Need some quick advice

[ohmygoat.livejournal.com]

Hey, I need some quick advice. How much of a say should a customer get in whether a commission is drawn privately and submitted in a public gallery?

I've recently been drawing commissions on livestream, and told a customer that his would be up next. He asked me if I could turn off the stream while I worked on his, and I politely declined. The way he likes having commissions done, it would be infinitely easier for me to stream it and have him comment on what he'd like changed while watching me draw it. He got upset, suggesting that as the customer it was his right to decide whether the art was done publicly. I disagreed, since I feel that as the person drawing it I get to decide how and when the piece gets done (within reason of course).

Normally I'd just agree, but two major details are holding me back. One, it's just a $25 commission, and I don't feel that I've been paid enough to compromise a convenient drawing time. Two, he tends to nitpick a lot and decide what he wants as I go along. Like he'll commission a comic page, then decide what he wants panel by panel, instead of giving a script upfront. He's always asking me to get on opencanvas or skype so he can watch as I draw, so really a stream would be super helpful for both of us. He just doesn't like that people will be watching.

I don't know, am I being too stubborn here?

Comments

[sigilgoat.livejournal.com]

I would say that in the future you may want to make sure your TOS specifically says that you do stream commissions, and possibly add a fee to keep it private OR to stream it privately.

I've opted out of streaming specifically for nitpicky clients as well. I figure they can clarify things like everyone else! It totally throws off my streaming flow when someone asks a lot of questions, or asks for fixes before they are even pertinent (like in the sketch stage when I'm still laying out the form, for example)

Good luck!

[vellacraptor.livejournal.com]

He might just not want people to see the commission until it's finished..or wants to be anonymous? I dunno, I've never heard of anyone getting upset over a stream before.

Maybe ask if there's a -specific- reason why he doesn't want the commissioned streamed. If he can't give you one, then I'd just go ahead with streaming it after explaining it's easier for you to do it that way.

Or just say if he doesn't want it streamed then it's getting pushed back to the bottom for when you're done streaming.

[claytronic.livejournal.com]

For some strange reason, people anonymously commission artists and then don't care that their totally recognizable character is put up on FA

[kiriska.livejournal.com]

If you can get his comments via a private alternative like oC or Skype, is there another reason you feel adamant about the public stream?

In general, I feel that the privateness of a commission should be discussed beforehand -- like if the commissioner doesn't want you to post the finished piece anywhere or if they want you to delay posting until a certain time. This may be a bit different though since it's the process of the commission rather than the commission itself. I can sympathize with the commissioner in that he may not want to come off as overpicky in a public setting where others could criticize, etc.

[hellebore.livejournal.com]

that is a good idea, do it over skype.

[snowyedges.livejournal.com]

Do a private livestream, maybe? I tend to do that for commissioners.
Nobody would know you're livestreaming unless they frequented your livestream page or were given the link. Only he would see it - you could delete the recording afterward - and it's a middle-ground for the both of you?

[conigliomannaro.livejournal.com]

This. Livestream without telling other people, so your commissioner will be the only one seeing it. That should work for the both of you.

[thejeweledhorn.livejournal.com]

As an artist I don't think I'd ever take a commission where the buyer demanded the piece AND the artistic process be totally private. To me that feels like it'd be giving up even more than the full rights to the art, which is a common advice thing.

I would say you need to make up your mind on what your feelings on it, make a policy, and put it in your TOS. Maybe have an additional charge to make the art private and additionally charge per hour for private streaming sessions, if you want to allow it. If not, put it in your TOS that you reserve the right to display art and make the art in public. Once you decide, just tell the commissioner professionally and firmly what you've decided, and be prepared for the customer to a) pitch a fit and b) potentially cancel the commission...and act like a cool cat for either scenario.

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

It's generally nice to listen to the customer, as long as they're politely asking and have a reasonable explanation for not wanting it public. But if he truly is getting to be irate over this, then no, I'd inform him that $25 is not enough to keep this private.

If he is picky, and you know he's picky, why not allow for 3-4 revisions, then charge for other changes? If he's really hard to please, you shouldn't be bending over backwards for $25. At this point I do not think he has the right to stop you from streaming it, as he's hired you for a service and you're carrying it out to the best of your ability. You've signed no contracts to keep this under wraps.

But it would be nice of you to comply with his request. I'm sure you could work around this instead of publicly streaming it.

[ljmydayaway.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling I know who this is.

First off, I would definitely charge extra for "private" commissions. You're losing out on viewers and potential clients by not posting the art.

If he didn't ask for it to be private prior to commissioning you, and didn't pay for it to be private, he has NO right to demand that it be private.

[temrin.livejournal.com]

You can, always create a password on the stream so only he can view. or, create a private channel w/ password for customers who are like this. You stream it, as well as cater to their wishes. win/win.

