose were redone.

I think the 2nd owner should either be refunded or be given a new design.

[kamilamutt.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing 'it belongs to you 100%' refers to there not being those rules of 'you can't change gender' or 'you can't resell', but keep in mind that when a character designer sells a design, they aren't selling the art. It's common practice for artists to re-use lines; if you're uncomfortable with that is better to ask before buying if the line will be reused, or if it's an off-base.

But if the re-colored adoptable is too similar to yours for comfort, I also think the second buyer will need to get a refund.

[spartanwerewolf.livejournal.com]

I'm not really seeing the problem? Design is lineart, palette and markings, not just lineart. As long as they're not using the same palette and markings as the one you got, each design is still a one-off.

"- Once this adopt is yours you're free to do whatever to the design, make changes, swap the gender, your choice since this character is all yours now! Have fun."

This doesn't state that the lineart won't be reused. Unless that was specifically stated, I don't think the artist is in the wrong.

[ravensmoon666.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know exactly which character you're talking about too. That artist is known for doing that with their batch adopts but I would be appalled as well as that character was obviously not done on one of their well known bases. I guess I would message them (if they even reply knowing them.) and hope for a resolution. I wish you so much luck on this Kayla.

[sno-pomf.livejournal.com]

Okay wait...so to get everything straight here, they sold this design, the one that your friend bought, twice? One to your friend and one to the bidder who lost? Or they sold a recolored version of the design?

If they sold the exact same design-that is a huge problem and grounds for a beware. But if they re-sold just the lineart with a different design, then I don't see the problem with that. Sorry if I misread something in your post. I just wanted to make sure I understood what was going on.