&quot;Artists Beware&quot;

I'm kinda in the middle with this. For one, yes a month is short. But it all depends. Is this artist fast? How much art are they doing for themselves?

Artists deserve breaks, so it can be difficult to tell when it's becoming too much or not. Me personally, I reserve weekends and after 5pm as me time. So I could upload a lot of personal work from those times, looking like I'm not working but it's actually just "after work" for me.

For me, a month is a long time if you're at the top of my list. If at the bottom, then a month makes more sense.

From:

saitenyo.livejournal.com

I agree with what others have said.

I definitely agree it depends, and it's hard to make an outside judgement call on this one. Most people doing online commissions are doing them as supplemental income and if they have full-time or part time jobs that pay the majority of their bills those take precedence. A commission that would take me only a few days if I focused all my time on it may take me a week or more because I have to work on it either in my free time or when there's a lull in my primary job's workload.

I do think the lack of clear communication is bad form on her part, and depending on just how much personal work she's churning out she could be behaving irresponsibly about this but it's hard to say without being in the situation myself. I'd maybe try getting her to be more communicative. Just be honest and say that her lack of progress on your commission is making you uneasy due to the other stuff she's uploading, and you wondered if she could give you a more concrete timeframe for it.

From:

dodger-greywing.livejournal.com

Has she shown you any progress pictures at all? Like a photo of the sketch at the very least, to reassure you that she's at least started it? Because after a month, I would also be concerned that she hasn't even started it, especially since you're at the top of the commission queue.

From:

magusmanx.livejournal.com

Personally, I would ask for some progress pictures with in like a week or so, and if they can't provide it, then I'd want a refund. Even a sketch or something would at least reassure you that she's working on it.

From:

Really? That seems really impatient to me. What if they have a queue and there are people before you? I can't tell you you're not allowed, but if you did that to me when you didn't give the impression ahead of time that you wanted a deadline, I'd blacklist you.

From:

magusmanx.livejournal.com

I tend not to pay until I'm at the top of the queue, because I don't want the chance of having someone go over the 45 day Paypal limit. The not paying until they are ready to work on my piece does limit who I can commission, but I feel safer that way.

From:

I think the expectation for commissioners to pay in full upfront, plus the 45-day paypal dispute limit, has a tendency to make people twitchy like this. A week deadline seems a bit (a lot) harsh, but I understand the general reasoning.

From:

No, I get the logic behind it, I just don't agree with springing 'Is my piece done yet? No? Refund now!' on an artist if you didn't tell them ahead of time that that's your policy and that you had such a short deadline in mind.

That said, risk goes both ways. The artist has no way of knowing if the person commissioning them will start a paypal dispute even though they received their piece within that 45 days. It's happened. There's not really any way to go about a commission that is risk-free for both parties, short of an escrow service, which most people aren't going to want to do for typical furry art.

Everyone should do things how it's comfortable for them, but they should let people know about their policies, and I don't think that's unreasonable. I would be angry to have that sprung on me out of nowhere, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

From:

Oh, I understand. I think the poster here probably has legitimate logic, but she's way overreacting.

As for the rest, there's definitely some risk involved for both parties in a commission. But the current prevailing "system" does place almost all of the risk on the buyer. A buyer attempting to file a paypal dispute for a commission that was finished is extremely rare, and the artist still has recourse even if it does happen. Artists flaking out on a commission after being paid in full isn't rare at all, and the buyer doesn't any recourse outside of public complaint (which still doesn't get their picture done or their money back). Theoretically they could try to issue a chargeback through their bank, but that is very difficult - often impossible.

But I just handle it by repeat-buying from the same few artists I feel like I can trust.

From:

One thing to consider is that overall, the artist has more to lose than the buyer does if things go wrong. If the commissioner rips off the artist, the artist not only loses money, but also time and any supplies on the art they made, while if it's vice versa, all the commissioner lost is that money (not that that's okay). But also, an artist's reputation is more fragile than that of the commissioner's. Commissioners can just change names and keep ripping people off, but an artist can't get away with that unless they entirely change their style so nobody recognizes them, as well, and then they have to build up people to take money from again, and it's just more difficult on that end than it is to GIVE money to people.

