Copyright & Commissions

[Anonymous No.1878221]

I just received this question on my blog in regards to commission's and copyright, and wonder if /ic/ knows how this situation works.:

>I'm kind of new to freelancing, but I've been asked to do some promotional artwork.
>The employer (understandably) wants the copyright to the artwork, and wants to know how that will affect the price.
>I'm not sure how much more I should charge for the copyrights.
>Do you have any advice for me?

As far as I know, the employer is only paying for a service of getting a picture drawn, and shouldn't need to pay for any "excess copyrighting fees" .

But then, who is to promise that the artist wouldnt just sell off the promotional piece they made as prints elsewhere?

And why does the employer want the 100% rights to the artwork he didn't make? How will someone in the employer's position confirm by law that they'll be the only ones allowed to use that painting after they make it?

This situation is confusing me too. Normally when I did commissions and the buyer says "btw i'm gonna copyright this to me, hope u dont mind :)" and then take my commission, and copyright "dicklord © 2014" on their facebook without any credit, all I needed to do was chuff it off as my art would just get sourced back to me with Google Images or whatever, and the drawing idea was downright retarded to need to be credited anyway.

[Anonymous No.1878226]

>>1878221

ofcourse the rights affect the price. if you grant your client exclusive rights for the image the price is higher than if you don't. generally however, every client wants exclusive rights for the image.

[Anonymous No.1878248]

>>1878226
>generally however, every client wants exclusive rights for the image.
That's exactly what baffles me about this.
Shouldn't this always be implied?
Someone is paying someone to do something for them because they wanted their needs met.. they're not paying for someone stranger's needs to be met.

So shouldnt this not be called to question?

[Anonymous No.1878265]

>>1878221
It's simple: you made it, it's yours.

If they want your permission to use it as freely as they want, they pay extra on threat of suing/using their beloved artwork for something else.

Those guys who did this:

>btw "i'm gonna copyright this to me"

Did it wrong and you are a retard for letting it happen with no benefits.

Point is, ask for more.

[AnonQuo No.1878274]

>>1878221
/thread/
>>>/ic/

Well... it's a matter of CC and DMCA then, because. In my country we kinda already have a DMCA law, however more restricted (IPRED-Law)

>CC (Is a program from and programmed by Aaron Swartz - May he rest in piece!) Uses creative minds to use "Copyrights-material" in a easy well-mannerd way.

> But... DMCA is A VERY VERY Red-hearing as-well a fine line to be drawn, because DMCA is WAY more restricted and more harmfull.

----------------------------
Conclusion: Take this from someone who knows, if you'd do this in this country you'd be put in jail as-well get prosecuted on top of that. because thats how "much democracy." we actually have. Because of a so-called wire-tapping law within this country. (Cant say more then this)

[Anonymous No.1878283]

>Listen up, idiots:

Book covers, commercial illustrations etc. used to be commissioned for a project, with the commissioner paying a license to use the piece. This meant that when the work got reprinted the artist would get a royalty check. This is what happens to authors when they get their work re-published.

However, due to the increase of judaism in the illustration and book market work is increasingly being done under 'work for hire' contracts, i. e. they pay you a little more in the short term but they're free to use the work in future projects without compensating you.

Both of these scenarios USUALLY let you sell the commissioned art as a print or use in your portfolio once the NDA expires. If they want a work for hire AS WELL as permanent exclusivity to the piece you should jack up your prices considerably because you're forfeiting your right to continue profiting off of a piece you made, the right to upload it online for exposure as well as the right to put it in your professional portfolio.

If you guys CAN try to negotiate for royalty, because this was at one point somewhat common in the industry, but due to fags who don't understand money and think exposure is equal to financial success it has become rare.

[Anonymous No.1878305]

>>1878274
sauce on gif?

[Anonymous No.1878308]

>>1878305
Boku no Raison d'Etre

[Anonymous No.1878309]

>>1878305
2nding mah niggah
>inb4 posts tumblr sauce not the actual sauce

[Anonymous No.1878408]

>>1878221

You did not mention one of the most relevant points. Is your employer asking you to create artwork of a character/property they own?

If you are creating a derivative piece of art, the artist generally does not keep any copyright over the artwork. You are being hired to do a task to their specification, and this is the exact type of situation where work-for-hire is appropriate.

