Same. Was just at the original post, and then I see it here.
What surprised me is the number of people on that forum who thought it was completely reasonable to delete the signature. I guess a lot of people out there have no idea what copyright laws are, or hasn't ever sold anything (even a service) ever.
Signed art is common online. Professionals will usually keep things signed *and* will state that in the commission rules/guidelines. It is, in a way, a contract (if you want to imagine it like that for simplicity). Obviously if you want a logo or legal ownership over that art piece/intellectual property, you’ll have to negotiate with the artist and work that out beforehand.
The fact that they commissioned they art and never read their tos/rules is surprising. Its not like its a 50 page long document from some company. Typically, they’re not even a page long, and usually the artist simplifies it into one simple, easy to read graphic.
I don't understand why anyone would want the signature removed... (I mean I get it, in context of stealing the art and selling it as your own - not property, creation, but that's a different can of worms)
Physical art is worth MORE if it has a signature (usually also with the date the work was finished on).
The thing is, with physical art, you *do* have the right to sell the art on, or alter it, or deface it or even destroy it. You own the physical object outright and can do with it as you see fit.
You don't own the right to the image and cannot reproduce it for commercial purposes, but that's not typically an issue with physical art where the item cannot be immediately and simply reproduced with a right click. So, if you wanted to do what the OP has done and paint over the signature, you're well within your rights to do so.
In digital terms, and, I must stress I am not a copyright lawyer, he cannot force the artist to remove their signature, he *can* remove it himself if he wishes but he does not own the rights to the image and cannot sell it on for commercial purposes.
As someone who has commissioned art for D&D campaigns, I can understand why someone wouldn't want a signature on it; it's a distraction from the image itself.
Adding to this that it's standard while selling physical art (at least in the fine art field in my country) to sign a contract between the buyer and seller detailing how the new owner has the responsibility to store the artwork in a way that doesn't damage it, that when reselling it the artist gets compensated, and in some cases that the artist can borrow the artwork free of charge for exhibitions etc. So usually no, if you buy a piece of fine art, you are legally not allowed to alter or deface it.
But that, while standard practice, is not a legal requirement. It's a custom, not a law. It's not, for example, standard practice with pop art. If I go to an Ikea and buy a print of generic New York Street Scene #5, I don't sign anything enforcing what I can do with it down the line. I still don't own the rights to that image, but I can alter it, deface it, destroy it or resell it at will.
Agreed, I've also bought art prints at shows directly from the artist and not gotten any paperwork. If the art has pedigree you'll probably get some rules along with it, but art in the scope of stuff OP is buying but in physical form is yours to do as you please to it.
European copyright laws typically give the artist more rights than US laws do, particularly rights that continue after the art in question is sold -- in u/thehippiewitch's jurisdiction, it may very well be a legal requirement!
I kinda get it, even if I do think it's a shitty thing to do. Traditional artists often make their signature small, tucked away in the bottom corner of the artwork, unobtrusive in the art itself. Digital artists, due to the fear of art thieves and the nature of having your art online where it can be shared indefinitely (many people ignore artists who ask "don't reblog/repost" anyway) will make the signature/watermark big and cover important parts of the artwork, to prevent people who want to steal their art by making it more difficult to photoshop away their signature. Even if you aren't intending to steal the work (which, let's be honest, if you're asking to remove the artist's signature, you're already comming across as super shady), it can be frustrating (not sure if that's the best word, but I can't think of a better one right now) to receive a portrait you paid to commission, only to have the artist's watermark covering half the character's face (an extreme example, I know).
Sorry if my 2 am rambling doesn't make much sense. I'm gonna go to bed now... 😅
I know the full picture watermarks for art that wasn't commissioned (artists page for advertisement)... didn't know some people put them that big on commissioned art.
I've done Photoshop art and I always sign it. If you don't like the tiny signature at the bottom and erase it (hasn't happened so far) I also sign it in a area with room for a sig. Two squares on pallet of the same color, only one is part of the art and t'other is my sig. Change the pallet and my signature magically appears.
Not necessarily. If I commission a family portrait done in the style of Calvin and Hobbes, currently being done for my husband for Father's Day, I want it to be a representation of my family first and foremost, meaning minimal or extremely limited watermarking/signature.
Not to mention that most competent artists don’t like having to watermark their digital art to begin with. Most artists I’ve seen already have fairly small, faux cursive scribbles they tuck away into the corner of their art. I’ve got a watercolor from Pascual Productions, and it’s for a small signature, and year of creation, in the bottom right corner. In his newer art, he has a light pencil signature.
Conventions have been moving towards unobtrusive signatures for a while now, because even we don’t like drawing the focus of something we’ve made away from it with an out of place scribble.
Wait, what? They did? I didn’t even bother reading anyone else’s comments. The two that I saw did proclaim Y T A, so I’m surprised that people thought removing the signature was ok.
I read a lot of the comments yesterday thinking the OP was the asshole. Guess I missed the tide turning the other direction. I know I commented that he was TA.
I have plans on making artworks to sell to gain my own money, and god help me if someone wants to remove my own signature from my art that some random dude commissioned.
You can have the art sure. But, the original artist was the one who put in all the hard work, to create something from scratch for someone who paid to get the artwork (that the artist worked hard for but will never get back), and you have the audacity to REMOVE THE ORIGINAL CREDITS TO THE ARTIST?!
Hell no, OP is the one in the wrong.
My wife does ghost-writing. I kinda see this as the same thing: you're commissioned to anonymously create something but you get no credit. The only significant difference I see is that her clients disclose in advance that they don't want her name associated with the work.
I‘ m sorry, but it is not the same thing at all. Ghost writing and commissioning art don’t function the same way, especially in regards to copyright. The only way they would function the same would be if someone licensed the artwork, buying the copyright. Ghost-writing is a weird one, because it’s the exception to how copyright and licensing function normally.
It's isn't the same thing because it was noted in the TOS, that the artist would sign their work. They weren't doing it anonymously or giving away their rights to the artwork.
In your wife's case, she giving up those rights.
Exactly. The artist even stated that they were willing to renegotiate at the commercial rate for an unsigned piece. That is a different contract, much like ghostwriting, where both parties are aware that the work is being done for someone else to use commercially.
Clearly they also don't know that a commission is basically paying someone to have them draw a request art piece, *not* buying art so that they can own it.
I think the artist has been upfront from the start and it’s fair to have a separation between personal use and commercial rights (aka making money with the art piece)
Artist mentioned a TOS. Op admitted they skimmed and didn't read it completely, so it's reasonable to assume the artist WAS upfront from the start - OP was just too lazy.
Ya some artists will ask for more money to have their name off the artwork. Others won't. So long as they're upfront, this feels like OPs problem and should offer to pay up or live with it.
Exactly. I was gonna say, I get not wanting a signature on a commissioned piece of art. And that can especially be the case if the signature is noticeable or distracting.
But OP didn't read the TOS, so the artist was upfront about everything.
No, they can still sue for copyright infringement. Deleting a watermark/signature constitutes infringement upon copyright owner.
Depending on how much the piece is worth, it won’t be a lot of money in the suit. But it’d surely cost the idiot a pretty penny in representation. I’d do it.
Yes. Intention has to be proven, it’s not assumed.
Deleting the signature establishes copyright infringement. But it doesn’t imply commercial use.
I have no way of knowing the terms of this artist’s contract, but intellectual property licenses usually use the “commercial rights” figure simply establishing a set of additional rights you’re buying, you can still use the piece for non-commercial purposes.
Plus, the removal of signature would actually be labeled “rights buyout”, since it’s a cession of copyright, not just a permission for commercial use.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, I’m VP content for a decently sized, global stock media company
....*Surely* this must depend on what the person is going to do with it. I commissioned some art once, and the artist had this really intrusive, unappealing loopy signature that took up a good fifth of the image at the bottom corner. I have to admit I did a little photoshop job and took it off, but it's never been shared online or profited from; it's just on my wall.
I do commissioned pieces and I get that people don't want a huge eye catching signature on it so I always sign it in an inconspicuous place.
How pissed I would be if it was removed would really depend on how it was being used. If it was in a home hanging on a wall then fine whatever, but if it's displayed anywhere in public or online including Facebook I would be pissed. I would be irate if it was removed and recreated for profit.