[leahtaur.livejournal.com]

Technically you have no obligation whatsoever to comply with what he asks. It would be NICE of you to do so, but you don't have to. Personally, I would inform him that changing your process requires a small fee.

If you don't think he'll go for the fee, you can offer a refund or a private livestream as someone mentioned above. I don't stream so I could be wrong, but I think there are also streaming services that allow you to set a password for the session so that no one else could possibly stumble in.

[leahtaur.livejournal.com]

Ah! Temrin's got it, we posted at almost the same time. :P

[ocelotish]

I think in terms of the initial agreement it is unclear whether the piece would be keep private or not unless explicitly stated in your TOS. If the finished piece was going to be public, I'd just ask him why he's concerned about streaming and address his concerns about that. If the piece was going to be private, and this includes if your TOS doesn't say the finish will be public, I think you should take the loss - it's your problem if your TOS aren't clear. That being said, I would layout clearly that he may be able to revise as he likes more in livestream and you won't be doing a private livestream for him. You should give him what he wants most and what he paid for (or thought he paid for), but you don't have to be a complete push-over either because neither of you are in the wrong.

In terms of general policy I'd make it clear that pictures may be live-streamed and posted publicly unless otherwise discussed and there may be an additional fee. For example, gifts are cases where you probably wouldn't livestream, but might not want to charge for the temporary privacy.

[ocelotish]

Also, if you need to stream it for whatever reason or want to really stand your ground, give him a good alternative, a full refund. You can update your TOS then and he can decide then if he wants to buy it again, and with or without any privacy fee. That being said, this is a less desirable solution as it'll look pretty mean from his side of the story.

[shukivengeance.livejournal.com]

Issues like these should be covered in your ToS to begin with and I'd suggest you revise it based on the advice that best resonates with how you like to do things.

If it's very inconvenient to you for this to be drawn privately, then explain so and perhaps offer to compromise for a small fee as it goes against your usual procedure. Also explain that normally, such things like pieces being kept private should be arranged upfront before the commission agreement is finalized. The commissioner might be genuinely unaware of something like this.

I honestly disagree with the principle of artists charging more to keep a piece private. To me at least the client is paying for the service of you creating a product for them. That's it. They're not obligated to make sure that you get further business so charging them more for something that falls outside of the actual arrangement or commission process itself isn't something I personally agree with. Of course, that's just my opinion and if an artist wants to charge such a fee and they have clients willing to cough up the unnecessary extra, that's their prerogative.

[karthegrax.livejournal.com]

This

[petercat.livejournal.com]

Do you need the $25? If he's already paid, refund it and move on with your life. You should only have to work for a jerk once. What proportion of your total business does he represent, and how much better off would you be creatively by not having to deal with him?

[oceandezignz.livejournal.com]

Please don't name call. Even an anonymous person.

[claviarm.livejournal.com]

Some people will want art not to be worked on publicly, some will want the final result not posted either. You can have whatever policy on that you want, depending how much you want those peoples' business.

In this case, if the policy wasn't made clear ahead of time, I hope that you'd offer a refund if the customer finds your terms unacceptable. As long as the option to cancel is there, the customer can either accept or pull out, and I think you're fine.

(The problem arises if you don't let the guy pull out when you reveal your policy. Personally, I would never hire an artist who I knew was liable to say "Surprise! I'm going to do this in a way that I know you don't like, no refunds, too bad.")

[sbneko.livejournal.com]

In my case, if they don't say upfront that they want this picture to be private, then I can't really do anything. I really do enjoy posting it on multiple sites only to be told then that they want it private.

[sbneko.livejournal.com]

Really don't*

[razzek.livejournal.com]

No say at all. You're the artist and you need to be able to work on the commission in whatever way is most easy and comfortable for you. I sometimes will not post a commission publicly if I'm indifferent about the final results or my commissioner is someone I know well and has asked me not to, but if I'm pleased with a piece, it does say right in my TOS that I can post it and do as I will with it. With this being a cheap commission, I'd say your commissioner either needs to just deal with the way you want to work, or get themselves an artist who will put up with their nitpickiness.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Unless you've agreed otherwise beforehand, there's no stipulations you need to keep to. You could compromise that you won't advertise the stream, but if people wander in.. Tough luck!

And if you have a TOS, it should include that you will charge extra for X amount of changes to the sketch, that usually helps overenthusiastic nitpickers restrain themselves.

[amocin.livejournal.com]

I had just recently had an issue with this myself, where I have stated in my TOS that I reserve the right to post all works, though the commissioner may request a later date for it to be posted within a reasonable amount of time. (Like if they wanted it to be held off until the day after they plan to propose to the person for example.)

