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

But following your logic, a client can just claim they "hated" the product even if they didn't and they could not pay all the while the artist already spent the time and whatever money it required to produce the product.

This is why being clear and even putting things under contract is very important. I'm a professional artist and I know what I'm talking about, revisions are not an automatic part of a fee, it's something you need to request.

The time revisions are automatic is when it's a full time or part time job that you are working over a certain period of time. This doesn't count for one time commissions that weren't charged a professional rate though, you have to ask each artist their policy on that.

This is mostly true but one can absolutely take their other pieces as benchmarks. Generally you see samples of their work and what to expect. Objective criticisms can be made about the work. On the internet, if they refuse to revise a work that is clearly subpar from what was presented, your best course of action is to go public with it.

Actually sometimes artist's work online is what they like "best" so it's only an accurate reflection of what you would get if you pay their top rate.

Of course someone can go public if they wish, but the artist still does not owe that customer anything if there was no written contract or verbal agreement that relates to revisions or quality of work. From what I've been reading in this thread, it looks like the OP's mistake for not having a clear verbal agreement with the artist from the start.

So does the artist say to people, "if you pay me less than $$$, I will not give you something similar to what you see here"?

Why would you only post your best if you're not willing to sell that?

I would think that you would NOT want to compromise quality...do you really work for a lower rate to make shitty stuff? I would have assumed the amount paid would have to do with the size of the piece and therefore the overall time and effort required to make it...not the end quality.

Artists love to sell their best work and they absolutely don't want to sacrifice quality, but sometimes a client will come to you wanting cheap and fast, and that's what you'll give them.

It's not fun... it's just a reality when you want to make rent and have money for food. Not everyone wants to pay you what the work is worth, so sometimes you take jobs for less money and give them something that isn't your best.

All I can say is if you want an artist's best, you have to give them time and money. I think Neil Gaiman spoke about this subject once, and said it much more eloquently then I can (I don't have a link offhand, wish I did.)

ITT I learned that most people don't understand how art works. Most people can't afford what they would need to pay for an artist to put in a 1,000 hours on a piece, even if the artist would like to do so.

Yeah, but if you're using a piece you put 1000 hours into to advertise for 10 hour commissions, people are going to rightly call that scummy. :)

Yeah, that's fair. As long as the artist is communicating how much it will cost to get a gallery-level piece and how much it will cost to get something less. It doesn't sound like the OP specifically paid for something mediocre, since they spent quite a bit of money on it.

da

I know a lot of artists who will do quick sketch commissions for far less than they charge their full colored art. It's a way for them to make some quick money, because generally the sketches only take an hour or two to do.

That's fair.

It doesn't really sound like that's what OP commissioned, though, since they paid quite a bit for it.

Additionally, I think the artist should communicate to the consumer exactly what they'll be getting for their price. If the artist said "for that rate, I can only do this" when they have more expensive/time consuming stuff in their gallery, that would be reasonable.

Yeah you keep saying there's no contract here. In commonwealth law, there very clearly is. The acceptance of the commission is a contract to complete that commission to the terms set. If you as an artist have put out examples of what those works would be like, that is what your client is expecting. You were paid to do that job and it was not completed. You are breaching that contract. It's really that simple. /law degree talk

This. People think contracts are things which require lawyers and signing things with witnesses. Contracts can be made in writing, through talking, or even just through conduct. I wish more people understood how they work!

I agree with you that there's a contract. The problem is, there are no TERMS. The artist delivered a piece of art and the client paid. Contract done. The client had the right to request revisions, and the artist had the right to negotiate for a higher fee if it was warranted. You're talking about art as if it's like selling a kitchen table, and it's just not.

Where exactly does it say that? If you put a post up saying "I will make art for money!" and show examples of the work you do, those examples become the terms of the proposed contract with potential customers. There is expectation of quality involved here and legally speaking, if the quality is so noticibly low, the artist has misrepresented themselves in the contract and the customer is due consideration for that. It's a business and if the artist can't deliver on their side of things, the customer is well within their rights to get the work done properly.

If you want me to dig out textbooks and give you specifics I can, but your kitchen table metaphor is bullshit. You're selling a product. It has to be up to the standard you're claiming you can deliver on.

The comparison here would be hiring someone to paint your house. If they half ass it and make a mess of your house, they have breached the contract. The same applies here.

You're talking about art as if it's like selling a kitchen table, and it's just not.

How, specifically, is it different? You're exchanging a product for money. You show the product at the consumer expects a product that looks like the one you showed them.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2815 ]

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning

Re: Things you should know about commissioning