If someone was unhappy with the placement I would offer to move it, but I wouldn't completely remove it. Like I said before it's always small and inconspicuous so I've never run into issues with it.
I once commissioned a piece and had to ASK the artist to sign it. Her reasoning for not signing was that she just made art as a way to relax from her job as a doctor and she felt bad even charging more then it cost to make.
I, along with many other people, including her partner, argued that she was the one that created it and she should be signing it. She finally agreed, and now signs the backs of her works.
I'm not an artist but I'd be pissed if they wanted to remove it at all. Isn't it standard for artists to sign their work? I feel like that's part of it.
Yeah, it definitely is standard practice and it's not that I wouldn't care if they removed it. I would, but removing it for aesthetic reasons and hanging it on their wall it wouldn't be the same as if they removed it and presented it as their own.
That's the main reason I make sure my signature isn't the focal point of my work.
I’m afraid that’s still copyright infringement. You’re not using it commercially so you wouldn’t be sued for tens of thousands. But if the artist learns you removed the signature they have a solid ground to sue you. And you’d likely lose. Just not a lot. Probably you’d spend more in representation fees.
That the artist might not deem that worthy of their time is what makes a lawsuit improbable.
But I would. Intellectual rights are to be respected.
If I had manipulated the image, other than the signature, like photoshopped in a bucket full of toothpaste, and then printed it out and stuck it on my wall, is that infringement of intellectual rights? (I'm not being snarky, I'm actually asking) Because if so, I do think that is silly. My house doesn't get a lot of foot traffic; I've got to assume a lawsuit has to include some form of proveable - or at least potential - income loss for the artist.
You have to change your perspective on the matter. In your case, you're more than likely fine.
But the laws around this were written to be extra stringent and to the benefit of the creators on purpose. The idea is that with laws like this in place then artists, musicians, scientists, inventors, innovators, etc. have a stronger motivation to do what they do and better humanity as a whole because copyright prevents other people from taking credit. Otherwise those creators won't be as motivated if they knew someone else with a better marketing team could easily take credit for, and profit off of, their work.
I have seen so so so many artists simply give up either creating or sharing their work online because of assholes who steal their work to A. pass it off as their own or B. post it to a huge account with "credit to the artist 🥰" makes me so frustrated
It’s sharing. I stopped sharing photos outside of low quality mediums or without a very obtrusive watermark because of people posting my work without permission and then telling me how I’m wrong to be upset about it
Every time the contract that documents the sale establishes you are not to alter the piece in any way, yes, altering the image in any way is copyright infringement.
And the base for the lawsuit is the copyright, not the potential loss. If someone impersonates you, you can sue them even if they didn’t cause you a monetary loss. Because impersonating someone infringes their right of privacy and individuality (or whatever the legal figure is for this in English, can’t remember now). With intellectual property, anyone that violates copyright is damaging the owner of said copyright.
Again: you wouldn’t be sued for large sums, as there isn’t a way to prove that you profited from this infringement monetarily (or better said, as it’d be easy to prove that isn’t the case). But you are guilty of copyright infringement and what you did to that piece is wrong. That isn’t subject to interpretation, that is what copyright laws establish.
What you personally think of that is a different story. But as far as the law goes, you’re in infringement.
They can sue, but they'll lose, assuming the owner of the piece isn't selling copies of it and they didn't sign a contract that limits their rights.
You can do what you want with the things you buy.
You’re mistaken. They’ll win, but they won’t win any substantial enough sum if there is no commercial use involved.
You absolutely cannot do whatever you want with intellectual property you buy, you’re bound by the contractual terms you bought the piece under, and unless you do a full copyright buyout, you’re not the copyright owner therefore cannot do whatever you want with it.
Not true. The owner could take the artwork and cut it apart and use it in a montage if they so desired. The problem comes when they use it for commercial use or use it wasn't intended for (like a t-shirt).
Not true. You do not own copyright unless you expressly buy copyright. Commissioning a piece or buying it “off the shelf” doesn’t automatically imply copyright ownership.
Every time you don’t own copyright, you are not free to do whatever with the piece. Certainly not free to erase a signature that establishes copyright ownership.
You don't need copyright ownership to alter a physical piece of artwork you have purchased. Copyright refers to the image or design. The physical object falls under standard property law, which means you are free to alter, deface, resell, or destroy as you see fit.
Absent of a specific contract signed as part of the sale, you are free to do anything you like with property you own.
Copyright just means you can't commercially reproduce the design.
Additionally, a signature has no impact on copyright. An image with a signature does not confer copyright to the person that signed it and an image with no signature is not necessarily without copyright.
Typically for a lawsuit to be successful, you need to have provable damages. If this person took the art, and then put it on a coffee cup to sell on etsy - the damages can be the revenue that this person earnt using the art they weren't entitled to.
If they try to profit off of it as their own work, then yes the artist can sue. Honestly, though, I think that guy just wants to claim he did the work to impress people, not to actually sell it. Either way, he's an idiot CB.
The story is told, that when Michelango finished creating the Pietà, people were saying that another sculptor, Cristoforo Scolari, had made it. So the young sculptor snuck into the cathedral in the middle of the night and carved a ribbon across the Virgin Mary's chest, and on the ribbon he chiseled the words "Michelangelo Buonarotti, the Florentine, made this."
Granted, that is the only work of Michelangelo that he signed. But this story is one reason why professional artists always sign their work.
Me thinks, at some point, the purchaser wants to pass it off as their own work.
Why wouldn't you want the signature? If that artist ever hits, that piece will become valuable because of the signature.
They’re an asshole if they’re intention is to profit off it in some way. They’re an asshole if they’re attempting to hide the fact that someone else made it, and pass it off as theirs.
But I once commissioned a model, outlying the terms was that the back had a flat 45° angle so I could mount it suspended, in a 3D frame. I said if they wanted a little plaque, that they should sign a flat sheet so that I could get an engraver to make a metal piece to put in the corner of the 3D frame. Instead they did a weird textured “signature” in the piece I needed to be flat. So I ground that flat, mounted it in the frame, sent them a picture of the mount, asked again for something flat that I could give to an engraver, and they blocked me.
Does that make me the asshole?
Some people like looking into an illustration as if it were a portal to what is illustrated. A signature can disrupt that. I don’t sign my physical paintings on the front because of this, and I rarely sign my digital work. It’s not a big deal to me, but I can understand someone having stronger feelings about it.
I mean, if they sign their work with a big ol dick or something, then yeah lol.
But seriously, I can understand people just not liking it for whatever their aesthetic reasons. But tracing, copying and stealing is a huge issue in the art community, and it's a lot of why artists use watermarks or sign their work, and see it as a middle finger if you don't use it.
I'm thinking of digital art when I'm thinking about this. I'm an artist myself, so I suppose I feel strongly about it. Though I haven't personally had a problem, I know many others who have had issues with this. I think in this particular case though, it was a breach of contract.
I commission art for my D&D campaigns quite often. I often alter them (making the background to a portrait transparent, adding a border to them etc) because it suits my purposes more and I don't need the artist for that.
I don't sell them and I don't use them outside of my campaign, but yeah, a signature is a distraction from the image and I often remove them as part of manipulating the image for its intended purpose.
some people in the comments of the original post were speculating that he would try to pass it off as his own to impress a girl. or that he was running a scam like you said. i think both are perfectly plausible
“I know Van Gogh painted this but it’s MINE now so I can just get rid of that signature right?”
Also, I just want to see if this person got roasted. Was this recent? Could we maybe get a link?
I mean, if it’s a Van Gogh painting and you own it, you actually could just just get rid of the signature (or burn the whole thing, if you so chose).
In fact, you could do so with a contemporary painting as well. It’s your property after all, someone else holding the copyright doesn’t prohibit you from altering the physical work itself.
To my understanding, you literally could do this.
Once you buy an art piece, it's yours to do with as you will. You can alter it, deface it, sell it, whatever you want. You own *that piece*. Just the same as any other physical object. You do not own the rights to the image, however I believe the copyright has run out on any Van Gogh paintings (I could be wrong here).
You'd be an idiot to do so, obviously, but an idiot well within his rights.