Honestly its a tough situation, and would require you to know why they dont want it public. Some people may be shy and dont want their fursonas seen nude or what have you, which is understandable.

Though as somebody had stated before, yes you are missing out on page views and potential watchers by not posting something you worked hard on. I would say that an extra charge for taking that away is feasible and reasonable, so long as you be sure to put it in your TOS and make sure that your commissioners at least state that they read and agreed to it.

[kikai-saigono.livejournal.com]

I feel like this might be unpopular opinion... but here goes anyway.

I don't know if this has changed when I took commissions, seeing I haven't taken them in a year or two but... When did we start treating our customers like they have no say in any process? If someone asked me not to upload a commission I did for them to dA, or to do it privately and not publicly, then I would most likely to it (IF I didn't say otherwise in my TOS, in which case if they disagreed with those policies they wouldn't commission me anyway.)

I just feel like online commissions and doing freelance work for companies is the same thing. You treat your customer with respect, and if a company asks you to keep the work you are doing for them private, are you just going to say No, I want and am going to upload it to dA/FA/SA anyway? (I get that there is a difference legality wise when a company actually buys the rights to a piece as opposed to a simple and cheap commission where they do not own rights, I'm just talking about as far as requests from the paying customer goes).

I see a lot of artists treating their paying customers with less and less respect somehow. Not saying OP was blatantly rude or anything, but if the guy was asking for you to do it privately, then there must have been some reason for it. He may want to keep the characters private, or he may feel embarrassed about what he's commissioning or about the subject matter, what have you. Would it have been so terrible to just set up a private stream or skype with him while you draw it instead of publicly telling him that you don't care what he wants? So he's nitpicky, that just means he's careful with what he does with his money and wants the most out of it. It's a compliment, seeing as he loves your work enough to spend his hard earned money on YOUR art. In life you have to deal with nitpicky people. I would have charged more if he was like that, but only if it was really extreme. I mean, even if it's only $25, that's $25 you didn't have before and are probably going to use that money on something you need/want; and I always had this firm belief that paying customers, while not always right, do deserve some respect, no matter if they paid you $25 or $2500.

I guess I'm just surprised by the general lack of respect (and I know I keep using that word, can't think of a good synonym right now) for paying customers when we as artists rely on them so much. I find the request to do a commission privately to not be that big of a deal. It would take you the same amount of time so it's not like he's putting you out time wise.

I mean, at the end of the day, if you are not comfortable doing something that the customer requests then simply don't take on the commission. I personally like to keep my customers happy so they are repeat customers in the end, so if I was in this situation I would have politely said that because of our differences I simply would not be able to take on his commission.

Personally? If it were me and I requested you to do the picture privately for whatever reason, say, if it was deeply personal to me and you basically said that you didn't care what I wanted, I would drop you really fast.

Again, all of this is based on the fact that you didn't have it in your TOS, and if you made them read and sign your TOS before money was exchanged. Sorry for the ramble, this is just my lowly two cents. Please don't take this as something against you personally OP, these are just general opinions about the subject as a whole.

[ocelotish]

I agree with this to a point. I think the artist should take the hit in this case and treat it as a learning experience because it was ultimately a fault in their TOS. Customers don't write their own TOS/contracts in most cases here, so I tend to side with their interpretations, so long as they're reasonable (which this one is). However, if the artist absolutely must livestream it, then I think the option offered to the customer would be a full refund. Not the best answer, but a better answer than holding the customer to a term of the contract that was at least unclear.

That being said, it's not unreasonable for the artist to generally have a policy where privacy is extra. I probably wouldn't charge for it (I'm not that interested in small commission atm), but I do respect that it's fair for an artist to charge for what is essentially a restriction of rights, so long as it's discussed beforehand.

[emirasan.livejournal.com]

Ok, I guess I'm going to be the odd one out here. In my opinion it doesn't matter how much the commission cost, you are being paid to do the art and the customer has a right to not want it done or posted publicly. It also shouldn't matter what their reason is, it is their art that they are paying for.

Perhaps they didn't bring it up beforehand because they didn't consider the possibility of you streaming their work. It's definitely something worth mentioning in your ToS in case the issue arises again though.

[leahtaur.livejournal.com]

"...you are being paid to do the art and the customer has a right to not want it done or posted publicly."

Actually, it's the opposite. The artist retains redistribution rights. If we are talking purely legal rights, the artist gets the final say on where the piece is posted unless those rights are sold or negotiated.

This seems to be more of a moral/ethical issue, not one of rights.

[taasla.livejournal.com]

If it's better for him to see things live, then you two can set up a date where he can watch and not advertise it. Just let him know you feel its better for both of you that way he can request changes as you work rather than you having to revise a piece a number of times after the fact. I don't stream any of my commissions, so I've never run into this sort of problem.