>As far as I know, the employer is only paying for a service of getting a picture drawn, and shouldn't need to pay for any "excess copyrighting fees" .

There is no excess copyright fee. This is just normal negotiation. I'm guessing your employer is no more experienced in this than you are. But take it as a good sign that they're even asking you about it and show a willingness to negotiate price.

>And why does the employer want the 100% rights to the artwork he didn't make?

Again, you need to answer if you are working based on pre-existing characters, or even just a description of a character. Who specifically drew the artwork is irrelevant. Imagine if every animator who worked on a cartoon thinks they have a piece of the character, and starts reprinting their cel. It would be chaos.

[Anonymous No.1878708]

>>1878305
Ergo Proxy

[Anonymous No.1878844]

>>1878308
>le Boku no meme

I'm not the other anon, but Ill let you know that a masterbated to that harder than anything else in my life.

[Anonymous No.1878847]

>>1878265
Here's some context for you: The commission I drew were My Little Ponies
I'd be a retard for caring that a ponyfag wanted to copyright a copyrighted brand.

>>1878274
Which country are you from?

[Anonymous No.1878853]

The Graphic Artists Guild Handbook: Pricing & Ethical Guidelines, just google it

[Anonymous No.1878869]

>>1878853
Had no idea a book like this would exist, thanks man.

[Anonymous No.1878871]

>>1878283
Yes but because a book was incredibly shit, why does an artist deserve to rely on a royalty?

So then why doesnt the makers of the piece of paper get charged with royalties?

[Anonymous No.1879017]

>>1878871
>publisher buys manuscript from author
>wants to publish it for profit
>pays the author
>print run ends
>publisher wants to profit off the same work again
>re-print it
>gives the author a cut because he made the product they're profiting from

I see absolutely zero reason why the same shouldn't apply for the cover illustration, which ultimately is what catches people's attention and creates hype for the book.

Also paper manufacturer sell a product not a license to use an intellectual property you double-nigger.

[Anonymous No.1879120]

>>1879017
>I see absolutely zero reason why the same shouldn't apply for the cover illustration

Agree to the terms or don't, it's your choice to walk away if you feel the terms are onerous. Publishers right now pay for to cover designers than cover illustrators. There are more illustrators than jobs to go around, that's why you get bad terms. It's supply and demand, and what you think is right and honorable has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.1879123]

>>1878847

You can't claim copyright on a work that already infringes copyright. Likewise, your employer can't claim copyright on that image either, unless your employer is Hasbro.

The only thing you would own in this case is the physical artwork, if there ever was one, and various moral rights such as authorship.

[Anonymous No.1879132]

>>1879123
Does this mean i can use fan-made content in my art with no regard to their owner's copyright claim, since that claim isn't theirs to have? What about reselling fan-made works? How much does authorship matter?

[Anonymous No.1879134]

>>1879120
I never said you should only accept jobs where you'd be getting a royalty, those jobs are rare to nonexistent. What I'm saying is that it would be to the benefit of the artist, as well as to the benefit of other artists to do so. But these threads are full of fags who take the side of the people whos job it is to keep costs low and underpay you, rather than the artist. 99% of jobs are work for hire which is the absolute worst deal for the artist. It would help if people recognized that rather than embracing it.

I'm also arguing that since most people commissioning you allow you to retain the ability to use and profit from the work, giving up that right should be a cause to raise your prices.

[Anonymous No.1879187]

>>1879132
>Does this mean i can use fan-made content in my art with no regard to their owner's copyright claim, since that claim isn't theirs to have?

No. You don't have a right to use it either, and you can't claim copyright on it. It is pointless to argue about who owns the copyright when it is indefensible in court, isn't it?

>What about reselling fan-made works?

The only real thing that keeps people from pulling off that kind of shit is that it makes you look like a giant douche.

>How much does authorship matter?

Not a lot.

Look, in these kinds of transactions, what really matters is contract. This isn't even really about copyright anymore. If he wants you to agree to do some kind of work, then promise not to use it anywhere else and let him use it however he wants, that's the terms of the contract. Whether it's enforceable or not, you have to be willing to go to court to find out. Obviously, such a thing is not worth it to find out.