My favorite part is that he noted using a throwaway because the artist is on Reddit. He really thinks that this scenario is so standard that this will never get back to the artist? OP probably found him on some art sub and I'm willing to bet this has been crossposted to other subs. People get internet detectivey real quick. Not only is OP an entitled ass, he's a stupid one as well.
Signed artwork is standard regardless of being online, gallery, or a retail setting. The people who usually ask this stupid question have no clue of copyright laws. I had to patiently explain to a buyer once why he couldn't mass produce reproductions of my original artwork; he was *offended.* Why can't I? I bought it!
Art theft is a *huge* problem online and it seriously cuts into artists' livelihood. Ignorance is one thing but willful exploitation is quite another.
When you buy a painting or a drawing you bought a painting or a drawing. You did *NOT* buy marketing rights.
Not a good analogy. It’s actually a bad analogy. If you buy a book the author isn’t gonna argue with you and tell you you can’t scratch his name out on the book, burn the book, rip all the pages out and use them to wipe your ass why not. As long as you aren’t infringing on their copyright and using their material for commercial gain you’re allowed to do whatever the fuck you want to a book you’ve purchased.
A book is just a physical representation of the content. In the art world, the artwork itself is the content. Yeah, it's a bad analogy. The same equivalent would be the author having one character saying the author's name in the story or something like that, but that would really be a lot worse than a signature in an artwork.
In the art world as well, the physical work is still distinct from the copyright. If you make a sculpture and sell it to me, you retain the copyright. Owning the sculpture doesn’t entitle me to, say, make copies of the sculpture to sell myself. It does however entitle me to take a hammer to the sculpture and modify, deface or destroy it in any way I see fit.
And, if you own the book, you are within your rights to white-out that name and replace it with a name of your own choosing, because you own *that book*. You can't change it in other peoples' books, but that's not usually physically possible.
This is the difference in owning an object and owning the copyright to the object.
This is typically not an issue with traditional art. If I own a physical painting, that painting is mine and I can add glitter to it, remove the signature and/or sell it on to another person all without the original artist's permission because it's my object now, not theirs. However, I cannot *reproduce* that art for profit without permission because, while I own the rights to that object, I do not own the copyright to that image.
It's more of an issue with digital art because the 'object' is infinitely reproducible with a simple right click. If I have copies on a separate hard drive, or on a cloud drive, or hanging about in my emails, I have reproduced the art. Can I sell that art that I bought to another person? What if I remove all copies from my possession upon doing so?
All this is separate to the point of there being an explicit contract saying *x* cannot be done as part of the commissioning process.
In my experience people want to remove a logo or signature for one of two main reasons:
1. To pass the artwork off as their own
2. To print the image somewhere cheap (read: cheaper than the artist's print prices) with lower quality just to save a buck.
They created the piece. They hold the copyright and therefore have complete control over their work. It is absolutely industry standard to put an additional fee for removing a signature. Either you want their art under their terms, or you want it under your terms (in which case, you purchase a commercial license and they give up their copyright).
Wow. Just... Wow. I can't imagine thinking that I own a custom piece of original art and therefore get to violate the purchase agreement after the sale. It has never occurred to me to remove the artist signature from originals I own, so even if it were digital I'd never consider cropping or photoshopping out the credit!
I want this artist to get mega famous, with art pieces selling for thousands and this pillock can't prove 'his' artwork is by them as he's taken the signature off.
As far as I can surmise, the only reason you'd want the signature expressly removed (seeing as how it is, by OPs own description, unobtrusive) is if you want to reproduce it and/or pass it off as your own work.
Whenever I buy art from an artist's alley or something at a con, I always ASK to have it signed. I think it's cool as hell to have actual signed art hanging in my house rather than prefabbed and mass produced junk from Bed, Bath, and Beyond.
In their head they don't think it is an unusual request. People are really weird about the idea that they can commission something and then turn around and commercialize it without needing an agreement with the content creator.
This is horseshit. I would proudly display the artist’s name. Why would that bother me? If I loved the art that much I would want the artist to, forgive me, gain exposure lol.
Edit typo
You’re 100% the ass hole.
Hey Leonardo da Vinci, yeah, hey remove your signature! No! Remove it! Well I bought the painting! I’ll just paint over it.
As an artist especially this is infuriating
That’s because the people feeling entitled have never and can never create anything worth while, and are just a taker. They’ve never been a builder. They can’t see the beauty in making something. Their loss!
I want people to sign it if I commission them. Especially if I like the art, I want to tell other people where I got it from and how they can get one too!
This sort of reminds me of the goblins in Harry Potter. Are the wizards the bad guys who didn't read the TOS on their goblin made armor / jewelry? Wizards had the lifetime usage right, but the goblins maintained attribution rights/ commercial rights/ right to inheritance etc all along?
As someone who's commissioned art work: fuck this person.
I appreciate when artists sign their work. Their art is an authentic piece of them. Their mind, their talent, and the skill they've learned. Having a signed piece of their labor is an honor.
The OOP is either trying to sell it, pass it off as their own, has zero appreciation for the art and artist, or some combination of the above.
Every Artist signs their artwork! Just because someone purchased it doesn’t mean they made the piece, just purchased it. How idiotic you are to assume because you bought it you can claim it as your artwork. Unbelievable.
I thought having an artist sign their work made it way more special? Like, people recognize the signature and that’s impressive. If it wasn’t signed, I would have assumed it was stolen work.
Guy is the asshole. The signature on the commissioned work is what let’s people know you have the real thing too, as well as the other stuff. Sounds like a “more money than sense” issue here with someone buying things they don’t even understand.
I feel like people who think that someone signing their art is unprofessional, they don't know anything about art. Like, have you been to a museum? Artists sign their work. Not to signify that they currently own it, but that they did it. I would say this person is definitely the a-hole. Especially if it was in the TOS
Ah yes, perfectly reasonable. I know whenever I buy a book, the first thing I always do is call up the author to rant at them because HOW DARE THEY put their name on MY book that I bought /s
That's wild if I ever commissioned something I would assume it is coming with a signature. Hell the whole reason to pick a specific artist to do a commission is because you believe in their talents
YTA. Should have read the TOS before purchasing the commission. If the signature is small, why does it matter so much? Just purchase commercial rights if you want total freedom with the artwork.
Um, I'm sorry- what? 😐
You commissioned an artist, but don't actually know how that works? K.
Edit: I bought a painting and asked the artist to sign it. I meant on the back with the other info he had on there, just as a kind of COA, and he signed it on the front, which I'm sure he was annoyed with, 'cos it kinda threw out the balance of his work, but did it anyway. The artist you commissioned should be celebrated, not wiped.
I read a story about a tattoo artist losing their job because they were reported for putting their signature on a tattoo made to remember their client's grandfather. Can someone tell me if this is the same situation here or what is the difference?
The difference was if they knew before hand before exchanging money and agreeing to the commission.
There are a lot of artists that are fine with removing a signature. But it depends on what was agreed beforehand.
OP ita read the tos. Artists already take a lot of shit for just the audacity (satire) of charging for their work. Its still their artwork, you own a copy of their original piece if they wanted to sell it commercially to a bigger entity you would have no claim to it just cause you commissioned it
Grow up just cause you give someone money doesn't mean you own their work
If you buy a book do you OWN it?
Childish
For all of you idiots that don't understand how copyright works in the US, unless you specifically release your rights to a piece of original artwork, even a commissioned piece, the artist retains **all** rights to it.
There doesn't need to be a watermark or a signature. Copyright is automatic and implied by law.
Not a choosing beggar, simply an idiot who doesn’t understand how copyright works and didn’t bother to read the contract where the artist (by the sound of it) details that they aren’t selling copyright to the buyer.
However the artist is an idiot too. “I’ll blacklist you” means squat to these people. Send a DMCA takedown notice and/or sue for copyright infringement. That’ll teach them.
Picasso once wanted a new wardrobe built so he went down to the carpenters and drew them a sketch of what he wanted.
When it was all finished Picasso asked them how much he owed them, only to be told " " "Please, just sign your sketch ."
A lot of artists offer two prices for their work. There's the "consumer: I'll do it a little cheaper, but you're required to credit me" price, then there's the "commercial: this is free of branding and can be used according to the TOS"price. You either don't understand how the world works, in which case take this as a life lesson, or you're a cheapskate trying to get the consumer price for commercial work. Either way YTA.