Edit: I'm also not sure where everyone is getting this thing about him not allowing you to post it? He just wants it worked on privately, yes? He's not asking you to hold off from posting it?

Personally, I charge for keeping things private. Every image not posted is lost advertisement and a loss of my rights on the image. They can either pay my fee or allow me to recolor the characters and/or tweak them to not be their characters anymore.

[bambicandi.livejournal.com]

Finding it odd why a lot seem to think prying into a commissioners reason for keeping what they want drawn private, kind of equates to allowing commissioners to pry into why artist's won't draw certain subjects which some might have no problem with answering, others find it invasive and rude attempt to change one's policy, which has more than often been the case when people ask me at least. Or even asking why some artists won't post work commissioner's paid for in their own galleries, do we owe them a reason? Why should they owe us one for wanting it to be private? Especially when artists do charge a privacy fee often which is fine if it's in the TOS and seems to be no questions asked if paid.

I value my privacy and as such value my commissioner's. Their reason is good enough for -them- to request it, why it is for artist's to judge if it's -good enough- reason kinda irks me. I might be alone in that though it seems.

On topic:
Attach a fee if they're troublesome/overly nitpicky and if doing the work off of livestream bothers your work flow that much, otherwise reject the commission and respect that the commissioner feels awkward about it.

Personally: I'd just do it privately and probably edit any TOS to prevent further disruption. While I also understand no livestreaming/publicity costs you some in 'advertising' and perhaps solving his nitpicking making the turnaround and process easier, hence the fee addition IF it's that bad.

Hope it works out~

[claviarm.livejournal.com]

I value my privacy and as such value my commissioner's. Their reason is good enough for -them- to request it, why it is for artist's to judge if it's -good enough- reason kinda irks me. I might be alone in that though it seems.

I can tell you that at least one person agrees with you.

A commission is a business deal. If the customer has a requirement, the artist either accepts that or doesn't do business with them, just as the customer must accept the artist's terms or not do business. Neither side should imagine that they have the moral high ground or the right to dictate that the other guy's requests don't matter.

[glacidea.livejournal.com]

What's the big deal with keeping it private? I've done this before. I got my money and I had other pieces to further my business. If the customer wants a private piece, so be it. They have their reasons and it's their art anyway. It costs you nothing to do this privately. Sure, you may miss out of the fun of a stream and a new submission, but it doesn't impede your ability to work on this. I'd just keep it private and then deal with things if he becomes annoying, but so far, he doesn't sound annoyed, just frustrated at not having his wishes met, which is understandable.

[houndofloki.livejournal.com]

IHMO, "please don't stream my commission/please stream it privately" really isn't that big a deal and I don't get why you wouldn't just do it? It might be a gift, he might be embarrassed by porny subject matter, or he might want to watch his picture being drawn but feel socially awkward in chat groups - who knows? The point is that the request doesn't cost you any additional time; the picture's going to take just as long to draw one way or the other.

I guess I just don't really see the point of turning this into a big deal or a rights issue when it's so easy to just do it and you don't "lose" anything.

[claytronic.livejournal.com]

I would tell him that I'm streaming all other commissions first and will stream him his later.
He shouldn't get to kick everybody else out of a fun stream session because he's self-conscious or whatever.

[kikai-saigono.livejournal.com]

Why did the artist need to do the commission in that stream anyway? Why couldn't they have done it at a different time. I don't think it's fair to knock someone for asking for a private commission, whether they are self conscious or for what ever reason they may have. They're paying the money for it so who are we to judge? (Also I'm confused how this seriously ruins all the fun for people watching, she could just move on to another commission.)

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

Does the customer have a RIGHT to demand you keep the commission private? ... no, I don't think so, you have full rights to the piece and process unless otherwise stated.

That being said, why not work something out with the commissioner? It's certainly polite and good customer relations to try to cater to reasonable requests, and I don't think the request for privacy is too outlandish. It may be a bit late in the deal to introduce the idea now, but in the future it's also reasonable to charge an extra fee for privacy, since you are indeed likely missing out on some advertizing / convenience for yourself.

[kikai-saigono.livejournal.com]

I'm confused by this "charging for privacy" thing. Echoing the point Shukivengeance made, since when is a commissioner buying something from you for you to turn it in to free advertising for yourself? They're buying art from you, for them, and nothing else really. Most commissioners are okay with someone working on it in a Livestream, but when a commissioner is not, why should they be charged? Maybe it's because I don't do livestreams a heck of a lot, but all my commissions are pretty much done "privately" and I wouldn't dream of charging them for that. When did commission change in to charging an extra fee for every thing that the commissioner isn't responsible for?

Not saying an artist doesn't have a right to charge for whatever they want, but I can't say that I agree it is "reasonable".