That and in your example, that also goes both ways. If the buyer doesn't pay when the art is done, what can the artist do about it other than complaining or taking them to small claims court?

It's not an even 50/50 split of risk when these things are considered. There are bad apples in both bunches, but artists have more incentive to behave than someone who can just switch names and keep on doing what they're doing without any real effort. For your average artist taking commissions, their name and reputation (and thus more/repeat business) is usually going to be more important than what they'd risk by stealing 15 bucks and not delivering what they owe, or what have you.

ALSO also, that's how it works with most businesses. You won't find many businesses that don't do everything they can to cover their butts pre-emptively.

Hope that all made sense!

From:

A fandom commissioner can't just change names, though - people would recognize the characters they were buying art of and their old name would catch up with them pretty quickly. Building up a reputation good enough that people are willing to buy from you is also not overly difficult in fandom - artists like Starfinder and Shiuk that could wallpaper a room with their complaints still have buyers lining up. Poor reputation really doesn't seem to deter furry-art purchasers all that much. I think your point would probably hold up if we were talking about "traditional" (i.e non-fandom) artists, though.

I wasn't proposing (and I think few people would propose) that buyers shouldn't have to pay until the art is fully completed. I think the most equitable way of "splitting the risk" would be half upfront, half on sketch approval. The artist doesn't lose anything that way if they never get the second half of payment - the first half is enough to cover the work they did on the sketch. And the buyer has at least seen some evidence that the piece is being worked on before they send the full balance.

I don't think other businesses correlate directly to buying art online anyway, but just for the record because you brought it up? That's really not how it works in most businesses. You don't pay a restaurant until you've received the food. You don't pay a plumber until the work is done. You don't pay a dentist until your teeth are fixed and you're leaving the office. You don't pay a dog kennel until you've come back from vacation and are picking up your pet. You don't pay a car mechanic until the car is fixed and you're picking it up. I can't think of a single service industry where the buyer pays in full upfront before the work is done. Like I said, I don't think other businesses really correlate to online art-purchasing anyway, but just because you brought it up.

Those are my two cents, anyway.

From:

I'd like to add that customers of real world businesses have the recourse to actually call/come in to complain about being ripped off whereas this is the internet and filing complaints is difficult.

And most internet companies don't charge until your items are shipped in most cases as well. I haven't bought any services online other than art and pizza so I'm not sure if there's a better example that doesn't involve goods.

From:

poizenkat.livejournal.com

It actually ISNT that easy to build up a fanbase.

Just a quick reply to something that jumped out on me XD

From:

Nope, it's not - but building a fanbase is mostly based on art skill, art style, and various social factors. Poor reputation as a seller or a pile of buyer complaints don't really have much to do with that (look how many of the "popufur" types have bad reputations or are often complained about).

That was my point - that if a seller flakes out and a buyer has already paid in full, the buyer has no recourse except for public complaint...and public complaints don't seem to mean much.

From:

millislim.livejournal.com

I had to jump in on this...

Changing ones art style to hide from bad press is like trying to remove your finger prints...it's so ingrained in you, the way you draw, that trying to change it WILL result in poorer art work. While there are some characters out there that are easily recognized there are TONS of generic ones. All you need to do to scam is have a very plain character. A husky, a fox, etc. then change your name when you're ready to bounce...lather, rinse, repeat.

For building a fan base? It IS hard. I had to give away over 45 free pics to build up a reputation and trust in my customers before they can trust me with their money since they don't know me from Adam no matter how pretty my art may have been to them.

As for popufurs with tons of bewares? Remember white knights? No matter how badly a repeat offender gets the knights will come and always do. It's hard to decide whose lying when knights outnumber complaints 100 to 1. Also, to note is the immense size of the fandom. Unless you know about this site or saw complaints before the party involved deleted everything you may not know you're dealing with a crook.

