[ SECRET POST #2815 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[diet_poison]

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??

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I'm not Artiste!anon; I'm agreeing with you. I think their argument here is completely self-serving.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying in general. But artists have to protect themselves as much as they have to try to put their best foot forward, part of protecting yourself is making sure you don't go into debt putting more hours into a piece then what was paid for it.

And if you do revisions for free, that is absolutely your right and your policy, but I don't think it should be automatically assumed that every artist has to or that it's expected if it was never mentioned at the start of the commission. Have you never had a "bad client" before? You need to protect yourself from bad clients just as much as commissioners need to protect themselves from "bad artists."

I know it may not sound like it, but I'm actually one of those people who will do some revisions for free and who gives people more then they pay for. I'm actually TOO NICE though because from a business perspective, I shouldn't be putting in so much work for so little money.

And a lot of this is assuming the work is sub par, or not worth the amount paid, we honestly have no idea if this is the case. We have no idea if the revisions would be free or if they would cost or if the artist would do them at all. All I'm trying to say is that it is up to the artist, and if the commissioner wanted something specific, they needed to say so long ago.

[diet_poison]

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.