Jump to content

VosurAekira

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Good

About VosurAekira

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

336 profile views
  1. I would recommend posting the portion of the transcript where they mentioned you could keep the money/cancelled the commission in the option where you have room for putting evidence. Also, of note, there is an option to block the person not only on the media (FA/DA/twitter, ect.) but also on paypal. If you go to the main page, look for where it says "Send Again". There's a bubble with three dots that gives you some options, click on it and choose "Manage Contacts". If you have their email address, you can filter your contacts with the search-bar. Once you find them, click on their name/profile and see what shows. You should find two links that say "Remove Contact" or "Block Contact". If you're intending on preventing them from sending you anything (and thus preventing them from starting this again), choose "Block Contact".
  2. I would check to make sure you're still within the window for filing a dispute/claim. If you are (and you have not received any portion of the commission), then I recommend you start the filing for the dispute/claim or be prepared to lose that commission or money altogether.
  3. My personal experience would be to ask them how much time would they normally take to do a sketch phase/line-art phase/flat-color phase/shaded-colored phase with one character then see how much they would charge per-hour and base it off of that (with maybe 1-5 hours extra depending on which phase you choose). If they have the capability to stream, see if you can find a stopwatch or a stopwatch program/site to help with getting a better idea of the range while you're watching the artist work.
  4. Did one of the eggs look like this? If so, this was submitted September of 2019. They also have a journal ( https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/9348972/ if you are able to view it as a guest) that dates to December.
  5. @armaina Actually, it would fall under the premise of a legally-binding verbal contract (follow along here if you wish: https://thelawdictionary.org/article/is-a-verbal-agreement-legally-binding/ ) due to the nature being a "documented verbal contract" (meaning it has a transcript and can be used as evidence in court if absolutely necessary). "Although oral contracts are difficult to enforce in court, the parties should make a concerted effort to discuss enforceability, which can be achieved by incorporating the following elements: – Mutual consent and understanding, which means that both parties are cognizant about what they are agreeing to. If a woman hires a contractor to paint the interior of her house, both parties must understand exactly how many rooms and living spaces are to be painted. – Offer and acceptance, which means that one party is proposing something that the other party may accept under certain conditions. – Mutual consideration, which means that there must be an exchange of valuable goods, rights or services. – Performance, which means that the contractual parties have certain duties to perform in addition to the mutual consideration. – Good faith, which means that the parties should not attempt to enter into a verbal agreement to cheat each other or to break the law. It is important to remember that certain jurisdictions may require certain contracts to be written; for example, real estate purchases." ------------------------------------------------------ This might also fall under the premise of an informal contract (follow along here if you wish: https://www.upcounsel.com/informal-contract ) "An informal contract is a type of agreement that will not require any sort of legal intervention to be considered enforceable. They are different from formal contracts because they do not need to be sealed, witnessed, or written. An informal contract is often called a social contract. This type of contract needs to be avoided if there is no trust with the other party you are contracting with. A verbal contract is considered informal and only works when the other party can be trusted to perform their contractual duties without a written assurance. A sales contract is an informal contract that is most common. They are specific to every situation and will not always include specific legalities. For instance, a sales contract will not be the same when buying a used car versus a brand-new car. It could also be different if two people were buying the same car but in a different color. Everyone’s contract will be completely different based on individual circumstances. For it to be legally binding, an informal contract has to include mutual assent, offer and acceptance, and consideration. It is not based in formalities, but in the observation of people making promises and intent. There are five main elements when forming an informal contract: 1. Mutual assent 2. Consideration or validation 3. Two or more parties entering a contract 4. Parties have to have legal rights to contract 5. No statute or rules declaring a contract void. " "No statute/rules declaring a contract void..." That portion right there actually strikes me as prevalent because most Adopts actually follow that to a "T". You can't really just say "it's void because I say so", you have to include as to why it would be so rather than an out-of-the-blue revoking if you see it as a license. --------------------------------------------- But I will agree with you on one thing: "That being said, most artists need to define the terms they use and make clear language regarding what's being sold." You can't sell (or distribute?) license contracts for characters without being more precise on it since you need the terms of agreement (price for duration, length of duration, what is allowed/not-allowed, what happens if actions are done outside of allowed, ect. ) However, it is much easier to go through an assignment since you can state "all rights go to you, I hold the right as the artist only" rather than listing off each individual right to be transferred, so most artists go that route.
  6. Check to see if you can file a chargeback through your card? Some banks/cards do allow for that.
  7. Have you already sent payment for this? If so, it might be worthwhile to note the date found in the summary of the transaction that says something to the effect of "Need help? If there is a problem, contact the seller through Paypal by (date). You may be eligible for purchase protection." That date is when your window of filing a dispute ends.
