Always reblog the Real Life Disney Prince. Pay attention boys, this is how it’s done.

everyone else: ok, then pay more taxes.

There’s a post that’s been floating around Tumblr and Twitter that has (understandably) upset a lot of artists:

The original post seems to have been deleted and it was posted anonymously, so I have no idea who this person is or what inspired them to write this vitriol, but it’s prompted some conversations on Twitter and Tumblr that I wanted to address.

Rude attitude towards artists aside, this is a serious misunderstanding of how commissioning and copyright works. Judging by some of the replies to this post, this seems to be a common misunderstanding: Commissioners do NOT automatically get all rights to the art that they’ve commissioned.

Artists automatically own the rights to any work they have created as soon as the work is created, without needing to file any kind of legal paperwork, unless part of the commission agreement states that the client/commissioner is granted rights. Many commissioners (and artists!) do not realize this. They assume whomever is paying for the creation of the work owns the copyright to the work. It is not the payment that transfers this ownership. The payment is simply for the creation of the work. Not for the rights to the work itself, unless explicitly stated and agreed upon. (It’s worth noting, I work in the US, I am not sure how copyright law differs in other countries so my statements here are framed in the context of US copyright law).

Those of you who do professional work-for-hire freelance work (or work full-time for a studio) probably noticed in most of the contracts you signed there are clauses stating the client/company owns the work you’ve created (either in part or in full). This is because without that clause, you, as the artist, would actually still own the rights to the work and the company would be unable to use the work they paid you to create.

This is one of the reasons it’s important to have a contract signed by both the artist and the client whenever you’re doing a job. I know that many people (and I have been guilty of this too) tend to be more casual about one-off commissions and don’t always have a contract involved in those sorts of transactions, but honestly, with attitudes like this out there, it’s probably a good idea. A contract should clearly lay out what the usage rights are once the work is completed and can avoid misunderstandings or legal grey area down the line. For something small like a commission, it also just gives you something easy to point to if you need to ask a former client to stop using a work they commissioned in a way that was not originally outlined in the contract.

Generally, because of the informal nature of personal (non-commercial) commissions such as one-off character commissions, pet portraits, etc, artists may be more casual about how the commissioned art is used, but it’s still important to check with the artist what specifically you are allowed to do with the art, as each artist may have different preferences. Some may be happy to grant full usage rights, others may allow redistribution rights (with or without credit) but not allow the work to be resold or edited. 

What this person above is doing, by editing out the artist’s signature, is technically illegal unless they have agreed-upon rights that allow them to edit the artist’s work (removing a signature is editing) and re-post it without credit. 

These laws exist not to make commissioners miserable or to try to snag free advertising or whatever else this commissioner seems to think. These laws exist to protect artists’ rights which are increasingly vulnerable due to the nature of image-sharing on the internet. 

Commissioners and artists, know your rights and make sure you understand them before money exchanges hands.

There’s a super helpful article here that goes into some of this in more detail that you may find useful: http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/design-contract-clauses/

Edit: Here’s another helpful article detailing what exactly “Work For Hire” is and how/when it grants rights to the commissioner/employer: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/tyl/topics/intellectual-property/copyrights_and_works_made_hire.html

Millennials do not cope well with meaningless busy work so their boss looks better.  They don’t cope with being talked down to or not being assisted by their boss when they have a problem.  They do not deal well with their innovative ideas being shut down because “that’s not how we do it here.” and I don’t see how any of those things is a problem.

Millennials are also the first generation since the internet was a prominent thing to utilize it as a source of information in a way that is empowering for each other.  A single millennial can buy a product and then inform anyone who wants to know about the quality of said product.  It only takes a handful of millennials to say “this is a substandard product” to render all the millions of dollars spent on advertising that product completely useless.

Big business has been a blotch on millennials lives since before most of you could even assume a role in adulthood to effect it, so you trust one another more than you trust advertisements or sponsorship, etc.  

On the flip side, though, you enthusiastically will push and promote things that you love.

Big business and their baby boomer CEOs and presidents HATE this.  Because it means that they can no longer provide a substandard product while making the consumer feel there is nothing better out there.

In the past, if every dish soap was awful, you just had to continue using awful dish soap.  Now, you can crowd source an alternative.  You can post in a forum, your facebook, a mass text, etc and say “I hate every dish soap, what can I do?” and you will be directed to actual good brands or you will be taught how to brew your own.