?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Adoptable Discussion Post

Howdy everyone!

We’ve started to see an increase in the number of questions and bewares involving adoptables so it’s time for a discussion post. We’d love to hear your thoughts on adoptable transactions. Some things we’d love to hear about:

-Reselling, Trading, and Gifting. What do you allow as a seller? What do you avoid as a buyer? Does the type of art being resold (one adopt, an adopt with new pieces of art, or an adopt that has been made into a fursuit) change the way you feel about this?

-Design Rights. If a new piece of reference art is created for an adopt can the customer now sell the design? What rights do you think an artist has to a design they create?

Those are only a few questions to get a conversation going. Please feel free to leave any and all thoughts you have about adopts as long as you:
- Don’t name artists, species, or customers by name. This isn’t a beware post. Keep it anonymous.
- Try to keep the conversation on the transactions around adoptables and not to the concept of adoptables themselves. People love adoptables! We want to know your thoughts on the business side.
- Keep it civil.

We look forward to your discussion!

Community Tags:

Artist's beware has moved!
Do NOT repost your old bewares. They are being archived.
https://artistsbeware.info/

Comments

venatorrooc
Mar. 1st, 2017 06:13 pm (UTC)
As a seller, once the design is purchased from me I let it go besides retaining the copyrights to the art. Resell/trade/gift it away, redesign it, draw it in whatever theme you want.. I don't really care and it's too much work to check up on what my buyers are doing with it. Admittedly I'd be upset if a buyer resold the design for more than they bought it for but I'd let it go - and if there was additional art that goes with it then I'd feel less irked about it.

I tend to avoid sellers that attempt to limit/control what the buyer does with the design once it's purchased such as; not allowing the buyer to resell/trade/gift the design, draw/commission the design in certain themes the seller personally dislikes, and/or threatening to confiscate the design with no refund if their TOS isn't followed. I find that incredibly shady.

However, I completely understand not allowing a buyer to resell the design for more than the purchased price. Reselling a design for $50 when its original price was $10 and/or traded/gifted is pretty shitty. In that case the original seller confronting the buyer and/or blacklisting them is perfectly reasonable, though I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with forcibly confiscating the design in this instance (even with a refund, the buyer could just not accept and carry on with reselling).

Getting into the realms of reselling the design + additional art brings it into somewhat of a grey area though and I'd say that's up to the original seller whether to allow it or not. The buyer is more or less reselling the design for more than originally purchased when additional art is tacked on, and the arts' copyright still remains with the artist who made it and thus the buyer is technically making money off of that too.

When in doubt, just ask the original design seller and the artists who created the art.

If a buyer creates additional art/references for the design they purchased, then I'd say they can then resell/trade/gift the design even if the original seller forbids it. The ART of the design stays with the seller/artist and if they don't want a buyer to showcase that art in the reselling process then that's their right.

However, legally-wise the original seller has no trademark/copyright over the DESIGN itself - only the art they've created - so if the buyer creates new art and uses that to showcase the design then the original seller is SOL.

I have no idea how this goes when the seller is using another artist's base though. In some instances I've seen, the original artist makes a base that can be used to make/sell designs - but I'm not sure how the seller can disallow the use of the art in the reselling process as it's technically not their art to begin with (beyond activating some layers and slapping colors inside pre-made lines, but otherwise not actually contributing anything? how does this work?).

All in all, the artist retains copyright of the ART itself but not the design and most things beyond that are on an honor system.
spartanwerewolf
Mar. 2nd, 2017 08:16 am (UTC)
"(beyond activating some layers and slapping colors inside pre-made lines, but otherwise not actually contributing anything?)"

So, hah, okay. Developing a palette, coming up with aesthetically pleasing markings and putting it all together? Is a hell of a lot more effort than just bucket-filling premade lines, or whatever it is you think folks do.

Colouring and design takes just as much artistic talent and effort as drawing lineart, and this idea that colourists just "slap colours inside pre-made lines" without any additional thought is actually kind of offensive.
dragontripmon
Mar. 2nd, 2017 04:30 pm (UTC)
Actually i don't really think that is offensive considering what i've seen with adoptable bases on deviantart for example often times you can easily tell if it's from a base. Or someone it's colored in a very non pleasing way. I've noticed this as well on FA.

While you do have a valid point with color palette. many of those bases i've seen with them colored in premade lines do feel kind of off as if they just did what as venato said.
gatekat
Mar. 2nd, 2017 04:39 pm (UTC)
Then you must be okay with being described via the beginners, lazy and hacks of your type of art. There are terrible examples in every group. That doesn't make it a valid description of that entire group -- in artist or anything else.
dragontripmon
Mar. 2nd, 2017 06:51 pm (UTC)
Well not a valid description or ok at all. but sadly that really kind of how it is when you see beginner use these kinds of shortcuts with premade bases to make a quick buck and get reconition. instead of taking their time to work more on their own unique species and character. It's really a kind of shortcut that pretty harmful in the long run.

I'm not offended by it considering i do take my time myself to practice on my art and work more on art and take critique. Though i really don't want to do something like that which can be harmful.
kayla_la
Mar. 2nd, 2017 07:38 pm (UTC)
MOD COMMENT
Alright, this isn't really a relevant discussion to the topic and is getting a bit heated. If you guys would like to continue your discussion regarding colouring bases, please take it to PMs.
venatorrooc
Mar. 2nd, 2017 09:32 pm (UTC)
Can't reply to the other comment but I'll add this anyways:

I realize how shitty that came off and I apologize for saying it - I wasn't really thinking when I made that comment. Sorry about that.

Though I do still would like to know what goes on when the seller buys a base from an artist, creates a design with it, and then disallows the buyer from reselling it using that base+design. The base isn't the seller's own art so what happens?
The original artist still holds copyright for the lines but allows people to sell designs using the base, so how do it work? Would the design then be a collab of sorts?
Fralea Comms
Mar. 2nd, 2017 10:25 pm (UTC)
Don't quote me but I think legally it would be considered 'derivative work'. Which I think means that the colorist could ask you to not use any art that they specifically colored, but wouldn't prevent you getting the same base/lines (if they were free to use, or if you paid for them) and recoloring them with the same design yourself.
spartanwerewolf
Mar. 3rd, 2017 10:44 am (UTC)
No worries. Personally, I spend more time on the design/colouring of characters than I do on the linework for them, so the idea that colouring premade bases somehow means less work bothers me. Not everyone can draw, but drawing shouldn't be a requirement for exercising creativity.

I use both premade bases and my own, and when I use someone else's lines, I mark it as a collab, myself. If you buy a base, you're only buying the right to use it, and you still have to abide by the rules of the person you got/bought it from; you're not buying the ability to allow *others* to use it.

It's a bit like painting miniatures, I suppose. You're buying the blanks that someone else has made, but still putting in the work on designing and painting it.

I'm guessing it would be considered derivative or collaborative work, but I'm honestly not entirely sure if both would have copyright claims or if it'd default to the line artist or what. It's actually a really good question.

Profile

A_B icon
artists_beware
Commissioner & Artist, Warning & Kudos Community
Artists Beware

Community Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com