Is doing USD art commissions allowed on FFXIV?

[sarehptar]

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

Actually the things you are saying are factually inaccurate on a legal level, so lemme just slide some U.S. copyright law in the door here.

Fanfiction and fanart are a category of creative output that is generally protected by the law under the "Fair Use" doctrine of U.S. copyright law. This doctrine maintains that artists may create derivative and transformational works related to copyrighted material so long as these derivative works are not intended to "supersede or substitute" the original work and sufficiently transformational as to not be mistaken for a creation of the original copyright holder. As fanartists and fan writers have no intention or even remotely a chance of superseding or substituting their work for the original copyrighted content that inspired them, fanfiction and fanart by law are not stealing. To characterize the act of simply creating fanart and fanfiction as theft is factually false.

The selling of fanart is a grey area but does not remotely constitute the level of hypocrisy you are suggesting. Part of the Fair Use doctrine mandates that, in deciding whether something is "fair use" or not, the nature of a transformational work must be examined to determine whether it has a non-profit or commercial intent. However, even having a commercial intent does not rule out something being labelled fair use. Multiple factors weigh into the legal decision to determine whether or not a transformational work (i.e. fanart or fanfiction) meets the Fair Use criteria, including the work's degree of transformation from the original copyrighted content, the intention of the transformational work (i.e. to replace the original or not), and the potential for the transformational work to damage the profit-making capability of the original copyrighted work. Furthermore, there is no singular coherent international copyright law, so even if a work is protected in its home country, it may not be protected at all in other countries across the globe.

This is why many, many people are able to sell fanart without any corporate backlash--because the burden of proof is on the prosecution in these cases to prove that the fan work would have had serious impact on the original creator; a standard which few cases so far have been sufficiently able to prove. There are, however, numerous cases in which U.S. law has come down in favor if the commercial sale and reproduction of derivative works, such as parody novels and films, novels published in the extended universes of other series, and derivative products like companies that make Alice in Wonderland themed items with obvious homage to the Disney version of the film.

In short, fanfiction and fanart are not, legally, stealing of concept or design; nor is it even inherently against the law to profit off the fanart you create.

You know what is inherently against the law though? The seizure and reproduction of original copyrighted material without any degree of transformation. That whole "Nobody gets hurt when I upload someone else's art on my social media and claim I drew it?" That's called intellectual property theft, and it's a crime.

The critical difference here is the act of creation. A fanartist or fan writer creates something of his or her own that just happens to be inspired by the concepts and designs of another creator. They do not trace, copy-and-paste, or in any way claim that the concepts or designs utilized in the works are their own original designs. They transform and derive new works from existing works, but a new work is still being created.

An art thief simply takes a work from someone else and uploads it for their own personal gain (whether monetary or simply for attention) without transforming the original work in any meaningful way. They take, wholesale, the work of the original artist and claim it as their own. There is no new work being created--just one work being stolen and republished under a new "artist's" name.

U.S. copyright law sees a clear difference between these things. So should you.


(By the way, to make this remotely relevant to the OP: I'll just echo what others have said--it's not the commissions that are the issue, especially if you're only drawing people's original characters and not FFXIV's iconic NPCs; it's the advertising through the game that you should avoid.)

[alimdia]

Fair use is determined on a per case basis so on the strict legal side there's no "generally", however the majority of original artists out there wouldn't pursue fan art creators because that's shooting themselves in the foot, in a way fan art is free advertisement and unless the fan creator is messing with the business of the copyright holder you very rarely will find yourself at the point where a court will have to determine if your work is fair use or not, this as long as you don't mess with big guys like Disney.

So the fact are that :

At he base level fan art is creating a derivative version of a copyrighted work, which is bad.

It can go from bad to grey if a court determines your work falls under fair use (note that selling fan art will work against you here, that's commercial gain).

Original content creators very rarely go after fan art creators because they gain benefit from it and it's generally not worth the legal cost, so in the real world you're quite safe selling fan art or all the other derivative stuff being sold on places etsy.

Now this is about the legal, on the in-game advertising side I don't think they have made any specific statement whether they allow advertising or not (it is RMT even if no gil is involved, see also people selling runs for real money), but because of what I said before of fan art benefiting them I highly doubt they would go after artists advertising, but if you want a peace of mind you can send a GM call and ask for their stance on advertising commissions in-game.

[sarehptar]

So the fact are that :

At the base level fan art is creating a derivative version of a copyrighted work, which is bad.

It can go from bad to grey if a court determines your work falls under fair use (note that selling fan art will work against you here, that's commercial gain).

You're right that this is an issue that only very, very rarely arises so there's really no need to split hairs, but for posterity's sake, this is the opposite of how the process actually works.

In the case that a creator discovers a fan work and feels it is not fair use, it is up to the complainant, typically the corporation or the creator, to challenge the legality of the fan work and prove that it is a copyright infringement. In essence, fanart is innocent until proven guilty. In copyright infringement cases for something like fan art, the burden of proof would be, for the most part, on the prosecution to disprove the fan artist's fair use defense by successfully proving that the derivative work is 1) not sufficiently transformative, 2) intended to supersede or substitute the original work, 3) was intended for commercial profit, and 4) the profit gained by the derivative work would substantially impact the profit made by the original creator. (That's a key point--you will even have a hard time stopping people from selling fan art if you can't also demonstrate it has an impact on your own products' sales, and good luck doing that.) And because this is actually a very high set of standards to meet when it comes to presenting proof, it is very, very rarely worth the effort to pursue any legal action against fan creators--and even in cases where a creator does pursue legal action, the court rules more often in favor of the derivative artist than the original creator. So it isn't "fanart = bad until found okay in the court;" it's "fanart = not illegal until proven to be infringement." The reason that fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis is because a work only ever formally receives this label after it has been challenged.

Nevertheless, the assumption today (based on precedent and, as you note, the tacit approval of original creators because of free advertising) is usually that not-for-profit fanart is fair use. Some companies are more aggressive about protecting their copyrights (i.e. Disney), but even then, many of their copyright infringement cases are actually trademark infringement cases dealing with the use of logos and names, and many of their cases get thrown out. (Most often, they never get to court at all because major corporations have the capacity to bully derivative work creators into ceasing--whether or not ordering them to cease is actually legal.)

The idea that derivative work is inherently "bad" isn't supported by any U.S. law or policy, and indeed the significant number of hurdles placed on those attempting to disprove fair use suggests that derivative works are, to a certain extent, protected by the law. Parody, criticisms, homages both in writing and visually, and extended universe/mythos building have been part of human storytelling and art for centuries upon centuries, and are a beloved feature of our media that many legal representatives and judges have readily defended in the past.

[alimdia]

I think you started well but reached the wrong conclusion. Leaving fan art for a bit and going back to general copyright, every work you do is automatically copyrighted, but if I steal your work it's still up to you (the creator) to demonstrate I violated your copyright, just like you said here

In the case that a creator discovers a fan work and feels it is not fair use, it is up to the complainant, typically the corporation or the creator, to challenge the legality of the fan work and prove that it is a copyright infringement.

But that doesn't mean me stealing your work is fair game until you notice. The law requiring the owner to make a claim cannot give you a conclusion that it's fair game until the owner notices, and this can be applied to fan art as well.

EDIT: What I meant to say is "innocent until proven guilty" works for everything and not just fan art, but that doesn't make it legally ok to do deliberately.

[JackHatchet]

Boi, I've been in the industry for 9 years. Please, check yourself out the door before you think you know better than a professional.

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?

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.

[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.

[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.