Is doing USD art commissions allowed on FFXIV?

[whiskeybravo]

Out of curiosity, would digital art be viewed differently than physical art? I know it seems like a minor distinction, but you have canvas, paint, brushes, etc that is all your unique effort, and is not necessarily able to be duplicated exactly like digital art would be. I have no dog in this race just kind of a curious what artists think. It seems like a physical piece would be less likely to come under scrutiny but I have no knowledge in such areas.

[Sigma-Astra]

Out of curiosity, would digital art be viewed differently than physical art? I know it seems like a minor distinction, but you have canvas, paint, brushes, etc that is all your unique effort, and is not necessarily able to be duplicated exactly like digital art would be. I have no dog in this race just kind of a curious what artists think. It seems like a physical piece would be less likely to come under scrutiny but I have no knowledge in such areas.

That's not entirely true, physical objects can be reproduced. All of those famous paintings you hear about? Very few are the originals anymore and only certain museums get to actually have the original pieces. A lot of those pieces are very good reproductions made by some very talented people with a brush.

A lot of art thieves in this day and age will take works from others...and then sell them on places like Amazon.com, RedBubble, Society 6, etc as physical canvas prints. It's not very hard to take a digital picture and print it onto a canvas actually.

[JackHatchet]

You're making it easier for thieves to think it's okay to do this for everyone. You are part of the issue.

You're still making it seem like it's a bigger issue for some nobody to take art they didn't create and tag it on Twitter or some nonsense and say "I did it." So what? That's just a personal problem. They can't sell your art for money, and they can't reproduce it or create more. All it is to them is some weird claim with absolutely no weight behind it.

Where as selling fan-art for profit is outright stealing someone elses character, design, or concept and trying to profit off their creative idea. And hey, I get it. No one wants to buy some rando's original character design, but people will pay money for a Wolverine sketch. They won't pay Disney if they charge too much, but they can find someone else who'll do it for a fraction of the cost. Copy-right laws be darned! I just don't see how you can justify this as being a lesser infraction than some rando bragging about art he didn't draw on the internet.

Anyways, I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this, so we'll just have to move on, and keep doing whatever it is that we do.

[Sigma-Astra]

You're still making it seem like it's a bigger issue for some nobody to take art they didn't create and tag it on Twitter or some nonsense and say "I did it." So what? That's just a personal problem. They can't sell your art for money, and they can't reproduce it or create more. All it is to them is some weird claim with absolutely no weight behind it.

I'm not sure if I should feel bad for this or not...I mean, the naivety of this statement.

Where as selling fan-art for profit is outright stealing someone elses character, design, or concept and trying to profit off their creative idea. And hey, I get it. No one wants to buy some rando's original character design, but people will pay money for a Wolverine sketch. They won't pay Disney if they charge too much, but they can find someone else who'll do it for a fraction of the cost. Copy-right laws be darned! I just don't see how you can justify this as being a lesser infraction than some rando bragging about art he didn't draw on the internet.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not even sure if I should spoil you with a serious response and mostly a repeat of what has already been said like three times by now from multiple people.

Anyways, I don't think we'll come to an agreement on this, so we'll just have to move on, and keep doing whatever it is that we do.

Well, yes, you're right. It's hard to come to an agreement when the other side is so misinformed about a field of study and only dabbles in it because it's "fun" and has no idea about anything else remotely professional regarding it.

[DevonEllwood]

What is this thread.

You're still making it seem like it's a bigger issue for some nobody to take art they didn't create and tag it on Twitter or some nonsense and say "I did it." So what? That's just a personal problem. They can't sell your art for money, and they can't reproduce it or create more. All it is to them is some weird claim with absolutely no weight behind it.

I have a personal problem and it's with people like you spreading misinformation. You are literally trying to tell people who have picked art as more than a hobby, went to school for it, and were taught about copyright infringement, that they are wrong. Because why? Art should just be fun and we shouldn't care.

[whiskeybravo]

That's not entirely true, physical objects can be reproduced. All of those famous paintings you here about? Very few are the originals anymore and only certain museums get to actually have the original pieces. A lot of those pieces are very good reproductions made by some very talented people with a brush.

A lot of art thieves in this day and age will take works from others...and then sell them on places like Amazon.com, RedBubble, Society 6, etc as physical canvas prints. It's not very hard to take a digital picture and print it onto a canvas actually.

Well I meant that in the sense that if you painted 2 pieces of the same thing, there would naturally be slight variations between the 2. At least moreso than a piece of digital art which is easily copied. I was trying to excluded digital pictures of artwork in this question. But either way, yes there is a market for both fake/duplicate art and authentication of original art so maybe it wasn't a well thought out question.

[Sigma-Astra]

Well I meant that in the sense that if you painted 2 pieces of the same thing, there would naturally be slight variations between the 2. At least moreso than a piece of digital art which is easily copied. I was trying to excluded digital pictures of artwork in this question. But either way, yes there is a market for both fake/duplicate art and authentication of original art so maybe it wasn't a well thought out question.

It depends on the skill of the two people I feel. There are actual artists who get paid to reproduce famous works of art or run maintenance on the original works that require them to have the same style and skills as the famous artist in question. There may or may not be any sort of noticeable variations between the two pieces simply because the person is being paid to be exact and down to the finest and smallest details.

So, it's really kind of a case by case scenario that's not as simple as assuming two people can't possibly paint in the same way: they could but it depends on the situation.