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.

[Vnolan]

As my title asks: is it allowed to do art commissions for USD/paypal (not gil, cuz I'm pretty sure that would be classified as RMT) through FFXIV game and forums?

It's not allowed according to the rules:

http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en

2.3 Commercial Use. You may not exploit the Game for any commercial purpose (for example, advertising any product or service in-game, or use by the operator of a cyber café) without Square Enix's prior written consent.

But as many have observed through SE's lack of enforcement, the rules are mostly suggestions. If you advertise using the PF and don't say in the PF listing that you're selling for real money, nothing will happen.

[Sigma-Astra]

Nice response. It doesn't add anything to the discussion though. You tell me to check myself, and your best counter-point is "boi, I'm been around a long time." There's more than enough people in this world who have experience in a field who are completely clueless. Just look at American politics. Why don't you check yourself with some examples?

It is a nice response for someone who claims to be an artist and yet knows very little of the actual field of study. If anyone is clueless in this entire thread. It's really you and your perspective. I have a Bachelor's and art is my major, that enough of an example for you? It's my career and hobby. And here you are...a hobbyist, trying to claim he/she knows more because....reasons.

And hey, if you make a living off selling your own original ideas that's cool. But if you're saying that you make profit by selling copy-righted fan-art--then you're tip-toeing the line. Which is fine. You can break copy-right law. Just as long as you're cool with other people breaking the copy-right law too. Just don't be one of those "I hate art thieves, but then go on to steal concepts and designs for fan-art." I was calling out hypocrisy, and the only reason you could be so emotionally upset about it to personally attack me is if you feel like you're guilty of the actions I was calling out.

Do you realize that in the field of art nothing is "original" anymore as it's been said and done by someone else way before you had the idea? You can sell fan art if it's done in YOUR OWN STYLE and no where close towards the original style that the creator used. I shouldn't have to spell this out for you, it's very easy to understand as evident by the rest of the posters in this thread.

If any part of your logic was true then anime conventions would have been put out of business a loooooong time ago and so would the comic book industry. It's not okay to take something that SOMEONE ELSE drew, that you maybe found on DeviantART and then re-post it with a line saying "Hey! Look what I made!".

Do you need a megaphone and a klaxon to get that through your head?

And no, I'm not emotionally upset, I'm confused how you think you're making any sense while the world is clearly burning around you. You didn't call out anything, you gave a misinformed opinion, people called you out on it, and now you're flailing to make a stand.

You're a problem for the rest of artists.

"Hey guys! It's okay if you steal my stuff! I don't care!"

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

[JackHatchet]

I feel that digital art has the ability to look 'prettier,' but when it comes to mantle pieces around the office or displayed prominently in a residence--I feel that one of a kind physical pieces tend to be more prestigious (subjectively). It's true that physical art can be replicated, but most of the time it's replicated--it's done so because the original piece is worth (just so much money) that it provides a lot of incentive for other artists to copy them. A more benevolent reason to copy classic pieces is to preserve and replicate the art of passed artists.

Art is still so very subjective in many-many ways, but objectively, a physical piece is generally more unique, and much more complex to duplicate. In addition, (assuming you don't lose track), there will always be a genuine 'first edition,' regardless of the copies, where as digital doesn't really have a first edition. Though some artists will do a 'run number' of limited copies.

=====================

I almost want to say that there's almost two entirely different genres of art marketing. And while I'm not experienced with fan-art, and digital art sales. I've often been involved with the sales of physical art pieces. Generally for cooperate offices and personal collectors.

[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.

[thansu]

Except when it comes to fan-art. Which is again, I'll repeat, the stealing of another's concept and design.

How is fan-art considered stealing? Unless the artist is using and claiming someone else's concept or design as their own, I don't see how it is considered theft when they disclaim the design or give the full credit to the original creator.

People just like to assume that it's ok to draw fan-art, because it's 'for fun,' and those artists make so much money anyways--it probably doesn't hurt them. But the moment someone tries to steal their work--all heck breaks loose! And you can see those reactions clearly in this thread so far. But the bottom line is, when it comes to 'stealing' -- people can't just say "my stealing is ok, but other's stealing is bad" and that's the problem I have with the art community. Either be ok with all (non profit) stealing like fan-art, fan-fiction, tracing, ect, or start policing yourselves and call out fan-art as theft of concept and design.

Feel free to dislike the concept of people making money out fan-art, but I think it's pretty disrespectful to outright call them thieves. Again, no one is claiming the original concept and design as their own.
Sorry to break it to you, but the same people who you accuse of stealing other people's concepts and designs actually help companies promote their product, and some even get hired.

Regardless, it's not salt off my back. But all this gray area is exactly why it's an issue.

It's only an issue for you, and it's only an issue for you because you're so adamantly trying to make it an issue.

[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.

[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.