I've been fortunate enough to never have been ripped off. I take money, usually, when I'm finished only because if "life happens" (many complaints revolve around this universal force) I don't have to worry about the money because I never had it. Then again I don't touch the cash until everything is said and done. While this puts me at risk since they could use the 45 day dispute AFTER receiving art I am willing to assume the risk. Commissioners are so much calmer and easier to work with when they're not looking at that 45 day count down or have money tied up with no product to hold.

From:

I never said artists could change their style to hide from bad reputation. I understand that they can't. I just said that it's not easy for buyers to do that, either.
As a general rule, furries are very emotionally invested in their characters. They're not going to deliberately create a generic one just to repeatedly "hide", or create new ones and drop the old every time they need a new name, because most furries aren't wired that way. Their characters are their preciouses. And while furry is large-ish fandom, it's also a pretty small world. Even fairly generic characters will be recognized - look at Allen, who is basically just a plain black wolf in a doo-rag.

White knights kind of prove my point. Public complaints are the only recourse a buyer has when a commission goes badly and the 45 days are past, and public complaining is really pretty useless. Popular artists will draw a ton of defenders and whiteknights, every letter the buyer ever typed will be scrutinized while the knights make a ton of excuses for the artist, etc etc etc.

That's why people get so twitchy about the 45-day window. Because if it passes they are basically just screwed.

To reply to your comment below, I'll repeat that I never buyers shouldn't be expected to pay until the work is done - just that the "pay in the full upfront" system does kind of screw buyers over and leave them without any protection, and a split system (i.e half upfront half on sketch approval) is much fairer and doesn't put the artist at any additional risk (because even if the second half of payment never shows up, the first half is enough to cover work done on the sketch).

From:

millislim.livejournal.com

true...many business don't have you pay in full upfront but many do charge a bit in the beginning to make sure you can pay later. They WILL get paid with or without your consent after the service was rendered and they take your credit car info upfront to see to it.

Rental cars
hotels
Movie rentals
wedding dresses (paid in halves or full depending on shop before it's even made)
custom jewelry-I had to pay nearly the full price for my wedding ring before it was put together

From:

In general I agree with houndofloki but also magusmanx original post didn't say that the artist should have the work completed within the week. They suggested a deadline of a week for the artist to show that she is actually working on the piece, and if she can't, then to request a refund. There's no reason #2 on a queue (with #1 being completed shortly after the transaction started) should wait over a month only for the artist to not even start yet.

From:

Thing is, what if the person who was first in the queue had waited for some time as well? The way the OP described it, it sounds like it was done quickly but was also on that list before they commissioned the artist.

From:

...What does that matter though? That the artist is slow? If that's the case shouldn't that be advertised/told when THIS commissioner was asking for updates? You don't have to state a deadline to expect work to be started in a reasonable amount of time.

From:

What I mean is that, you make it sound like it's really bad that no work has been done in a month yet the other commissioner got done right away. But they might not have been done fast either, that's all.

From:

No I wasn't commenting on the completion time of the #1 slot, I was saying that to show that this commissioner WAS the #1 slot shortly after/at the same time as they started this transaction. Kayla was saying something about not knowing if there were more people on the queue in her first comment when the OP had already said she was pretty much the first one on the list.

From:

Ah, miscommunication I guess?

This: There's no reason #2 on a queue (with #1 being completed shortly after the transaction started) should wait over a month only for the artist to not even start yet.

To me sounded like you meant, because the first was done so quickly, there's no reason the second should take so long. My bad.

From:

Nah, I know nothing about the first person so I'm not commenting on that. Though regardless, not starting on a commission in a month is bad form especially a complex one that may take a few months to complete.

From:

I gotta agree. A month is short for finishing time but it's odd a sketch wasn't even though yet.

I sometimes do a lot of personal work, but that's "after work" so commissions are still done before hand. It's too bad a lot of people put commissions on the back burner.

From:

Oh, I hadn't been referring to the commissioner with that comment. I was referring to the person who said they wait a week before asking for progress and a refund, so I wanted to know if they still did that even if they weren't first in the queue. It wasn't directed at the OP.

From: