Question related to the Syrae thread.

[torinir2.livejournal.com]

With the Syrae thread devolving into a copyright war of words, I figured it was time ask this question. I separated it from the Syrae thread since it might be useful for both artists and commissioners to take note of this discussion.

What are the rules of the land as far as commissioned artwork involving the commissioner's character(s)? I would assume that the commissioner has some recourse when dealing with works involving his/her characters, and the artist has some recourse available by default, but who has the final say as to who can do what with the finished product, in terms of alterations, etc? What kind of timeframe should a commissioner hold for approaching the artist for changes, and when would it be a DIY case?

I'm not talking about generic artwork commissions, I'm speaking of commissions involving characters whose "existence" predates the artwork being commissioned.

Comments

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

It is negotiated between the buyer and the seller and it could be as little as 25. I have seen simple computer graphics go for that but it tends to be part of a batch (like 100).

Look let's take art out of the equation for a second. Say that someone hires a contractor to redo their bathroom in their house according to their wishes. After the whole thing is done, they decide that they don't like the faucet that was installed, so they go out and but another one and have someone else install it. Does the contractor have say in the final product? No, it is not in the purview of the contractor but it is in the owner.

When an artist does a comic for DC or Marvel (work for hire) do they then own the character or have a say in how the art is going to be be used? No, all they have is the original artwork to sell if they wish to (and that is a recent development in the industry). I can't tell you the number of comic book artists that have been surprised to see an image that they created being used for a t-shirt image or a poster. They do get a little compensation for the use of the image but the image itself is property of the copyright owner (be it Marvel, DC or Alan Moore)

Edited because my default Icon has not been cleared by the artist for anything but my journal.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

A contractor does not own any rights to his work because copyright doesn't apply to plumbing. That's not even remotely comparable O_o

I know how it works when a company hires an artist, but they sign the artists on a sound contract so that both parties know exactly what they can and can't do, and those companies have their characters registered as a trademark. The question was, who owns the rights to an image after it's commissioned, even if it depicts someone's character. And it all depends on the agreement between the artist and the customer, but unless specifically stated, the rights default to the original creator of that specific piece of work.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall giving the examples in the previous thread of 'a crafts person and a dresser' and 'a jeweler'. You didn't respond to either of those hypotheticals.

Let's pretend that instead of a contractor, a sculptor came and redid the bathroom in Puppetmaker40's example. Let's say that the work they did constituted a product wherein copyright protection did attach. I wonder if you can still respond to the situation in the same manner.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Then it'd still be a bathroom. There's no copyright on my walls because I wallpapered them, even though I'm an artist. And as such, I'm currently busy with writing about the Renaissance, whilst discussing the matter with experienced artists like Nambroth and Ursula is a pleasant distraction during brief breaks, I currently don't have time to go into lengthy discussions with people who deny even the most basic facts of the material.
Please read up more on this subject.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

Guess what, the wallpaper pattern has a copyright attached to it. So by your theories, you can't put pin holes or tear it or alter it eh?

Thank you for once again suggesting I'm the one not informed. I'm a laws major who's taken a number of classes on the subject and my current bedtime reading is "Authors and Owners" by Mark Rose. I don't know even a fraction of all there is to know about this subject, but I enjoy discussing it and I based my arguments on the most solid evidence I could find and I (hopefully) addressed the bulk of your contentions head on, which is less than I can say for you.

I can understand that it's a giant, tangled subject to try and argue and we all have to get on with our lives, but I just want to say thanks for suggesting that because we're not agreeing, I must be completely ignorant. That really demonstrates to me how you behave when you decide to stop debating an issue (and does lead me to wonder if you've run out of steam). Instead of bowing out gracefully, which I could respect even though we were unlikely to come to agreement, you've taken a cheap shot at my level of familiarity with the subject ;)