  8. Twitter-searching that name brings up what looks like an unrelated individual... If you want to have a peek, here's the link. https://twitter.com/DarkDaniela
  9. While I am not a lawyer, the problem I do see is that he does not give any cited laws to review over or any details as to 'why' they are the way he mentioned. This could be a very long post, so I may end up needing to split it. Starting off, we shall try to better identify what an "Adoptable" is. Probably the most common definition that is relevant comes from (oddly enough) urban dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Adoptable "A term usually seen on furry art sites such as DeviantART, Inkbunny, etc. An adoptable is a custom-made cartoon/furry character, specifically made to be sold to someone..." (error in spelling corrected, you'll see it on the page.) Okay, maybe not the most 'clean' of definitions, but it's straight-forward. "specifically made to be SOLD to someone". Let's look at the Merriam-Webster version ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adoptable ) Adjective version of Adopt, definition of "Adopt", 1: "To take by choice into a relationship, especially: to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one as one's own child." Definition of "Adopt", 2: "To take up and practice or use." Definition of "Adopt", 3: "To accept formally and put into effect." This set does make a bit of sense on the origin of the word to a degree, all these people are taking in these characters into their own stories or worlds when they buy the adoptables. In both versions, the situation is permanent. There's no duration. In it's purest form, I would find an "adoptable" as an intellectual property. For that definition, I will pull this from the World Intellectual Property Organization: https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ if you wish to read beyond the following statement: "Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce." Alright, let's find out what we can do with an adoptable if it falls under that category ( https://mmaiplaw.com/sell-startups-intellectual-property/ to follow along) "The intellectual property of your startup can be bought and sold, licensed, exchanged, or donated just like other types of property." It does give credit to both licensing and selling (along with giving or trading) as options. So nothing's off the table yet. Keeping with that last page, there's more to see. "Legally speaking, an assignment of a patent is a transfer of the rights to use the IP so that the recipient has title to it. Again, think of it as selling the patent to another individual or company. You sell it, and they own it. When your startup assigns the rights to a trademark and your goodwill, the assignee becomes the owner of that trademark… they have the same rights as the startup that owned it in the first place. " There's those keywords again: "you sell" and "they own". Now comes the tricky part on this same page: "A license is a contract to use someone else’s intellectual property rights, usually for a fee. In contrast to an assignment, the startup that owns the IP maintains the ownership of those rights. This allows your startup to contract for an ongoing regular payment for the use of those IP rights, like being the landlord and receiving monthly rent from a tenant. A license agreement requires the assistance of an experienced IP attorney because there are numerous details that must be addressed—or your startup may give away more than it intended. Your attorney will negotiate the rights to your intellectual property for a defined time, context, industry, or territory. The license can also be exclusive or non-exclusive." Hm.. so a license is closer to a "rent or lease"? But you only pay for adoptables once. Also, more than one person can have a license agreement? That would also put possible conflicts on who can do what with the said character (give a story/personality to the character, ect.) --------------------------------- Part two. Alright, we defined the aspects of what an adoptable is (both common to artwork and origin), what an intellectual property is, and what can be done with an intellectual property. Now we move onto the process of buying and selling adoptable characters (or buying and selling adoptable character licenses). First step is the offer, second step would be negotiation (if needed), and lastly would be acceptance. In most adopt-transactions, the conversation would be similar to this that I've seen: Seller: "Hello! I'm selling (insert adopt) for (insert price)!" Buyer: "I'll take the character." Seller: "Alright, send the money to (insert money transfer means, usually Paypal address)." Buyer: "Money's sent!" Seller: "And received!" The intent is stated in the example above is to fully transfer the rights and design of the character from Seller to Buyer in exchange for the price, which is a one-time transaction. This is called an "assignment" rather than a "license". However, the details of a licensing agreement is far more detailed (follow along here: https://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/licensing-agreements.html ) "A licensing agreement is a legal contract between two parties, known as the licensor and the licensee. In a typical licensing agreement, the licensor grants the licensee the right to produce and sell goods, apply a brand name or trademark, or use patented technology owned by the licensor. In exchange, the licensee usually submits to a series of conditions regarding the use of the licensor's property and agrees to make payments known as royalties..." The terms of agreement would usually be set before purchase and both parties would have to agree on it. But let's read further: "One of the most important elements of a licensing agreement covers the financial arrangement. Payments from the licensee to the licensor usually take the form of guaranteed minimum payments..." Again, more than one payment that I see for a license. Let's continue on this page: "Another important element of a licensing agreement establishes the time frame of the deal.... The licensing agreement will also include provisions about the length of the contract, renewal options, and termination conditions." A license