HOME | DD
Shinerai — Adoptable Design Auction!
#creature #digital #digitalart #dragon #fantasy #oc #originalcharacter #photoshop #reference #referencesheet #refsheet
Published: 2014-09-02 00:36:58 +0000 UTC; Views: 29506; Favourites: 1032; Downloads: 235
Redirect to original
Description
DescriptionWhile I was working on my Shinerai drawing, looking at the same character all day got old really fast. I took an opportunity to chill out by drawing a new design. I don't plan on using this design for anything, so I thought I'd give it to someone who will love and care for it!This time, I went a little further and made a reference sheet.
If you would like to bid on this character, you will receive a full resolution version of this ref. I will also probably throw in some other goodie doodles, depending on what the final bid ends up to be. I will not be using this design again, but I can't guarantee that some of the features won't show up in my other work (just happens sometimes, not every dragon is WHOLLY unique).
The bid starts at $20 and must increase in increments of at least $5. Please reply to the highest bid so that we can keep track.
The payment will be accepted via paypal only.
The auction will end at 11:30pm Thursday, September 4th, US Central Time.
Here is the bidding thread!
comments.deviantart.com/1/4797…
Alright, everyone!
Thanks for your support. This is only my second auction so I'm excited to see what happens!
CopyrightCharacter ©
Art © Shinerai my face!
Related content
Comments: 127
I really love the design and the natural colors of that species. The horns are a nice element and I adore that it has 6 legs!!! Really cool dragon!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Your designs are always absolutely outstanding!
I must add that I really like the colours and shape; incredible! such a lovely design ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you so much for the compliments! Forgive my late reply but I wanted to show my appreciation for your comment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awe no ;u; I didn't know you wanted a design.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love your designs, but I stumbled onto this one after the auction was closed!
Perhaps another time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This guy is SO COOL aw man Shin your designs are fantastic, I know they must take you ages to make but I SO look forward to more (just wish I had the money to participate. Have you ever thought of offering design commissions?)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi Hon!
I'm really glad you like them; I sure do have a lot of fun making them and this one actually didn't take me too long
I have considered design commissions in the past, but it's difficult to differentiate between "i will make up a design for you" and "i will draw your already conceived design that hasn't been drawn yet". Because I like the former and hate the latter. Plus, I wouldn't know what to charge anyway :c
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah I see. What's really popular nowadays is those species adoptables, I think you could come up with some totally wicked designs if you went down that road owo
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
maybe!
It seems weird to me that people would want to adopt something which is a species that the artist doesn't use and that the other characters of the same species wont be associated with the headworld canon at all. ;o; i mostly just interpret it as people being lazy and recoloring the same lines but i have to admit there were two color combos for this guy that i really wanted to sell. This is the other dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think a lot of artists actually do make species adopts from their personal headworld characters and such, which is why some of them are so expensive/elusive :0 But yeah you're right, there are a looooot of copy+paste recolors that kind of put a bad light on it. Anyway, just thought I'd suggest it! You're already fantastic with creature design and gorgeous markings, I'm sure people would love to have any creature you come up with ♥
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So awesome. Like all the details and how you draw his hands/paws <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Absolutely incredible! I just love how you draw creatures! You have a very defined style, and I admire the realistic proportions. Especially those feet!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you so much! It means a lot to me that you say I have a defined style!
Feet are really fun for me to draw but I am still learning about their anatomy which is surprisingly complex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If we aren't allowed to sell the design doesn't that mean we don't even own it? Rather, have partial ownership.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It means that the terms of sale stipulate that the product (the design and individual drawing) is for personal and non-commercial use. The design (as well as this specific drawing) can't be resold or otherwise altered and profited off of. If I was selling it for commercial use, I would charge a lot more for it. If that means that the buyer has partial ownership, then you are correct. This isn't unusual in the buying/selling of art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But reselling it for the same price I paid for it wouldn't be profiting off of it or using it for commercial use. I dunno, I'd be a little iffy paying that much for an intellectual property (character) I didn't even own completely enough to resell.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Specifying that it can't be resold is pretty standard really. When people sell characters, they're also selling an art piece, allowing the buyer to use the art for a reference sheet and other personal uses, and like all art sold, the artist is still the one that owns the copyright.
