Not a warning, but an idea
Jul. 22nd, 2005 12:40 pmI was just browsing through the past posts in the community, and a thought occurred to me: wouldn't it be a lot easier to have a webpage that simply lists the artists and commissioners people have complained about? It'd be an easy place to just stop and check before you pay for or accept that commission. Just go to the page, and hey, Starfinder's there! Woah, 18 complaints, better not commission her! Certainly would be easier than browsing through the community.
Is anyone willing to make/host such a page? I could probably make it, though it would look basic - my HTML skills are not geared towards the flashy, so if someone else wants to that'd be cool. But someone would still need to host it.
Is anyone willing to make/host such a page? I could probably make it, though it would look basic - my HTML skills are not geared towards the flashy, so if someone else wants to that'd be cool. But someone would still need to host it.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:25 pm (UTC)here's hoping :3
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 10:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 10:13 pm (UTC)But it might be hard to manage for the reason Apoidea has mentioned..
Too bad its not possible to set up an escrow service for commission payments for artists.
Customers pay money into some sort of account for commissions, the terms of the commission are listed and binding on both parties, and the money is only paid out after the art is sent to the customer, a scan posted and the shipping confirmation number is posted and confirmed as delivered.
It would probably have tons of problems though.
It would probably have to be set up as some sort of actual business, and complaints between the artist and commissioner might be tough to arbitrate.
But it WOULD cut out most of the scamming that has been going on- both in terms of artists never delivering art, and people who "commission" an artist but have no intention of ever paying by demanding the art first and getting a scan.
Hmm...
Maybe a voluntary ratings board?
The artists and commissioners would have to sign a terms of service, and get their name posted with a history of their past dealings from the people they have dealt with?
Of course, thats pretty much what feedback ratings on auction sites are already supposed to do, so maybe its not a practical idea?
-Badger-
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 10:22 pm (UTC)I used to run a webpage that wanred people about others posing as celebrities. The only reason I believe I didn't get sued was because the "posers" were all too young to even try, or care.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 12:35 am (UTC)i could see this turn into a really HUGE drama nugget given the wrong circumstances...
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 12:36 am (UTC)This is a VERY risky idea, and I don't think it would be at all wise.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 12:40 am (UTC)I know I all ready said this in another reply, but I really think this would be a bad idea.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 01:09 am (UTC)I think though that maybe comments can still be left through this community and filtered. That way stupid stuff like "ZOMG, they wouldn't draw free porn" etc would be added. So complaint goes here, is considered, then can be added to the site.
Perhaps we should also have how great artists are too? Like a rating... 10 stars (good) to 10 something elses (omg, wretched, don't buy from them... ie Starfinder.) That way someone can look up how good an artist is too. not just how bad.
All in all, I think its a good idea. I don't think they could be sued..it is afterall a freedom of opinion?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 01:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 03:15 am (UTC)This might be a better idea, because if someone types in for example John Smith, they not only get the bad news from the initial poster, but other views on said person as well. That way its not just a quoting of "John Smith sucks" by one person.
This would eliminate the purpose of a webpage and would give the worried commisioner a broader view.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 04:08 am (UTC)Usually if someone complains about someone in this community without good reason other artists will catch on and defend the person being attacked.
I don't think anyone should get put on the website unless they complain about themselves or get complaints from more than one person.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 05:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 05:30 am (UTC)This is just enough. Artists_Beware is great.
Date: 2005-07-23 12:22 pm (UTC)Already Jace must have responded to the numerous comments because his little raze was removed. That's a GOOD thing. It means if an artist or commissioner fixes the problem, this mess can GO AWAY. I think if someone screws up, they can apologise, and make things right, and shouldn't be punished forever.
Re: This is just enough. Artists_Beware is great.
Date: 2005-07-23 12:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 12:29 pm (UTC)For more Jump to:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/artists_beware/39704.html?thread=402456#t402456
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 12:36 pm (UTC)The relationship between the artist and the art appreciator should be a little bit more intimate. I used to feel that getting paid for art was bit like prostitution, but not if you don't treat it like that. It's not always about who gets what. Because I love making art and it gives me a good feeling to try a new technique, or reinvent an old one. I like to see my clients happy and I know they appreciate the effort. I also choose them wisely, my clients are people who I trust, took time to get to know.
Now maybe the day will come, when I put away my childish things, and accept the responsibilities of owning a studio, or a business. Then I may lose the personal touch. But in the meantime, time is on my side.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 02:57 am (UTC)_However_, like with that sample website, a link was produced under each infraction/complaint/whatever that led back to the post. Done in that manner it provides some measure to produce forth some proof as to the accusation.
Website or LJ, open to the same suits in court.
My $0.02. =")
no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 03:09 am (UTC)I'm not sure how to use memories tho.
I was merely pointing out to others who think LJ grants them immunity, that it honestly doesnt. Their just as open to be sued this way as a webpage is.