can expire, but it's stated in the license. Most adopts that are bought do not state anything about how long a person has them. Also termination conditions? So there would be a price to pay if you're no longer wanting to continue to have the adopt if it were a license? But let us continue on: "Another common element of licensing agreements covers which party maintains control of copyrights, patents, or trademarks. Many contracts also include a provision about territorial rights, or who manages distribution in various parts of the country or the world. In addition to the various clauses inserted into agreements to protect the licensor, some licensees may add their own requirements. They may insist on a guarantee that the licensor owns the rights to the property, for example, or they may insert a clause prohibiting the licensor from competing directly with the licensed property in certain markets." Now we're at the part we really need to be in. In such a licensing agreement, it actually does need to be stated who has what rights over the character. All the time, the artist retains the right to the artwork with possible credit given to the buyer to being the one who 'adopted' the character in some cases (usually as a reminder of who owns what in adopt 'batches'). The conversation I see pertaining to this type of situation would be like this: Seller: "Hi, I'm wanting to sell the right-to-use for this character, are you interested?" Buyer: "I am, what are your terms?" Seller: "This is what you can and cannot do with this character, and also this is how long you will have this character." Buyer: "Alright. And the fee?" Seller: "(Insert price) to be sent to (money transfer setup)." Buyer: "I agree to that. First payment has been sent." So to play Devil's Advocate in this: We do not know the conversation that went between the Original Poster and the Buyer for this transaction, so whether it was an assignment (standard adoptable procedure as told by many artists and buyers to me) or a licensing (procedure found out through this situation), we do not know for sure.
  10. Alright. Let's sort out what detail is given in the article: 1. "Adoptables are characters that are created by artists, and then placed out there for sale." Okay. That just reiterates the mention that the character is sold. Not just the license-to-use is sold when purchasing an adopt. Usually it comes with a common-courtesy that the original artist is given proper credit due for the artwork, but that's a given to me. 2. "So the default, when there is no agreement and speaking in generalities, is that the artist is the holder of the copyright over the character from the moment of creation forward. The artists, therefore, has the right to demand others not use that specific character (with certain limited exceptions that we ain’t getting into here today) and, likewise, can actually demand that people stop using the character." Given. If the character hasn't been sold, it only belongs to the artist. 3. "Also, I should point out…without terms defining the scope of the artist’s ability to revoke, a revocable-at-will license is exactly what it sounds like. The artist can revoke the right to use the character whenever they fucking want unless they agree to certain limitations in the negotiation and purchase." BIG problem here if this is the case: If the artist does choose to revoke the character license to the commissioner, then the said artist would have to compensate based off of the amount paid to use the character, plus what extra art was made. But to reiterate this with the line from 1. : "Adoptables are characters that are created by artist, then placed out there for sale." And I'm going to stress the words "characters for sale", not "license for sale". There is a difference between those two. So, if you make characters and intend to sell said characters, that's what an adopt is. If you intend to make characters and sell licenses to use the characters, it should be worded as "Licenses of Adopts for Sale" rather than "Adopts for Sale".
  11. I might have to disagree with a good portion of that, Celestina. When an adoptable is sold, it becomes a "This character now belongs to (insert name)" situation. When a commissioner has already had art made of the said character, attempting to revoke said rights of the character to that buyer would become a messy ordeal. I'll use myself as an example: If I were to buy an adoptable, then I have a full-fledged reference sheet made to the character along with multiple pieces of artwork, then the original artist comes along and no longer wishes for me to use the character, they gave up on the rights to the character when the money exchanged hands. They can, however, attempt to make a deal to purchase back the character and the art to compensate for the rights, but then the artists of the other artworks will need to be notified as well for proper-credit or removal-requests. To further on this, if I were to deny the deal, then that is where this would end. However, the artist who made the original adopt art can request the original art to be removed if I were to have uploaded that to my own gallery(-ies) through one-on-one contact or through the administration means.
  12. Ah, I thought you were mentioning about the timeline before December 6th to December 13th for the refusal from the start. I do agree that after that point would've been a blacklist/refusal-to-work scenario.
  13. While I'd agree with you pertaining to blacklisting after the issues of the first commission, it wouldn't be known about things from the start unless there's been a reputation going around. It wasn't until after the invoice was paid that his behavior started to show from the way it looks.
  14. Able to file the bank/credit-card chargeback if you used a credit card/bank for the source of money?
  15. I don't like how this is, but I think they're trying to pull one of two things: Not responding to get Bruma to forget about the possibility of the dispute/claim (waiting out the time) or to attempt to finish it if a dispute/claim arises to say "I did get it done! Here it is!" after Bruma mentioned that they are no longer wanting the commission due to lack-of-contact. If the second option and they show the proof via Paypal's Dispute/Claims communication and Bruma finds something wrong with the picture, BlindCoyoteArt may get Paypal to side with them.
×
×
  • Create New...