Characters can't be copyrighted themselves (they can only be trademarked), so you wouldn't really be buying a character to begin with. You'd be buying a pre-done digital art piece of a character that you can do whatever personal things with. Reselling the character in question would involve telling someone else they could use the artist's artwork, which would be a violation of copyright. It's really no different than how digital art commissions work--you can't resell those either, generally.
Now, in some instances, artists don't care if people resell characters and will say so, but it doesn't seem to be the norm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not really. If I go out and buy something in a store and am told I can't resell it, then I really don't even own it. & for a character "owning" it is a big deal to most people. "When people sell characters, they're also selling an art piece" No they're not, a lot of people redraw the character and advertise their own art being sold as to not infringe copyright. The designer owns the art, NOT the design once it has been sold. Legally it can be resold for a thousand dollars more than bought as long as it's not the artist's art being advertised.
Intellectual property can be copyrighted and trademarked, there is an entire .gov page on it, actually. IP's include fictional characters. "Reselling the character in question would involve telling someone else they could use the artist's artwork, which would be a violation of copyright." Again, not if it's redrawn. I very, VERY rarely see a "DO NOT RESELL" rule, this is only my second time seeing it but as Shin said, she is new to auctioning designs. I consider it stealing and a rip off (no offense to you Shin, like you said you're new to it) if you sit there and sell something for $50+ dollars and tell them they're "not allowed" to resell it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
We're not talking about a store. We're talking about digital artwork. You're not buying a physical item--in this instance, you're paying for a service more than anything. Even if you consider it paying for a product, it's still a digital product. Digital products are different from physical products and it's quite common that they cannot be resold. I can't resell games I buy on Steam, for instance. That doesn't mean I don't own the games. All it means is I can't transfer ownership. There's a difference.
I didn't say intellectual property couldn't be copyrighted and trademarked. I said characters can't be copyrighted. Because they can't. They can only be trademarked, and it's different from copyright. Technically, unless you trademark a character, which is something you have to actually file for, you don't truly "own" any character in the sense most people would think of. There's generally no legal recourse for people whose non-trademarked characters get copied. You own the rights to pictures of whatever character you draw, but not technically to the character itself. Characters can be protected because of them appearing in a copyrighted work, but it's a really complicated thing that only applies part of the time.
Like I said, it's fairly standard to specify characters can't be resold--I've seen it quite a lot, anyway. Maybe it's not as common on dA, I don't know, I don't spend much time on dA. Most artists that do specify that a character can't be resold do so because they don't want someone else making a profit off their art, since many times when people resell they do give away the original artwork that they got with it, even if they don't have permission to distribute it. If it's redrawn, then yeah, you'd just be selling your own artwork. So that probably depends on whether the person buying is an artist or not (most people I see buying characters do so because they aren't artists themselves and are just going to commission work of the character rather than redraw it themselves). And in that instance you could probably work out it out with the artist that if you want to resell it'd just be the character + artwork done by yourself, and not the original artist's ref picture. But hey, that's what communication is for. I mean, Shin did already mention she just wants to prevent people profiting off of her work, so yeah.
As a side note, it's not a "rip off" or "stealing" for an artist to specify that. Ripping someone off implies taking money from them and not giving them what's expected in return. Stealing is taking something without giving someone anything in return. Shin clearly outlines the terms, so anyone buying knows exactly what they're getting. I think what you mean is "It's not worth it" to you. Which is fine if you think that, but it's certainly not a rip off if other people think it's worth it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"We're not talking about a store. We're talking about digital artwork. "
Okay, and? I was making an anagoly, so it doesn't matter what the hell we're talking about.
