(no subject)

[tech-rex.livejournal.com]

This is bit of an inquiry.

This situation has been brought up on another site, and I decided to bring it up here, as it has been apparently ongoing for a few years. I am not sure if artists are aware that their  work is being resold or the complete legal issues involving this case. 

A user is selling wanted posers and gaming cards featuring the work of artists, 6 and 10 dollars respectively. Several of the commissions featuring art drawn by the commissioners themselves (so no legal issues), but I notice a handful of pieces featuring art not by the commissioners, but previous commissions from other artists.

Initially the user in question was not giving the artists in question full credit, and has started typing in the description who originally did the picture, which begs the question has she asked the artists?

Examples (SOME ARE NSFW)

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4074991 (Original artist Dark Natasha) She has deleted this entry, however, her commissioner reuploaded it: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4075086 and here the journal specifying he did in fact buy it: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1511654/


http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4075159 (Original artist Pandor Aalkima)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4074476

Card example: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1198257/  Original artist and piece: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/838678/

I'm willing to dig up more examples.

Questions:

Is this legal?
Is the commissioner allowed to "rebuy" a piece in the form of a card/poster?
Are the artists aware? Have they been asked? 

EDIT: I would advise NOT doing business with this woman, here's her unproffessional response:

UM wow: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1514014   She has deleted this journal: here is the screenshot.

She is still going to do her wanted posters. Anyone who warned her about selling other peoples' art is a "troll". 

EDIT 2: She has deleted all wanted posters featuring art of other users. There is no mention if she refunded back the commissioners in her journals, or asked the original artists if she could the artpieces. Her attitude however remains very poor:

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1515227/






 

Comments

[gargoylekitty.livejournal.com]

Unless the commissioner owns the rights to the piece, I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be done without the artist's permission. Never mind that the card example looks like they're using a Yu-Gi-Oh card (http://img45.imageshack.us/i/potdjp0376yp.jpg/) as the base.

[zombienerd.livejournal.com]

^

A fair amount of people don't understand that. Paying an artist to draw a picture!=paying for the rights. Some people charge quite a bit for full rights to an image!

And yes, the Yu-gi-oh! card is using an online generator. I've used similar to make fake M:TG cards.

[ocelotish]

Hmm... I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure it is. I'll look at the traditional pieces because there it makes more sense. Assuming that the commissioner bought the original, they'd essentially be making a copy of it to put in there so that'd violate the copyright. I think the only way that would make this "okay" is if the commissioner got copyright from the artist, or if it was the original piece she was somehow modifying.

[armaina.livejournal.com]

They're not re-buying the art at all, and this particular service is not at all what one would consider 'kosher'. The original artists could very well likely seek payment for the money they have collected.

Now, maybe if they provided the templates without the art and allowed the commissioner to put the art on it at will that may be different. I realize that seems confusing, even trivial, but at that point it's clear that the services paid is for the template exclusively and not for the art as well.

There are even greater issues with the cards, because she is using the Yu-Gi-Oh card base. If it were just an edit with no money attached, the legality would be ambiguous. However, once you start charging people for these edits, things can get really messy. The companies that own Yu-Gi-Oh could have a legitimate claim for damages, moreso than the artists.

All in all they really should drop this 'service' of theirs.

[kurenaipaladin.livejournal.com]

SO MANY KINDS OF ILLEGAL :D

[frazzled-niya.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that if I commissioned someone I can pretty much do whatever I want to the image...like make icons, wallpapers and stuff (obviously not change it and try and claim it as my own work.)

But technically speaking I would say that doing something like that is a no-no. :[...Someone else is making money by using someone elses hard work...It'd be a diff story if they drew a new image to wack on a yu-gi-oh card base.

[hobokitten.livejournal.com]

You can make icons, wallpapers, ect. from it. But you can not charge any one to use them. If it's for personal use, you can. But if you make any profit from it, you would need the rights to the image. Very rarely do artists sell those for the price of the commissions. You often have to speak with them about it, and can cost upwards of 100$

[ichigoneko33.livejournal.com]

I've heard of it being illegal to gain profit from commissioned work, if you don't have the rights to it, but is it the same to pay someone to do something with the picture?

I've never heard of it myself, but I don't doubt it's illegal too.

Moderator Here

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

So far this thread has only commented on the art work and the legality of that art work.

I want to caution that it needs to stay along those lines. I know there has already been a bit of drama surrounding this so lets keep it to the rules.

I think both the Wanted Poster and the card are things on the net that you can use to generate....well Wanted Posters and cards.

I do think that using (or rather reusing the artwork) even with credit is not quite cricket but it is not illegal all over the world but it is in a majority of countries. I think part of the problem is getting the customer to understand exactly what they are buying.

