Was this a commission for the user of the article?. If so, can't X artists request removal of their art, even if it's now owned/paid by a third party?. I.e. Like having a commission drawing of Greenreaper on your article by X artist who wishes to have taken because. I certainly would not be kosher for me if I had paid for it, and somebody asked to take it down because of PE - Spirou 15:44, 6 October 2012 (EDT)
- Searching for it, this piece was a paid commission for Taigitsune from Ashryn, and uploaded by the formed to the article. On the page on FurAffinity that holds this piece it indicates the commission status, and "For removal, please contact me." I don't see the right of an artist to remove a piece that a commissioner paid and uploaded to its Wiki article. Remove he name?, sure, Remove a paid piece?, no so much.
- Thoughts? - Spirou 11:20, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
- To me, it is a simple matter of copyright, which is owned by the artist. Our own image use policy says that permission is required. In this case, the implicit permission has been withdrawn.
- All that the commissioner is due is that the artist has created the work - that is why it is called a commission. Perhaps it is implicit that you get a copy and a license to allow you to display it in association with your character. It would be an interesting case if proven in law. Regardless, we are not party to that agreement, and until it is proven we put ourselves at risk if we act against the wishes of the copyright-holder. --GreenReaper(talk) 11:31, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
- Actually, Copyright does not work in this instance. This is a normal case of "work for hire", something I have done for major companies and commissions. Simply, the moment you sign the contract, or receive the funds for the media requested (specially if it's somebody's character or franchise), you lose all copyright benefits, unless there is a clause agreed that you can display or resell copies of said media (portfolio display of copyright art you have produced is covered under different law clauses).
- Now, you are right that we are not privy of the situation; i.e. Ashryn could have asked Taigitsune for permission to have the artwork taken down (I will ask the present owner via FA if this was the case). But, the moment an artist is paid for the rendition of somedy's character, they have no legal copyright recourse or right over the art (unless, again, additional agreements were set prior). I don't think we want to set a precedent were artists who no longer wish to be connected to the fandom demand to have artwork they no longer have rights to be taken down. That will be not fair to the commissioner - Spirou 12:53, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
- Owner contacted. Waiting for data - Spirou 13:07, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
- A work for hire requires that you either be an employee, or have signed a contract that states that it is a work for hire and it falls into certain classes of work (which is unlikely to be furry artwork, unless it's a "contribution to a collective piece", a map for a book, etc). Other than that, copyright can be transferred from the original copyright-holder by a written, signed document. How many fandom commissions do you know which involve either of those? --GreenReaper(talk) 23:20, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
Discussion result (Clove-Noir-by-Ashryn)
I got in contact with the owner of the media in question, and was informed that he was not consulted on the removal of his commissioned piece. But, he does not wish to escalate the issue, and has requested to leave the image off the article. Instead, a substitute piece will be uploaded - Spirou