fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2815 ]

[ SECRET POST #2815 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2815 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[John Green]

__________________________________________________

04.

(Hemlock Grove)

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [posted twice]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Russell Edwards' Naming Jack the Ripper]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Coronation Street]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #402.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If an artist is too embarrassed to post a commission anywhere, then they should re-do the fucking thing. I wouldn't give someone who paid me money a piece that I thought was such shit that I was afraid to share it with anyone.

Um, no they shouldn't. Time = money. If the artist already spent the amount of time that they can afford, then they don't owe the commissioner anymore then that. If the commissioner wants the artist to spend more time, they need to spend more money on the piece.

Um, bullshit. By your logic, I can just draw a bunch of stick figures and say "oh, too bad, time is money, give me more if you want something better."

This isn't free art or free fic, where no one owes anyone anything; this is a job, where something absolutely is owed to the employer. They're being paid to produce something of a certain quality, and they should deliver on that or either offer a refund/partial refund or re-do the work.

I don't think you're really familiar with how work in the art world goes, art is subjective and therefor it can be all too easy for a client to argue "well I don't like it so I want a refund." So, yes, most artists are actually paid for their time and not the actually end product.

If the product is not liked, that is where revisions and possible revision fees come in. But a client is not automatically "owed" a revision just because they dislike it. If you want a revision without an extra fee, you must agree upon it on the agreement of the commission (and you'll probably need a contract stating as such as well.)

I didn't say someone's owed a revision if they didn't like the work. I said if the artist is so embarrassed by a piece that they won't post it anywhere, then that's a pretty good indication they should re-do the damn thing. Why would you give someone who paid you money something that you personally think is shit? What does that say about you?

But OP is only assuming they didn't like the work, they don't know for sure.

Even if the artist didn't like it, that still doesn't mean they must re-do the whole piece. The time was spent, the product was given. The OP is the one who fucked up in this case by not ensuring that they'd get a product they would like.

Annnnd that goes back to the stick figure bit. I can draw some shit in five minutes, claim it took me twelve hours, and then berate the person who paid me for not making sure I did what I was asked to do. The burden of producing should be placed on the producer, not on the consumer.

But if there's no contract or verbal agreement, the burden actually does go to the consumer.

You get paid for your work whether it's good or bad, if it's bad then you get fired or don't get hired again. Most artists want to get hired again but we're not perfect, we don't always produce results a client loves. That's where being clear about if you are looking for revisions or not is very important. If an artist tells you it will be an additional fee, you have the option to not hire that artist or not hire them again.

This was the OP's mistake.

The problem is that with other products and services, you're able to at least get a partial refund if you aren't satisfied. That's why this is really rubbing the wrong way, because when it comes to other exchanges, it's not generally considered the consumer's fault if the experience or product that's delivered is subpar. And requiring a contract to deliver a certain level of quality is...kind of insulting.

But you don't automatically get a refund at many businesses, there are terms of service and warranties and contracts on most things and many stores will not provide a refund unless you can prove the fault was on their end. This would be very difficult to prove with art.

Look at it this way, you get paid for your day of work no matter what kind of work you do. Now if you do a shit job you may get fired and not have more money tomorrow, but your boss can't go back and time and take what money you have made away from you. Everyone gets paid for their time, we have to protect workers that way or it's too easy for them to get taken advantage of.

In many cases it would be difficult to prove, but I kinda think a piece that is clearly below the level of the rest of the artist's work is, in fact, subpar and not the fault of the consumer, because the consumer paid for the kind of work they are used to the artist producing.

If five people pay an artist $50 to produce a piece, and the artist puts in $50 worth of effort on four of them and produces nice pieces, and on the last one gets lazy and puts in $20 worth of effort, and the difference is clear for anyone to see, then the fifth consumer got ripped off and deserves a partial refund or a revision.

That still falls down to contracts, verbal agreements and artist policies though. If the consumer did not ask any questions or discuss any of this prior to the artist producing the work, the fault lies with the consumer.

Some artists may do revisions for free, some may charge a fee. These are questions the customer needs to ask ahead of time if the artist isn't upfront about their policies.

It's just too easy to argue quality so you have to make agreements before any work is even done.

I like how in an equal exchange of resources, only one side seems to bear the burden for contracts and upfront policies.

You're basically saying it's ok for an artist to be dishonest and/or unethical because the consumer didn't take enough steps to stop them from doing that.

How about being a decent human being and doing the right thing and not ripping people off??

I'm not saying it's okay to be dishonest, ideally both parties would be upfront from the beginning. But what OP went through sounds like a misunderstanding or miscommunication, and I don't believe the artist should have to lose money just because OP believes they got an inferior product (which they can't really prove anyway.)

There is no way for us to know that the artist ripped the OP off. Being dissatisfied with a piece does not mean the artist didn't give it their best effort, this goes back to art being subjective again.

And whether or not the artist gave the piece their best effort is subjective too.

Effort doesn't matter; the actual result does. It's not that hard to look at their previous work and see if it's similar to their other output.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-18 04:50 (UTC) - Expand

Okay, as an artist I have to call bullshit on your ideas. Every single customer I get is an advertisement for me. If they like my work they may tell some of their friends how awesome I am and earn me more business.

On the contrary, if they are dissatisfied with the work I did and it's noticeably not up to my usual standard, and then I for some odd reason refuse them a refund or redo? They're going to tell as many people as they possibly can how shitty my business practices are.

I agree with others that several months down the line is an inappropriate time to bring it up, by that point the client should have spoken up.

But understand, what I do is run a business, and I want my clients to be as happy as they can. And one unhappy one can ruin months of work.

And beyond a business standpoint why the hell would I want to give a client sub-par work? Why would I want them to be unhappy with my product? How is that supposed to be an acceptable thing? I have integrity thank you.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-18 05:03 (UTC) - Expand

It's...actually pretty easy to prove that a product you have is substantially and qualitatively different from what's on display.

Of course *we* don't know, the entire thread is technically based on speculation.

Actually, no -- you don't always get paid for your day of work. People who work on commission only get paid when they produce, regardless how much time they put in to it. If they don't make any sales on a particular day, then they don't get paid.

Yeah, this is not how things on commission actually work. If you hire a contractor to renovate your kitchen and he botches the job and installs the oven upside, he's got to rectify that error. He doesn't just get to take your money and go oh well, it took time and effort to do a shitty job and that's all you paid for and if you want a proper job you'll have to pay more money. No. Just no.

Because what you pay for is the end result. You're not paying for X hours of work. You're paying for a piece of art that is to your specifications.

This comparison doesn't work though because there are ways to prove that the oven was installed upside down, the art would have to absolutely be incorrect and be proven to be so, it couldn't just be a matter of taste.

TOS, contracts, verbal agreements are all a part of regular business for these reasons. Even contractors don't always come back and fix a job if they find they weren't at fault, sometimes people have to hire a brand new contractor to get the work they wanted.

People get paid for their time, if you are dissatisfied with the work you have to be able to prove it and it has to be in line with a stated agreement.

People get paid for their time, but they also get paid for their output. The end result matters just as much, if not more, than the time put in to generating that result.

As someone who works on a contract basis (manga lettering)... yes, yes, and yes. I have to fix it unless I can prove it wasn't my fault or even sometimes when it really wasn't my fault. If I make a mistake, it comes back to me and I fix it. Sometimes I fix the artist's mistakes (weird cropping, visible trademarks, stray lines or dots on the page). I don't get to rest easy until the client says they're happy.

Yeah, sorry, people aren't just paying for your time - they are paying for your skill as an artist. If you're offering commissions you should be able to reproduce your level of skill consistently.

I both commission and do commissions and if I did something that I was too ashamed to show I would ask my client for more time to do something at the standard we were both expecting.

But we don't know that's the reason why the artist hasn't posted the commission yet. I've commissioned artists who sometimes take months to post pictures they've drawn for me. Or they won't post it unless I've given permission to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only