I also think that the people who created the code that is being profited from should get a cut of everyone that is making a profit.

For me personally, I would not do something like this for money. I might do it for friends for fun.

[hobokitten.livejournal.com]

Also: Wizard of the Coast did Yu-Gi-Oh if I remember right, and they are seriously 'Rawr' about their rights. My husband and I have been working on a card game for the Iphone for quite a while, and they have HUGE copyrights on a lot of things. From layouts of their designs, to specific colors used for said things, and even terminology. Let her hope that they don't catch wind of her making profit from their layouts.

[foxombie.livejournal.com]

Let's hope they DO, surely? :P

[dilario.livejournal.com]

I say everyone starts making wanted posters of themselves, but actually drawing their own pictures.

[oceandezignz.livejournal.com]

Way ahead of ya. Was thinking of doing a drawn Wanted poster instead of using a silly Myspace style photo like I had two years ago.

[kayla-la.livejournal.com]

One of the things I noticed about her journal was: Wanted Posters Idea © anailaigh

Really? She's trying to copyright such a common idea?

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

Nope. I have seen the same thing as various wild west parks/venues. You can't copyright something that is already in use. Also considering the number of things they are photo shopping (No I don't think that they created the background they are putting these hinge on) they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

[sunhawk.livejournal.com]

Why would anyone pay someone to make these when using Google for ten seconds with "Make your own wanted poster" gave me plenty of free sites to do it?

Such as:

http://www.glassgiant.com/wanted/
http://www.tuxpi.com/photo-effects/wanted-poster

[theflamecrow.livejournal.com]

Furries are stupid. And if they're fans of Analargh? That's kinda a pretty big sign.

[korsetkoat.livejournal.com]

This.

Aside from the whole, permission to resell artwork thing, it makes my skin crawl to think that anybody would actually pay this person 10$ for something they could make for free over at http://www.yugiohcardmaker.net/

[shukivengeance.livejournal.com]

This is a really daft thing to pay someone for. As most have said already, unless you own the rights to the image then anything other than personal use is off-limits by law.

What she is doing here is basically selling someone's commissioned art back to them because there's no way the crappy templates she made are actually worth paying for. Her edits are horrible, and if the permission of the original artist was not sought before these were made it was pretty bad behaviour both on her part and on the commissioner.

It'd be different if she was doing it for free I guess. Her profiting from this is what disturbs me most.

[bladebandit.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but seeing that just utterly disgusts me. :/ Even if the original artists *did* give permission, she's making a profit from their work. I'm sure that's illegal. Ugh. I'm SO glad I refused her commission a while back, heh.

Also...$6 for a tacky photoshop edit? Jesus.

[zombienerd.livejournal.com]

Its illegal unless the original commissioners own the rights to the image, which not many furries do. They just assume they do, since they paid someone to draw something. :/

[jibacoil.livejournal.com]

The only way that would be all right is if the posters were being done for free. And it doesn't seem that they are. :U

[lichdog.livejournal.com]

She shouldn't be posting any of those on FA to begin with. It violates the 4u byu policy, UNLESS it's art she has done or is for her. IE, the one of her "sister". that's okay. But the others? noooooo.

[ninykinin.livejournal.com]

To put everyone's mind at ease she did write a journal recently saying that all commissioners NEED to get permission from the original artist BEFOREHAND and apologized for not posting that rule earlier.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1515227/


I wish I had been watching her more closely she she started posting these things. This whole thing could have been avoided if a friend told her what she was doing was illegal. She is a friend of mine. I feel that she just doesn't have the same understanding of copyright law as we do.

In all honesty, I believe she isn't really the kind of woman who is capable of doing the wrong thing knowingly. In the past she's always taken immediate action to fix her mistakes, and this rings true to this exact situation. This tells me that she will do the right thing when someone gives her advice that she can trust.
She has gotten quite a few trolls after some relationship trouble with her ex, and given some of the past 'advice' she has gotten from trolls I really can't blame her for questioning the sincerity of every comment she gets trying to encourage her to delete something in her gallery. When you've been through a hard breakup recently even the most innocent comments can seem like a personal attack.
I'll send her a message about her old card commissions and explain things to her so that she understands.

However, there really isn't very much evidence to say that "lol @ Trolls" was directed towards the OP's message. It could just be that someone was actually just trolling her at the time. ;)

[ninykinin.livejournal.com]

whoops, wrong link!

She did have a journal saying something along the lines of:
- all commissioners NEED permission from the origonal artist beforehand- (which is perfectly legal)

but it would seem that after this AB entry was posted that she has changed it to:
- all commissioners need to BE the original artist- (which doesn't seem necessary imo)