"I didn't say intellectual property couldn't be copyrighted and trademarked. I said characters can't be copyrighted."
Characters are intellectual property, bro... Please stop contradicting yourself. There are characters that are copyrighted, and games/comics who make characters remotely similar have been sued for copyright infringement.
"Like I said, it's fairly standard to specify characters can't be resold--I've seen it quite a lot, anyway. "
Okay, and? Once again, irreverent comments prolonging this irrelevant argument that you seem to not want to drop. Everyone else seems to have moved on but you. Not going to further this topic because it's irrelevant now.
" I mean, Shin did already mention she just wants to prevent people profiting off of her work, so yeah."
Yeah, after I commented she answered my question and the conversation has been dealt with, but once again there is still you. No offense.
As a side note, it's not a "rip off" or "stealing" for an artist to specify that. Ripping someone off implies taking money from them and not giving them what's expected in return."
That's exactly what I see it as if I pay more than $50 for a character I don't even OWN. Taking my money and not giving me the ownership of said character that I paid for..
<;
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I was making an anagoly, so it doesn't matter what the hell we're talking about."
It...does matter what we're talking about. I pointed out why your analogy is out of place.
"Characters are intellectual property, bro... Please stop contradicting yourself. There are characters that are copyrighted, and games/comics who make characters remotely similar have been sued for copyright infringement."
No, actually, copyrights cover original works. "Intellectual property rights" is a term describing the exclusive rights to creations of the mind, and those rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some areas, trade secrets. The specific type of protections depends on the specific type of intellectual property. Trademarks are for characters, not copyright. As I said, sometimes characters are protected under the copyright of the image (or comic/animation/etc.) they're portrayed in, but that doesn't mean the characters themselves are copyrighted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrigh…
"Okay, and? Once again, irreverent comments prolonging this irrelevant argument that you seem to not want to drop. Everyone else seems to have moved on but you. Not going to further this topic because it's irrelevant now."
It's not irrelevant to discuss things and respond directly to comments left to me. I didn't sit around reading everyone else's comments so I don't know the extent of the rest of the conversation. I've replied directly to you mostly, via my inbox, and civilly, so I'm not sure what your problem is, but if you really want the conversation to end, you can choose not to respond.
"Yeah, after I commented she answered my question and the conversation has been dealt with, but once again there is still you. No offense."
I guess what you mean by "the conversation has been dealt with" is "the problem has been dealt with"...in which case, if you don't want people talking to you civilly about it, then again, why keep responding? It's rather perplexing.
"That's exactly what I see it as if I pay more than $50 for a character I don't even OWN."
The point is that you don't even really own the characters you've made yourself. If I really wanted to, I could copy them, maybe change the littlest things about them, and there wouldn't be much you could do about it, because they're not copyrighted and you probably haven't trademarked them either. And once again, it's not a rip off because Shin outright states the terms. It's no different than buying a game on Steam that can't be resold, or buying song downloads that can't be resold. It might not be worth it to you, but calling it a rip off is essentially implying Shin is scamming people, and that's rather rude.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I guess I'll post my response here, since I already had it typed up but you blocked me:
You compared owning a digital character with a physical item. It's out of place because digital goods work differently than physical items.
I've extensively looked up copyright information before, and I explained how characters can be covered under copyright without being copyrighted themselves, and I still don't know these "court cases" you speak of. So...citation needed. After all, the responsibility of proving a claim falls on the person making the claim. And that doesn't even necessarily mean finding me a link--it could be as simple as specifying a specific court case. Also, that Wikipedia article cited a source, so it's no less reliable than the source itself.
As for this...
""An intellectual property infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. There are several types of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Therefore, an intellectual property infringement may for instance be a
Copyright infringement
Patent infringement
Trademark infringement""
I never disputed this. This quote has nothing to do with whether characters can be copyrighted or not, all it does is outline what different infringements are called.
And this was less "resolved" and more that other people gave up because of the obtuse attitude you've displayed. All I've done is give you information. At this point though, I can see why others have given up. Which I suppose is probably your intention, to be as rude and stubborn as possible to people being polite to you so they'll eventually stop and you can feel like you've "won". Good day to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"It...does matter what we're talking about. I pointed out why your analogy is out of place."
Not when I'm making an analogy it doesn't, comparing two things that are similar in the same aspect as OWNING said object. No. It doesn't matter.
"No, actually, copyrights cover original works. "
They can be copyrighted. Jesus christ, just look up court cases where people got sued for copyright infringement when they mimiced a character, LOL. They're all over. But... Jesus I know you didn't just link me to WIKIPEDIA to prove your "argument?" Is that serious? Let me edit into that page "infringement deez nutz" and then we'll see where that goes. But since we're using the worst possible source in our argument, here you go: "An intellectual property infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. There are several types of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Therefore, an intellectual property infringement may for instance be a
Copyright infringement
Patent infringement
Trademark infringement"
" if you don't want people talking to you civilly about it, then again, why keep responding? It's rather perplexing."
Yes, civilly continuing the argument that everyone else has resolved, yet you get off on fanning the flames and continuing to babble because you want so badly to be right, but aren't.
"The point is that you don't even really own the characters you've made yourself. "
You responded to what you quoted me saying with something completely irrelevant... again.
"If I really wanted to, I could copy them, maybe change the littlest things about them, and there wouldn't be much you could do about it,"
I'm not sure WHAT that has to do with anything. If you change something obviously I probably couldn't do much about it. (thouughh there are cases where people have been sued for having similar characters, spitting images with added accessories, name change, etc. court passed it. it happens) But no where in these comments has anyone talked about how to get away with ripping off someone's character. Glad to see you've got that mind set though, you lil' thief you. c:
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
" If I go out and buy something in a store and am told I can't resell it, then I really don't even own it"
But what about the *not for resale* stickers on many items? 
But more seriously, stores do the exact same thing and make millions from it. Think about it: if you buy a digital song download on iTunes, you can't resell it. You also can't resell download codes once they've been used, even if they came with a physical DVD you bought at the store. And some pieces of software will only let you download them on 1-3 computers before the disk stops working, or the disk will only work until XX/XX/XX date.
It's an odd issue because the First-sale doctrine wasn't written to apply to digital media, so you have people "buying" stuff, but not really owning it, and it happens everywhere.
As for adoptables, I've see a ton of people say that you can't resell the adoptable, so it isn't *that* uncommon of a clause. I can understand it from the artist's perspective (they don't want the person selling the design to 40 different people at 50 bucks a pop for a huge profit) but I can also understand it from the buyer's perspective (they bought the adoptable, but are now bored of it so they're passing it on to someone else). The real problem is that a person can sell an adoptable and still use it, which you can't do with a physical item. There's nothing that says someone can't "sell" an adoptable and continue to use it as their own. And if someone resells the adoptable, but decides to also keep it... good luck reporting that to DA. "Oh, DA, they're drawing this red dog I drew a year ago. a bloo bloo bloo" DA is only moderately okay at removing stolen artwork, so what good will they be when it comes to such a legal gray area?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I mean, comparing big time industries and audio or digital files to an IP is a bit of a stretch, if it can even be... compared. Kind of two irrelevant tings.
I know of only ONE successful artists that charge 50+ dollars and tell you that you are unable to resell it, other than that they're nonexistent. & if they are, they're greedy, selfish artists who don't like the thought of someone making money off of their design, even though it's not "theirs" anymore. Only the art is.
"they don't want the person selling the design to 40 different people at 50 bucks a pop for a huge profit" That isn't what I or Shin said, though. Pretty sure we were both referring to the buyer reselling this individual character to get back what they paid should they lost interest, I was never referring to making it a species and making a profit.
IDK I don't know how people can be okay with it. I've seen people spend 400$ or more on adoptables on FA just to be told they can't resell it, even for what they paid. I just... don't understand. If you don't want the design being resold, then don't sell it to begin with is my point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Well I mean, comparing big time industries and audio or digital files to an IP is a bit of a stretch, if it can even be... compared. Kind of two irrelevant tings."
Is it, though? Either way you're paying for some limited rights to the picture or file. By buying a digital song, you're licensed to use it on your computer and load it onto your MP3 or whatever - you're paying for the license to use it legally. And when you buy an adoptable, you're paying for the rights to use the design as your character and repost the artwork without the artist filing a DMCA on you. Though my real point is that reselling can be hard to allow when it's a digital file or idea that can be copied over and over and over again. The artist has to have *some* rules or guidelines when it comes to the resale of the design, otherwise it's a free-for-all.
"Pretty sure we were both referring to the buyer reselling this individual character to get back what they paid "
And this is where clear rules come in handy. If Shin simply said "you're allowed to resell this design" who's to say that someone won't resell the exact same design to 40 different people? Someone was doing that on FA a while back - they would take random (free) adoptables and sell them to people for money, and they did actually reuse and resell some of the designs several times each. It's not like someone can check the whole internet to see if anyone else is using the same design or anything.
But the way I see it, if the art is selling, then the design is worth it to people. People know the terms when they buy it, so it's not like the artist is pulling the wool over their eyes. I mean, 100 dollars isn't all *that* much considering that some artists will sell paintings for tens of thousands in galleries. And some artists might charge that much (if not more) to design a character from scratch and make a reference sheet for them, so getting a character designed by the mighty ___INSERT ARTIST NAME___ for only 100 bucks might be worth it to that buyer. Art is worth what people will pay for it, after all. Gotta let the free market decide the price, yo! :U
" if they are, they're greedy, selfish artists who don't like the thought of someone making money off of their design"
Well now, isn't that a judgmental line. Just FYI, buying the rights to an image will usually add at least a couple hundred dollars to it's price, if not more depending on the actual terms of the contract. That's why artists don't include the rights to the image in 99% of online, private commissions. It's too expensive and most people aren't looking to resell their commissioned images anyway. And as for the "selfish" part, I really don't like regulating what's an "okay" price for artwork, especially when there are so many people out there who believe that art isn't a "real job" and artists should all work for free. ("How dare you try to make money off of a skill you've spent years perfecting! What do you think this is, a Capitalistic society!!!11!!111!11")
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against allowing the resale the design. But if the artist allows it, they have to write out *very specific* guidelines concerning the sale. When we're dealing with (potentially) hundreds of dollars in sales, the artist really has to cover their own ass when it comes to resale, since a mistake could easily lead to "someone might actually sue over this" territory. Granted, it's unlikely that someone would sue over a sparkledog, but I've seen people dragged to small claims court for less. And since we're dealing with a transfer of rights (since the artist is allowing the buyer to repost the artwork to their account) and not a physical item, the artist has to get their facts straight. Or they can say "You're allowed to resell the design one (1) time, but you're not allowed to sell it for more than you bought it for and, once sold, you are no longer allowed to use the design or artwork. These same rules will be applied to the character's new owners" and hope that the chain of owners follow it in good faith. Even then, there's no gurantee that the buyer will ever get their money back on it. Just because it sold for $115 on Shin's account doesn't mean that it will sell for that much again.
(Though it makes me wonder what sort of rights are actually covered by an adoptable. Yes, the artwork *itself* is covered under copyright, but can you even copyright a design? Can "red dog with blue spots on butt" be copyrighted at all? A character can be trademarked, yes, but that isn't automatic and requires that the design be used in interstate commerce, etc. etc. etc. And is an artist allowed to make and sell similar designs once they've sold one design? Can someone add a green star to the forehead and then sell it as a different design? Clearly I'm overthinking this, BUT I NEED TO KNOOOOW. )
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I mean, if you look for the small similarities it could be. Just like how I could say a dog and a giraffe are the same, they're both quadruped.
I'm sorry, I'm confused, I don't believe you're exactly... following what I've been or Shin has been saying.
"And this is where clear rules come in handy. If Shin simply said "you're allowed to resell this design" who's to say that someone won't resell the exact same design to 40 different people? Someone was doing that on FA a while back - they would take random (free) adoptables and sell them to people for money, and they did actually reuse and resell some of the designs several times each. It's not like someone can check the whole internet to see if anyone else is using the same design or anything." Has nothing to do with what I said.
"People know the terms when they buy it, so it's not like the artist is pulling the wool over their eyes" It could be. Shin basically said it was partial ownership, but I guarantee you if that was in the description for her or any other adoptable as "You don't completely own this design, partial ownership!" not nearly the amount of people would bid.
Your entire fourth paragraph was again you misunderstanding or not following along. I'm not sure what me calling an artist selfish has to do with regulating "okay" prices or whether it's a real job or not, HAHA.
Whether the buyer can or can't get their money back doesn't mean they should be restricted to... not be allowed to resale, again I am unsure what you're getting at.
& yes. I am unsure why people keep saying you can't copyright a design, designs have been copyrighted. I know people who have had their designs copyrighted. I've provided people.gov web pages explaining copyright protection on specific IPs and still people claim you "can't" get one copyrighted.
Lastly, clearly you're being silly, and I find it kind of passive aggressive to compare mundane sparkle dogs to the design in question, which is something Shin conjured up. Just sayin'.
Like I said, I was simply curious on Shin's stance on the reselling thing and how she used it. It was curiosity, really I didn't care either way. It's not like I was pissed at her or would show disdain based on her opinion of something... just curiosity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Your entire fourth paragraph was again you misunderstanding or not following along. I'm not sure what me calling an artist selfish has to do with regulating "okay" prices or whether it's a real job or not, HAHA. "
Here's what you said: "I know of only ONE successful artists that charge 50+ dollars and tell you that you are unable to resell it, other than that they're nonexistent. & if they are, they're greedy, selfish artists." You're calling someone selfish if they dare to charge what people are willing to pay (you're also indirectly calling Shin a greedy, selfish artist for charging more than 50 dollars). I'm simply saying that the free market decides the price, so if an artist sets the price at XXX and people are willing to pay XXX, then it's worth XXX. No need to make a judgement call on an artist's moral character for charging what the market calls for. I mean, if business A offers to pay you 15 dollars an hour for a job and business B offers to pay you 30 dollars an hour for the same job, would it be greedy and selfish of you to take the higher-paying job?
"People know the terms when they buy it, so it's not like the artist is pulling the wool over their eyes" It could be. Shin basically said it was partial ownership, but I guarantee you if that was in the description for her or any other adoptable as "You don't completely own this design, partial ownership!" not nearly the amount of people would bid.
And here you're just arguing semantics. If she were to say "You don't completely own this design, because you can't resell it!" people would still bid. It's saying the same thing, but with more words. Most people are smart enough to figure that out.
But since you seem to know a bunch about copyright protection on a character, why don't you explain the steps on how to copyright a character? Clearly, that would be a very helpful thing for Shin, Me, and other artists to know. It's been my understanding that you can only copyright a character if they exist in a copyrighted work, such as a book, or they have a detailed backstory that could make them worthy of copyright (this ties into the book thing: the backstory is copyrightable, so the character could be copyrighted from it). But a single image of a character can't be copyrighted as a design (yes, it can be copyrighted as an art piece, obviously, but the artist can't stop anyone else from using a similar character design).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see. Well in that case, no. That's nonsense, I didn't call anyone selfish for pricing their art accordingly. I called anyone willing to charge any amount of real money for it and then not allow resale selfish. You misunderstood and thus wasted your breath on lecturing me something I wasn't even getting at...
"You don't completely own this design, because you can't resell it!" people would still bid." Haha, now, now. You can't say that? I would never offer my hard earned money on something I wouldn't even own, a lot of people feel the same. Especially with characters, because characters are something special to the owner and if it's not even entirely there's (I'm not talking rights to make commercial profit, however, unless otherwise specified. But I am talking everything else)there's it kind of makes it null and void. Pointless, if you will. I've seen people update their rules just to say that, "You do not entirely own this design, but own it partially," everyone retracted there bids. I believe Shin would still get bids, but not as many as I clearly stated earlier.
You don't need to know much about copyrighting IPs to have enough knowledge to know better? I don't have to sit here and hold your hand, a simple answer to your questions would be to google the phrase, "Copyright characters," or, "characters protected by copyright laws," or "intellectual properties protected by copyright law." Simple enough, hm? Characters and IPS are protected under both copyright and trademark laws, not just trademark laws. The creative work, distinctive appearance and name is protected by copyright and trademark laws.
She could even so so far as to patent items or objects with her character's names/appearances on them... I mean these are the basics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't understand this:
"I didn't call anyone selfish for pricing their art accordingly. I called anyone willing to charge any amount of real money for it and then not allow resale selfish."
That's basically calling all digital artists that take commissions selfish? I'm sure that's not what you intended, but that's pretty much what you did, since I don't know anyone that allows commissions to be "resold" (nor do I know how that would even work).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No? Is there a language barrier here? How are you not understanding. I never said commissions, first off. I was referring to designs and characters. Selling a CHARACTER for REAL MONEY then not allowing RESALE of it is stupid and selfish. Ughh are you donnee.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I quoted exactly what you said and said myself that I'm sure it wasn't what you meant, I was just saying how it came across.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hello! I am replying to this because it was a super long comment. As Sharkfu said to this, I am pretty new at this. I think she was misunderstanding my intentions; I really don't care if the artist resells the design after they lose interest, for the same price. What I'm trying to avoid is someone reselling it for a higher price or recoloring it and selling adoptables.
Clearly you are correct and next time I put a stipulation on this, I need to get my facts straight (especially since we're talking legal here), but I'm honestly surprised it turned into a big deal.
To answer the question at the end of your comment; no you cannot copyright a character design. You can only copyright the individual piece of artwork.
Obviously, the people that are bidding on the design don't have a problem with my requests in the artists description. :/ I didn't mean to get everyone riled up with my inexperience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"I think she was misunderstanding my intentions; I really don't care if the artist resells the design after they lose interest, for the same price." I am not misunderstanding? You blatantly said, "no reselling" which is vague enough to assume it means no reselling for any reason, you didn't clarify, which was why I asked. I was only curiously, really I didn't even care because it's not like I was after the design anyway. And when I DID ask you still essentially said, "no reselling." Kind of misleading what you just said to AboveClouds, but eh. Thank you anyway for responding, my inoffensive question was answered eventually. uwu
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand what you mean; It's just that this conversation continued to revolve around "it's stealing and a rip-off if I can't sell a design after I bought it" AFTER i already clarified in my responses to you that I was only intending to dissuade profiting off the design and I had already said I do not mind if the artist passes the design to another person for the same cost simply because they are no longer interested in it. While your remark was indeed inoffensive (and I'm very pleased with how civil this entire conversation is), I was under the impression you misunderstood my intentions simply because these comments took place after I clarified.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't make it revolve around that and I didn't mean spur-on other people revolving around that. :c If I had known people were going to jump, then cause a big misconception on what I was saying I wouldn't have bothered to comment. I didn't mean to start up some pointless argument (even though it was a civil one, haha), really. I was only curious. Thank you for clarifying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I really think the conversation turned out to be an interesting debate. No harm no foul.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Apparently there was some harm and foul. They called me a thief then blocked me. :\
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah her responses to you got rather heated. I guess the only disappointment here is that she asked a question, denied all the information people gave her, and left having still the wrong answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's my understanding that a character can only be copyrighted if they're part of a larger work that is under copyright, like a character from Harry Potter. I'm still not 100% sure whether designs themselves can be copyrighted (I'm leaning towards no, like you said), so it's kind of a legal grey area. The way I see it, when someone buys an adoptable they're paying for a pre-made character and a pre-made reference sheet more than anything else. And if the person buying the adoptable gets bored of it later on, so be it. Should an artist allow a buyer to sell prints of an older commission to recoup their costs just because they don't use that character anymore? No, of course not. It isn't the artist's prerogative to allow the person to get their money back on a commission, and it should be the same way for an adoptable.
But it still doesn't hurt to at least lay out what you're comfortable with in case copyright law changes in the future! ^^ You never know - what happens if you end up publishing a book about your headworld and this guy is in it, or he's one of the species in your book? What about the character's copyright then? Technically you're not selling any actual legal rights right now, but that could change.
To clarify, I fully support you not allowing resale. But I don't know... adoptables are weird in that you're making a pact with someone that they'll only use it in XYZ way... but it isn't a super legal thing? I still like to talk about "right of character" juuuuust in case things change in the future, and I would always lay out what is and isn't okay in my book before selling. It might not stand up in court or anything, but it still lets people know what I'm okay with up front and keeps everyone on the same page. Though if they broke those terms and it *did* go to court for some strange reason, it might count as a breach of contract? It's hard to say, really. When you're allowing people to make money off of your work, it never, ever hurts to specify what you're okay with. Like, if someone resells the design, are they allowed to use your artwork to resell it (and could that degrade your claim to the picture's copyright)? Do they have to completely redraw the character themselves? How much can they make from the sales, and can you actually legally limit them to XXXX amount? etc. etc. etc.
tl;dr: It's just easier to say that they're paying you for a pre-made reference sheet and not deal with them reselling it, haha.
(Yeah, this is why I don't bother with adoptables myself. |D)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I really appreciate your support and the amount of time you spent writing your comments and sharing your knowledge. I really agree with everything you're saying. Intellectual property is a huge gray area these days. To be honest, I think I'm really pretty lax. I don't mind sharing, people referencing, or even putting up PSD files, which I've done before. I'm a hobby artist, after all. I don't need to make a living off of my art; I'm only here to share it. I simply put that up because I thought it was just respecting the artist to not sell a character you bought. I've removed the section from my deviation because I'm really not comfortable having words that act as a legally binding agreement that is so uncertain, you know?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I wish there were an actual ruling on whether a character design can be copyrighted or not. I'd still lay out (in very clear terms) how a character can be used in the rare event that it *did* go to court (like if someone bought an adoptable from me and then sold it to some big company as a mascot design for millions of dollars) in hopes that it could count as a breach of contract, but it's hard to say whether that would actually work. It could still lead to all sorts of sticky problems if you see someone reselling it for, say, 500 bucks and you try to stop them. It's easy to say "Oh, you're not allowed to resell it at a profit," but could that hold up in court? Heck, they might even turn around and say that you're grabbing rights to something you have no right to.
Most of what's bringing in the money is the high quality of the adoptable, the high quality of your artwork, and your popularity. When it comes to adoptables, most people are buying them simply because they want to support the artist and show their love of the adoptable, not to make a profit on it. I seriously doubt that the adoptable could bring in as much if the artwork was made by someone else (unless they're just as skilled as you) so the price of the adoptable *is* tied into the artwork, which is clearly copyrighted.
(at least that's my non-professional take on it, haha. |D )
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
After further consideration of the points you brought up and the things I said about it, I understand more where you are coming from. The result of your confusion is due to the vague wording in my description. If I put in my description "for personal and non-commercial use only", rather than "you can't sell it", would that be better? If someone purchased this design and then no longer needed it but didn't want to simply give it away so sold it to the next person for the same price, I wouldn't have a problem with it as no profit is made.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>