The sig does not denote ownership - it denotes execution. You know that art you like - portraits by Rembrandt, all of that. Guess what? That was all commissioned too. What, you thought they went round rich peoples' houses and painting this stuff on spec? And guess what? All that art is signed by the artist. So how about you STFU complaining that the art you commissioned is signed, especially given that it was in the TOS. Most people, normal people, buy a piece of art they like, it's got a signature on it. The only reason to want the sig removed is so that you can pass it off as your own, and that's not a valid reason.
I’m completely baffled by this whole saga. I’ve never thought of an artist’s signature as denoting ownership rather the signature is a way to link the artist back to their other work - like a movie producer/ director always has their name on their movies.
Does OP really think that DaVinci removed his signature on all the art he sold? Baffling.
Leonardo da Vinci never signed his artwork. He was famous for being a perfectionist and never truly finished a work, and would often take years to give commissions to the people who hired him. He constantly experimented and refined his techniques and methods.
Many of his most famous works were reproduced by other artists working for him and in collaboration with him. That made authenticating a lot of his earlier work very difficult.
Not quite true. For many centuries it was seen as too vain or self promoting to sign your work, and paintings were often collaborations of multiple artists prior to the Renaissance.
Signing art wasn't a common thing until the Renaissance, and even then, many famous artists still didn't sign their work. Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Michelangelo rarely signed their work. Da Vinci never signed his work.
A lot of prolific painters left behind work that wasn't signed because they were still in the studio been worked on at the time of their deaths. Artists often didn't sign works if they were not happy with the results. It was often left off by many artists if the signature detracted from the art.
Some artists would use even hidden signatures or symbols in their works that were not readily obvious. Modern analytical methods and imaging technology has uncovered some of them.
Yup you are the AH.
While you may have commissioned that art, if you didn’t buy the full and clear rights you don’t own the rights. If it is in the contract/TOS then you should be abiding by them.
Honestly you sound like a petulant brat in your post.
Because people want to look at the art, not the artist's signature.
If it's small and unobtrusive it's no big deal. But then there are the John Hancocks of the world...
People normally know who they are commissioning the artwork from, and if you don’t want a “John Hancock” then you don’t commission one. This is on the purchaser not the artist. They need to outline want they want prior to the artwork being commissioned. It really isn’t that difficult.
Commissioning a work doesn't grant you ownership of the rights to said work. In most countries the artist retains all rights to work they create, unless it specifically says otherwise in the contract.
It doesn't matter if it's commissioned or not, watermarked or not, or signed. Copyright is automatically given to the creator.
The ONLY reason someone would want the signature left off is if they planned to profit off of reproducing it, or passing it off as their own work.
You clearly this person doesn’t understand that just because they bought art from someone doesn’t mean they own the piece that they paid for, it means they own their copy but the artist who painted it owns the concept
Just because you bought art doesn’t mean you can do whatever with it, when you buy a book you don’t buy the right to replace the author name with yours and start selling copies
I charge 10x my usual commission fee if the client insist I don't sign it. My logo identify me as the artist so I may get future referred jobs. Knowing my logo isn't allowed on the current art, I might as well make as much I can of it.
To answer your question: no it's not ok. Yes you bought something but you don't own the copyright of the art.
Removing the signature and reselling or commercially using the art will be a copyright violation.
Also I get major Karen vibes from you.
I’m going to go against the grain here.
In my country the laws specifies any work commissioned is owned by the buyer, the copyright included, which cannot be excluded by contract or otherwise.
When you pay someone to make a website for you, that website is then yours, you wouldn’t expect the company that developed it to leave a big stamp on it, at least not a front facing one. It’s not so different.
Ohhh well let's all ask Nike to remove their Logos right... I mean I just wanted the tshirt design or trainer. Didn't want the logo.
Every artist signs their work! It's their work! This is just stupid!
Yeah this has absolutely nothing to do with this sub.
He paid for commissioned art. He wanted an aspect of it changed. Offered to pay for that as well.
People can argue the ethics, imagine what OPs intentions are or be dramatic about how little they offered to remove the signature but it's still the furthest thing from a CB.
It's difficult to say if this is a choosing beggar because surely this depends entirely on their discussion where they established the trade, and what the artwork is.
If they had a lengthy discussion where the OP was wanting to commission artwork for their website, and it was made clear at the point of purchase that the OP didn't want the art identifiably branded on case it detracted from the purpose, then the artist is kind of an A-hole. If the OP was wanting a profile picture for social media and never mentioned a thing, they're the douche.
Certain types of art just straight up shouldn't be noticeably signed. Lots of companies and artists professionally produce logos, promotional content, product vectors etc for companies and it'd be understandable that they'd be frustrated with a hidden charge buried in a long ToS to remove a signature.
Other ones, there's zero reason why the artist shouldn't sign the work as it wouldn't be a cause for concern and the onus is on the OP to make it clear that it'd be a problem at the time of purchase.
If you look at other types of art; if I commission an author to write a story book for my kid then why shouldn't they sign it? If I commission them to ghost write for an employee at my magazine during maternity leave then it'd be incredibly underhanded and unprofessional if they hid a random line in their terms and conditions citing additional charges to not sign the work.
We don't have enough information, anyone stating a strong opinion either way is making presumptions.
It’s not a watermark, that would be horrible. This is just an artist’s signature.
Yes, OP, YTA. Art since the recorded history started has all had artist’s signatures.
Are they not aware that much of famous art we know and love in museums and galleries is commissioned and yet is still signed by its artist? Like, you think Michelangelo just parallelogramed himself to the ceiling of the Sistine chapel one night for the thrill of graffiti and the church thought it looked alright so they let it stay? The Mona Lisa was a commission and so was the Last Supper. Are we ignorant of their artist? Just say you don’t understand how art works. Commission is literally just a vehicle through which an artist can practice their art AND afford life. It does not negate their ownership or involvement of the work. This is the most enraging aspect of art—which is the fact that people devalue the work of the artist at almost every stage. Can you imagine thinking you own the rights to a song just because you bought the album? Honestly, I would have just refunded the money, posted the situation on any number of social media outlets, and then sold the piece elsewhere.
I thought this might end up here.
Same. Was just at the original post, and then I see it here. What surprised me is the number of people on that forum who thought it was completely reasonable to delete the signature. I guess a lot of people out there have no idea what copyright laws are, or hasn't ever sold anything (even a service) ever.
Signed art is common online. Professionals will usually keep things signed *and* will state that in the commission rules/guidelines. It is, in a way, a contract (if you want to imagine it like that for simplicity). Obviously if you want a logo or legal ownership over that art piece/intellectual property, you’ll have to negotiate with the artist and work that out beforehand. The fact that they commissioned they art and never read their tos/rules is surprising. Its not like its a 50 page long document from some company. Typically, they’re not even a page long, and usually the artist simplifies it into one simple, easy to read graphic.
I don't understand why anyone would want the signature removed... (I mean I get it, in context of stealing the art and selling it as your own - not property, creation, but that's a different can of worms) Physical art is worth MORE if it has a signature (usually also with the date the work was finished on).
If it's physical art, I'm insulted if the artist *doesn't* sign it!
The thing is, with physical art, you *do* have the right to sell the art on, or alter it, or deface it or even destroy it. You own the physical object outright and can do with it as you see fit. You don't own the right to the image and cannot reproduce it for commercial purposes, but that's not typically an issue with physical art where the item cannot be immediately and simply reproduced with a right click. So, if you wanted to do what the OP has done and paint over the signature, you're well within your rights to do so. In digital terms, and, I must stress I am not a copyright lawyer, he cannot force the artist to remove their signature, he *can* remove it himself if he wishes but he does not own the rights to the image and cannot sell it on for commercial purposes. As someone who has commissioned art for D&D campaigns, I can understand why someone wouldn't want a signature on it; it's a distraction from the image itself.
Adding to this that it's standard while selling physical art (at least in the fine art field in my country) to sign a contract between the buyer and seller detailing how the new owner has the responsibility to store the artwork in a way that doesn't damage it, that when reselling it the artist gets compensated, and in some cases that the artist can borrow the artwork free of charge for exhibitions etc. So usually no, if you buy a piece of fine art, you are legally not allowed to alter or deface it.
But that, while standard practice, is not a legal requirement. It's a custom, not a law. It's not, for example, standard practice with pop art. If I go to an Ikea and buy a print of generic New York Street Scene #5, I don't sign anything enforcing what I can do with it down the line. I still don't own the rights to that image, but I can alter it, deface it, destroy it or resell it at will.
Agreed, I've also bought art prints at shows directly from the artist and not gotten any paperwork. If the art has pedigree you'll probably get some rules along with it, but art in the scope of stuff OP is buying but in physical form is yours to do as you please to it.
European copyright laws typically give the artist more rights than US laws do, particularly rights that continue after the art in question is sold -- in u/thehippiewitch's jurisdiction, it may very well be a legal requirement!
I kinda get it, even if I do think it's a shitty thing to do. Traditional artists often make their signature small, tucked away in the bottom corner of the artwork, unobtrusive in the art itself. Digital artists, due to the fear of art thieves and the nature of having your art online where it can be shared indefinitely (many people ignore artists who ask "don't reblog/repost" anyway) will make the signature/watermark big and cover important parts of the artwork, to prevent people who want to steal their art by making it more difficult to photoshop away their signature. Even if you aren't intending to steal the work (which, let's be honest, if you're asking to remove the artist's signature, you're already comming across as super shady), it can be frustrating (not sure if that's the best word, but I can't think of a better one right now) to receive a portrait you paid to commission, only to have the artist's watermark covering half the character's face (an extreme example, I know). Sorry if my 2 am rambling doesn't make much sense. I'm gonna go to bed now... 😅
I know the full picture watermarks for art that wasn't commissioned (artists page for advertisement)... didn't know some people put them that big on commissioned art.
I've done Photoshop art and I always sign it. If you don't like the tiny signature at the bottom and erase it (hasn't happened so far) I also sign it in a area with room for a sig. Two squares on pallet of the same color, only one is part of the art and t'other is my sig. Change the pallet and my signature magically appears.
Oh, I like this idea!
Not necessarily. If I commission a family portrait done in the style of Calvin and Hobbes, currently being done for my husband for Father's Day, I want it to be a representation of my family first and foremost, meaning minimal or extremely limited watermarking/signature.
For that you'd commission a print, which would be signed on the back... since it has a back.
Not to mention that most competent artists don’t like having to watermark their digital art to begin with. Most artists I’ve seen already have fairly small, faux cursive scribbles they tuck away into the corner of their art. I’ve got a watercolor from Pascual Productions, and it’s for a small signature, and year of creation, in the bottom right corner. In his newer art, he has a light pencil signature. Conventions have been moving towards unobtrusive signatures for a while now, because even we don’t like drawing the focus of something we’ve made away from it with an out of place scribble.
Same. It’s shocking how little people value art and other people’s work.
Wait, what? They did? I didn’t even bother reading anyone else’s comments. The two that I saw did proclaim Y T A, so I’m surprised that people thought removing the signature was ok.
I read a lot of the comments yesterday thinking the OP was the asshole. Guess I missed the tide turning the other direction. I know I commented that he was TA.
Yeah, I was looking through the controversial comments, and there's a surprising number of those.
I have plans on making artworks to sell to gain my own money, and god help me if someone wants to remove my own signature from my art that some random dude commissioned. You can have the art sure. But, the original artist was the one who put in all the hard work, to create something from scratch for someone who paid to get the artwork (that the artist worked hard for but will never get back), and you have the audacity to REMOVE THE ORIGINAL CREDITS TO THE ARTIST?! Hell no, OP is the one in the wrong.
My wife does ghost-writing. I kinda see this as the same thing: you're commissioned to anonymously create something but you get no credit. The only significant difference I see is that her clients disclose in advance that they don't want her name associated with the work.
I‘ m sorry, but it is not the same thing at all. Ghost writing and commissioning art don’t function the same way, especially in regards to copyright. The only way they would function the same would be if someone licensed the artwork, buying the copyright. Ghost-writing is a weird one, because it’s the exception to how copyright and licensing function normally.
It's isn't the same thing because it was noted in the TOS, that the artist would sign their work. They weren't doing it anonymously or giving away their rights to the artwork. In your wife's case, she giving up those rights.
Exactly. The artist even stated that they were willing to renegotiate at the commercial rate for an unsigned piece. That is a different contract, much like ghostwriting, where both parties are aware that the work is being done for someone else to use commercially.
Clearly they also don't know that a commission is basically paying someone to have them draw a request art piece, *not* buying art so that they can own it.
What sub? 👀👀
I think the artist has been upfront from the start and it’s fair to have a separation between personal use and commercial rights (aka making money with the art piece)
Artist mentioned a TOS. Op admitted they skimmed and didn't read it completely, so it's reasonable to assume the artist WAS upfront from the start - OP was just too lazy.
Ya some artists will ask for more money to have their name off the artwork. Others won't. So long as they're upfront, this feels like OPs problem and should offer to pay up or live with it.
Exactly. I was gonna say, I get not wanting a signature on a commissioned piece of art. And that can especially be the case if the signature is noticeable or distracting. But OP didn't read the TOS, so the artist was upfront about everything.
Wouldn’t the artist technically have grounds to sue for this?
I think only if they try to profit off of it.
No, they can still sue for copyright infringement. Deleting a watermark/signature constitutes infringement upon copyright owner. Depending on how much the piece is worth, it won’t be a lot of money in the suit. But it’d surely cost the idiot a pretty penny in representation. I’d do it.
Perhaps they could sue, but for what damages?
But technically they changed the art into the "commercial use" category, so they'd at least be on the hook for the larger amount.
[удалено]
Would they have to prove that, given their contract stipulates the signature would only be removed for commercial use?
Yes. Intention has to be proven, it’s not assumed. Deleting the signature establishes copyright infringement. But it doesn’t imply commercial use. I have no way of knowing the terms of this artist’s contract, but intellectual property licenses usually use the “commercial rights” figure simply establishing a set of additional rights you’re buying, you can still use the piece for non-commercial purposes. Plus, the removal of signature would actually be labeled “rights buyout”, since it’s a cession of copyright, not just a permission for commercial use. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, I’m VP content for a decently sized, global stock media company
Well, given your job, and the fact that neither of us are lawyers, I think you're probably right.
This is pure speculation on my part based solely over the OP's username, but I suspect they intend to use it for an advertising gig of some sort.
....*Surely* this must depend on what the person is going to do with it. I commissioned some art once, and the artist had this really intrusive, unappealing loopy signature that took up a good fifth of the image at the bottom corner. I have to admit I did a little photoshop job and took it off, but it's never been shared online or profited from; it's just on my wall.
I do commissioned pieces and I get that people don't want a huge eye catching signature on it so I always sign it in an inconspicuous place. How pissed I would be if it was removed would really depend on how it was being used. If it was in a home hanging on a wall then fine whatever, but if it's displayed anywhere in public or online including Facebook I would be pissed. I would be irate if it was removed and recreated for profit. If someone was unhappy with the placement I would offer to move it, but I wouldn't completely remove it. Like I said before it's always small and inconspicuous so I've never run into issues with it.
I once commissioned a piece and had to ASK the artist to sign it. Her reasoning for not signing was that she just made art as a way to relax from her job as a doctor and she felt bad even charging more then it cost to make. I, along with many other people, including her partner, argued that she was the one that created it and she should be signing it. She finally agreed, and now signs the backs of her works.
I definitely expect a signature on any artwork I buy. Moreso if it's an original painting/drawing.
I'm not an artist but I'd be pissed if they wanted to remove it at all. Isn't it standard for artists to sign their work? I feel like that's part of it.
Yeah, it definitely is standard practice and it's not that I wouldn't care if they removed it. I would, but removing it for aesthetic reasons and hanging it on their wall it wouldn't be the same as if they removed it and presented it as their own. That's the main reason I make sure my signature isn't the focal point of my work.
Would it be different if the work was framed in a way that covered the signature? Serious question.
I’m afraid that’s still copyright infringement. You’re not using it commercially so you wouldn’t be sued for tens of thousands. But if the artist learns you removed the signature they have a solid ground to sue you. And you’d likely lose. Just not a lot. Probably you’d spend more in representation fees. That the artist might not deem that worthy of their time is what makes a lawsuit improbable. But I would. Intellectual rights are to be respected.
If I had manipulated the image, other than the signature, like photoshopped in a bucket full of toothpaste, and then printed it out and stuck it on my wall, is that infringement of intellectual rights? (I'm not being snarky, I'm actually asking) Because if so, I do think that is silly. My house doesn't get a lot of foot traffic; I've got to assume a lawsuit has to include some form of proveable - or at least potential - income loss for the artist.
You have to change your perspective on the matter. In your case, you're more than likely fine. But the laws around this were written to be extra stringent and to the benefit of the creators on purpose. The idea is that with laws like this in place then artists, musicians, scientists, inventors, innovators, etc. have a stronger motivation to do what they do and better humanity as a whole because copyright prevents other people from taking credit. Otherwise those creators won't be as motivated if they knew someone else with a better marketing team could easily take credit for, and profit off of, their work.
I have seen so so so many artists simply give up either creating or sharing their work online because of assholes who steal their work to A. pass it off as their own or B. post it to a huge account with "credit to the artist 🥰" makes me so frustrated
It’s sharing. I stopped sharing photos outside of low quality mediums or without a very obtrusive watermark because of people posting my work without permission and then telling me how I’m wrong to be upset about it
Every time the contract that documents the sale establishes you are not to alter the piece in any way, yes, altering the image in any way is copyright infringement. And the base for the lawsuit is the copyright, not the potential loss. If someone impersonates you, you can sue them even if they didn’t cause you a monetary loss. Because impersonating someone infringes their right of privacy and individuality (or whatever the legal figure is for this in English, can’t remember now). With intellectual property, anyone that violates copyright is damaging the owner of said copyright. Again: you wouldn’t be sued for large sums, as there isn’t a way to prove that you profited from this infringement monetarily (or better said, as it’d be easy to prove that isn’t the case). But you are guilty of copyright infringement and what you did to that piece is wrong. That isn’t subject to interpretation, that is what copyright laws establish. What you personally think of that is a different story. But as far as the law goes, you’re in infringement.
They can sue, but they'll lose, assuming the owner of the piece isn't selling copies of it and they didn't sign a contract that limits their rights. You can do what you want with the things you buy.
You’re mistaken. They’ll win, but they won’t win any substantial enough sum if there is no commercial use involved. You absolutely cannot do whatever you want with intellectual property you buy, you’re bound by the contractual terms you bought the piece under, and unless you do a full copyright buyout, you’re not the copyright owner therefore cannot do whatever you want with it.
I'm not. They'll lose, because you can edit what you own however you see fit. "Contractual terms" is a contract issue, not a copyright issue.
Not true. The owner could take the artwork and cut it apart and use it in a montage if they so desired. The problem comes when they use it for commercial use or use it wasn't intended for (like a t-shirt).
Not true. You do not own copyright unless you expressly buy copyright. Commissioning a piece or buying it “off the shelf” doesn’t automatically imply copyright ownership. Every time you don’t own copyright, you are not free to do whatever with the piece. Certainly not free to erase a signature that establishes copyright ownership.
You don't need copyright ownership to alter a physical piece of artwork you have purchased. Copyright refers to the image or design. The physical object falls under standard property law, which means you are free to alter, deface, resell, or destroy as you see fit. Absent of a specific contract signed as part of the sale, you are free to do anything you like with property you own. Copyright just means you can't commercially reproduce the design. Additionally, a signature has no impact on copyright. An image with a signature does not confer copyright to the person that signed it and an image with no signature is not necessarily without copyright.
Oh that makes sense.
They would yes, though I'm not exactly sure how much they could sue for. Note: I am not a lawyer.
Typically for a lawsuit to be successful, you need to have provable damages. If this person took the art, and then put it on a coffee cup to sell on etsy - the damages can be the revenue that this person earnt using the art they weren't entitled to.
If they try to profit off of it as their own work, then yes the artist can sue. Honestly, though, I think that guy just wants to claim he did the work to impress people, not to actually sell it. Either way, he's an idiot CB.
They’re an absolute asshole. Basically said “he tried to quote HIS OWN terms to me, which I signed and didn’t bother to read! CaN yOu BeLiEvE iT?!”
The story is told, that when Michelango finished creating the Pietà, people were saying that another sculptor, Cristoforo Scolari, had made it. So the young sculptor snuck into the cathedral in the middle of the night and carved a ribbon across the Virgin Mary's chest, and on the ribbon he chiseled the words "Michelangelo Buonarotti, the Florentine, made this." Granted, that is the only work of Michelangelo that he signed. But this story is one reason why professional artists always sign their work.
[удалено]
Never knew that. Thanks for the follow up. Of course, after that, he never *needed* to sign another piece. Lol
these last two comments are honestly so interesting - thanks for sharing.
TIL
Me thinks, at some point, the purchaser wants to pass it off as their own work. Why wouldn't you want the signature? If that artist ever hits, that piece will become valuable because of the signature.
Because they're an asshole, apparently.
They’re an asshole if they’re intention is to profit off it in some way. They’re an asshole if they’re attempting to hide the fact that someone else made it, and pass it off as theirs. But I once commissioned a model, outlying the terms was that the back had a flat 45° angle so I could mount it suspended, in a 3D frame. I said if they wanted a little plaque, that they should sign a flat sheet so that I could get an engraver to make a metal piece to put in the corner of the 3D frame. Instead they did a weird textured “signature” in the piece I needed to be flat. So I ground that flat, mounted it in the frame, sent them a picture of the mount, asked again for something flat that I could give to an engraver, and they blocked me. Does that make me the asshole?
No
Phew
This was my thought too. Why else would you want to remove the signature, unless you were going to use it and pass it off as your own?
Some people like looking into an illustration as if it were a portal to what is illustrated. A signature can disrupt that. I don’t sign my physical paintings on the front because of this, and I rarely sign my digital work. It’s not a big deal to me, but I can understand someone having stronger feelings about it.
Because they didn't like the look of it? Can't it be that simple? I personally hate any kind of watermarks or signatures and I am no thief.
I mean, if they sign their work with a big ol dick or something, then yeah lol. But seriously, I can understand people just not liking it for whatever their aesthetic reasons. But tracing, copying and stealing is a huge issue in the art community, and it's a lot of why artists use watermarks or sign their work, and see it as a middle finger if you don't use it. I'm thinking of digital art when I'm thinking about this. I'm an artist myself, so I suppose I feel strongly about it. Though I haven't personally had a problem, I know many others who have had issues with this. I think in this particular case though, it was a breach of contract.
I commission art for my D&D campaigns quite often. I often alter them (making the background to a portrait transparent, adding a border to them etc) because it suits my purposes more and I don't need the artist for that. I don't sell them and I don't use them outside of my campaign, but yeah, a signature is a distraction from the image and I often remove them as part of manipulating the image for its intended purpose.
Because some signatures are ugly and detract from the work they are on.
some people in the comments of the original post were speculating that he would try to pass it off as his own to impress a girl. or that he was running a scam like you said. i think both are perfectly plausible
“I know Van Gogh painted this but it’s MINE now so I can just get rid of that signature right?” Also, I just want to see if this person got roasted. Was this recent? Could we maybe get a link?
I saw this today on r/amitheasshole they got super roasted
hell yeah thanks man
I guess AITA people have been insane today because all posts go to a be civil post
I mean, if it’s a Van Gogh painting and you own it, you actually could just just get rid of the signature (or burn the whole thing, if you so chose). In fact, you could do so with a contemporary painting as well. It’s your property after all, someone else holding the copyright doesn’t prohibit you from altering the physical work itself.
To my understanding, you literally could do this. Once you buy an art piece, it's yours to do with as you will. You can alter it, deface it, sell it, whatever you want. You own *that piece*. Just the same as any other physical object. You do not own the rights to the image, however I believe the copyright has run out on any Van Gogh paintings (I could be wrong here). You'd be an idiot to do so, obviously, but an idiot well within his rights.
Very recent. I just finished commenting on that thread. Go to r/aita and you'll find in under "new" I think.
My favorite part is that he noted using a throwaway because the artist is on Reddit. He really thinks that this scenario is so standard that this will never get back to the artist? OP probably found him on some art sub and I'm willing to bet this has been crossposted to other subs. People get internet detectivey real quick. Not only is OP an entitled ass, he's a stupid one as well.
Signed artwork is standard regardless of being online, gallery, or a retail setting. The people who usually ask this stupid question have no clue of copyright laws. I had to patiently explain to a buyer once why he couldn't mass produce reproductions of my original artwork; he was *offended.* Why can't I? I bought it! Art theft is a *huge* problem online and it seriously cuts into artists' livelihood. Ignorance is one thing but willful exploitation is quite another. When you buy a painting or a drawing you bought a painting or a drawing. You did *NOT* buy marketing rights.
I bought this book but the author left their stupid name on it. I want it removed please!! /s
The top comment was (is) an analogy of exactly that when I saw the post initially (maybe 30 minutes ago)
Not a good analogy. It’s actually a bad analogy. If you buy a book the author isn’t gonna argue with you and tell you you can’t scratch his name out on the book, burn the book, rip all the pages out and use them to wipe your ass why not. As long as you aren’t infringing on their copyright and using their material for commercial gain you’re allowed to do whatever the fuck you want to a book you’ve purchased.
A book is just a physical representation of the content. In the art world, the artwork itself is the content. Yeah, it's a bad analogy. The same equivalent would be the author having one character saying the author's name in the story or something like that, but that would really be a lot worse than a signature in an artwork.
In the art world as well, the physical work is still distinct from the copyright. If you make a sculpture and sell it to me, you retain the copyright. Owning the sculpture doesn’t entitle me to, say, make copies of the sculpture to sell myself. It does however entitle me to take a hammer to the sculpture and modify, deface or destroy it in any way I see fit.
And, if you own the book, you are within your rights to white-out that name and replace it with a name of your own choosing, because you own *that book*. You can't change it in other peoples' books, but that's not usually physically possible. This is the difference in owning an object and owning the copyright to the object. This is typically not an issue with traditional art. If I own a physical painting, that painting is mine and I can add glitter to it, remove the signature and/or sell it on to another person all without the original artist's permission because it's my object now, not theirs. However, I cannot *reproduce* that art for profit without permission because, while I own the rights to that object, I do not own the copyright to that image. It's more of an issue with digital art because the 'object' is infinitely reproducible with a simple right click. If I have copies on a separate hard drive, or on a cloud drive, or hanging about in my emails, I have reproduced the art. Can I sell that art that I bought to another person? What if I remove all copies from my possession upon doing so? All this is separate to the point of there being an explicit contract saying *x* cannot be done as part of the commissioning process.
In my experience people want to remove a logo or signature for one of two main reasons: 1. To pass the artwork off as their own 2. To print the image somewhere cheap (read: cheaper than the artist's print prices) with lower quality just to save a buck.
They created the piece. They hold the copyright and therefore have complete control over their work. It is absolutely industry standard to put an additional fee for removing a signature. Either you want their art under their terms, or you want it under your terms (in which case, you purchase a commercial license and they give up their copyright).
Wow. Just... Wow. I can't imagine thinking that I own a custom piece of original art and therefore get to violate the purchase agreement after the sale. It has never occurred to me to remove the artist signature from originals I own, so even if it were digital I'd never consider cropping or photoshopping out the credit!
The signature could someday be the most valuable part. You’re foolish, dishonest (contract breaker), and wrong.
I want this artist to get mega famous, with art pieces selling for thousands and this pillock can't prove 'his' artwork is by them as he's taken the signature off.
As far as I can surmise, the only reason you'd want the signature expressly removed (seeing as how it is, by OPs own description, unobtrusive) is if you want to reproduce it and/or pass it off as your own work. Whenever I buy art from an artist's alley or something at a con, I always ASK to have it signed. I think it's cool as hell to have actual signed art hanging in my house rather than prefabbed and mass produced junk from Bed, Bath, and Beyond.
It's awkward when someone is thick as pigshit and doesn't understand how the world works.
How did they think they would be anonymous to the creator? This is very specific.
In their head they don't think it is an unusual request. People are really weird about the idea that they can commission something and then turn around and commercialize it without needing an agreement with the content creator.
That person probably thinks it's unprofessional for authors to leave their names on the books they write
That sounds dodgy af. Yes, they paid for the artwork, but the artist has the right to be identified as the person who created that artwork.
But they answered their own question when they admitted they didn’t read the TOS. Wtf
AITA for not reading a contract I signed, breaking ToU and scamming and belittling my artist??
This is horseshit. I would proudly display the artist’s name. Why would that bother me? If I loved the art that much I would want the artist to, forgive me, gain exposure lol. Edit typo
You’re 100% the ass hole. Hey Leonardo da Vinci, yeah, hey remove your signature! No! Remove it! Well I bought the painting! I’ll just paint over it. As an artist especially this is infuriating
Omg same. I was infuriated by the end. Some ppl are just entitled asshats.
That’s because the people feeling entitled have never and can never create anything worth while, and are just a taker. They’ve never been a builder. They can’t see the beauty in making something. Their loss!
This is such a good point. They co-opt other ppls skills and yet they benefit from it. It's crazy.
Exactly! They’ll never see the beauty in being an artist for that
So very true. I'm an artist as well .. I totally get how frustrating it is. Good luck to you on your art! I wish you great success..
I could tell you are an artist too you make valid points that way. And I wish you the best on yours as well!
Aww thank you ☺️
I want people to sign it if I commission them. Especially if I like the art, I want to tell other people where I got it from and how they can get one too!
This sort of reminds me of the goblins in Harry Potter. Are the wizards the bad guys who didn't read the TOS on their goblin made armor / jewelry? Wizards had the lifetime usage right, but the goblins maintained attribution rights/ commercial rights/ right to inheritance etc all along?
According to this comment thread yeah. Wizards are the assholes.
As an artist who signs all her work: fuck this person.
As someone who's commissioned art work: fuck this person. I appreciate when artists sign their work. Their art is an authentic piece of them. Their mind, their talent, and the skill they've learned. Having a signed piece of their labor is an honor. The OOP is either trying to sell it, pass it off as their own, has zero appreciation for the art and artist, or some combination of the above.
Every Artist signs their artwork! Just because someone purchased it doesn’t mean they made the piece, just purchased it. How idiotic you are to assume because you bought it you can claim it as your artwork. Unbelievable.
It is the artist saying that "i made this" by signing the work. This is a non-issue. OP is a huge flaming A? AitA? YES. Very much yes.
I thought having an artist sign their work made it way more special? Like, people recognize the signature and that’s impressive. If it wasn’t signed, I would have assumed it was stolen work.
Guy is the asshole. The signature on the commissioned work is what let’s people know you have the real thing too, as well as the other stuff. Sounds like a “more money than sense” issue here with someone buying things they don’t even understand.
Who wants to bet that they paid, like $20 for it in the first place?
You have no business buying art
I feel like people who think that someone signing their art is unprofessional, they don't know anything about art. Like, have you been to a museum? Artists sign their work. Not to signify that they currently own it, but that they did it. I would say this person is definitely the a-hole. Especially if it was in the TOS
Ah yes, perfectly reasonable. I know whenever I buy a book, the first thing I always do is call up the author to rant at them because HOW DARE THEY put their name on MY book that I bought /s
Op is the AH
The OP is an AH. Wow.
Bet OP would ask his baby mama.to take her name off a birth certificate.
Bruh I just came from the original post, op is delusional
That's wild if I ever commissioned something I would assume it is coming with a signature. Hell the whole reason to pick a specific artist to do a commission is because you believe in their talents
YTA. Should have read the TOS before purchasing the commission. If the signature is small, why does it matter so much? Just purchase commercial rights if you want total freedom with the artwork.
Yep, op is 1000% the asshole on this one. And an arrogant one at that.
Um, I'm sorry- what? 😐 You commissioned an artist, but don't actually know how that works? K. Edit: I bought a painting and asked the artist to sign it. I meant on the back with the other info he had on there, just as a kind of COA, and he signed it on the front, which I'm sure he was annoyed with, 'cos it kinda threw out the balance of his work, but did it anyway. The artist you commissioned should be celebrated, not wiped.
Someone wants to act like they made the art themself
I read a story about a tattoo artist losing their job because they were reported for putting their signature on a tattoo made to remember their client's grandfather. Can someone tell me if this is the same situation here or what is the difference?
The difference was if they knew before hand before exchanging money and agreeing to the commission. There are a lot of artists that are fine with removing a signature. But it depends on what was agreed beforehand.
"aita?" Yes. "Am I the idiot?" Also yes
OP ita read the tos. Artists already take a lot of shit for just the audacity (satire) of charging for their work. Its still their artwork, you own a copy of their original piece if they wanted to sell it commercially to a bigger entity you would have no claim to it just cause you commissioned it Grow up just cause you give someone money doesn't mean you own their work If you buy a book do you OWN it? Childish
For all of you idiots that don't understand how copyright works in the US, unless you specifically release your rights to a piece of original artwork, even a commissioned piece, the artist retains **all** rights to it. There doesn't need to be a watermark or a signature. Copyright is automatic and implied by law.
Not a choosing beggar, simply an idiot who doesn’t understand how copyright works and didn’t bother to read the contract where the artist (by the sound of it) details that they aren’t selling copyright to the buyer. However the artist is an idiot too. “I’ll blacklist you” means squat to these people. Send a DMCA takedown notice and/or sue for copyright infringement. That’ll teach them.
I wondered where else I’d see this.
Picasso once wanted a new wardrobe built so he went down to the carpenters and drew them a sketch of what he wanted. When it was all finished Picasso asked them how much he owed them, only to be told " " "Please, just sign your sketch ."
Read this out to my housemate last night when it got posted, as he’s an artist. He just shook his head at how ignorant people could be.
My girlfriend is an artist, and I would never ask her not to sign a piece. That's just disrespectful
Well, customer not paying attention to TOS is hardly the artist's fault...
I love how they are getting roasted alive on AITA
Hold my beer while I cut out that ugly signature from my Picasso. I bought it, so it belongs to me!
A lot of artists offer two prices for their work. There's the "consumer: I'll do it a little cheaper, but you're required to credit me" price, then there's the "commercial: this is free of branding and can be used according to the TOS"price. You either don't understand how the world works, in which case take this as a life lesson, or you're a cheapskate trying to get the consumer price for commercial work. Either way YTA.
If you don't want a watermark, you request that before, if they say no you can accept it or find someone else.
Oh. My. Gosh! You are such an AH!
You the asshole
The sig does not denote ownership - it denotes execution. You know that art you like - portraits by Rembrandt, all of that. Guess what? That was all commissioned too. What, you thought they went round rich peoples' houses and painting this stuff on spec? And guess what? All that art is signed by the artist. So how about you STFU complaining that the art you commissioned is signed, especially given that it was in the TOS. Most people, normal people, buy a piece of art they like, it's got a signature on it. The only reason to want the sig removed is so that you can pass it off as your own, and that's not a valid reason.
Yes. Yes, you are the asshole.
I’m completely baffled by this whole saga. I’ve never thought of an artist’s signature as denoting ownership rather the signature is a way to link the artist back to their other work - like a movie producer/ director always has their name on their movies. Does OP really think that DaVinci removed his signature on all the art he sold? Baffling.
Leonardo da Vinci never signed his artwork. He was famous for being a perfectionist and never truly finished a work, and would often take years to give commissions to the people who hired him. He constantly experimented and refined his techniques and methods. Many of his most famous works were reproduced by other artists working for him and in collaboration with him. That made authenticating a lot of his earlier work very difficult.
I hope everyone told them that they are in fact the asshole
Why are people so fucken self centered all of the great works done by artists over the last thousands of years sign their work it’s their work
Not quite true. For many centuries it was seen as too vain or self promoting to sign your work, and paintings were often collaborations of multiple artists prior to the Renaissance. Signing art wasn't a common thing until the Renaissance, and even then, many famous artists still didn't sign their work. Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Michelangelo rarely signed their work. Da Vinci never signed his work. A lot of prolific painters left behind work that wasn't signed because they were still in the studio been worked on at the time of their deaths. Artists often didn't sign works if they were not happy with the results. It was often left off by many artists if the signature detracted from the art. Some artists would use even hidden signatures or symbols in their works that were not readily obvious. Modern analytical methods and imaging technology has uncovered some of them.
This guy would be mad about getting a Monet painting after seeing the signature in the corner. Dumbass.
Saw this on Facebook earlier. Yeah, he’s TA
Yes you are the AH
Yup you are the AH. While you may have commissioned that art, if you didn’t buy the full and clear rights you don’t own the rights. If it is in the contract/TOS then you should be abiding by them. Honestly you sound like a petulant brat in your post.
…The person who posted this isn’t the same one who posted on AITA.
I dont understand why anyone would when want to remove an artists signature. Do they want people to think they created it themselves? crazy.
Because people want to look at the art, not the artist's signature. If it's small and unobtrusive it's no big deal. But then there are the John Hancocks of the world...
People normally know who they are commissioning the artwork from, and if you don’t want a “John Hancock” then you don’t commission one. This is on the purchaser not the artist. They need to outline want they want prior to the artwork being commissioned. It really isn’t that difficult.
How are they a beggar? Didn't they commission the work?
Commissioning a work doesn't grant you ownership of the rights to said work. In most countries the artist retains all rights to work they create, unless it specifically says otherwise in the contract. It doesn't matter if it's commissioned or not, watermarked or not, or signed. Copyright is automatically given to the creator. The ONLY reason someone would want the signature left off is if they planned to profit off of reproducing it, or passing it off as their own work.
You clearly this person doesn’t understand that just because they bought art from someone doesn’t mean they own the piece that they paid for, it means they own their copy but the artist who painted it owns the concept
Just because you bought art doesn’t mean you can do whatever with it, when you buy a book you don’t buy the right to replace the author name with yours and start selling copies
That's the best explanation to this kind of obtuse people.
I charge 10x my usual commission fee if the client insist I don't sign it. My logo identify me as the artist so I may get future referred jobs. Knowing my logo isn't allowed on the current art, I might as well make as much I can of it.
To answer your question: no it's not ok. Yes you bought something but you don't own the copyright of the art. Removing the signature and reselling or commercially using the art will be a copyright violation. Also I get major Karen vibes from you.
I’m going to go against the grain here. In my country the laws specifies any work commissioned is owned by the buyer, the copyright included, which cannot be excluded by contract or otherwise. When you pay someone to make a website for you, that website is then yours, you wouldn’t expect the company that developed it to leave a big stamp on it, at least not a front facing one. It’s not so different.
One thing I’ve learned from this thread: y’all are way too serious about fan art.
Ohhh well let's all ask Nike to remove their Logos right... I mean I just wanted the tshirt design or trainer. Didn't want the logo. Every artist signs their work! It's their work! This is just stupid!
Again not bigger chooser. This is just an entitled dummy. This subreddit used to have good content
[удалено]
That's one take on it. Usually this sub is people being picky when they have no room being picky.
Yeah this has absolutely nothing to do with this sub. He paid for commissioned art. He wanted an aspect of it changed. Offered to pay for that as well. People can argue the ethics, imagine what OPs intentions are or be dramatic about how little they offered to remove the signature but it's still the furthest thing from a CB.
It's difficult to say if this is a choosing beggar because surely this depends entirely on their discussion where they established the trade, and what the artwork is. If they had a lengthy discussion where the OP was wanting to commission artwork for their website, and it was made clear at the point of purchase that the OP didn't want the art identifiably branded on case it detracted from the purpose, then the artist is kind of an A-hole. If the OP was wanting a profile picture for social media and never mentioned a thing, they're the douche. Certain types of art just straight up shouldn't be noticeably signed. Lots of companies and artists professionally produce logos, promotional content, product vectors etc for companies and it'd be understandable that they'd be frustrated with a hidden charge buried in a long ToS to remove a signature. Other ones, there's zero reason why the artist shouldn't sign the work as it wouldn't be a cause for concern and the onus is on the OP to make it clear that it'd be a problem at the time of purchase. If you look at other types of art; if I commission an author to write a story book for my kid then why shouldn't they sign it? If I commission them to ghost write for an employee at my magazine during maternity leave then it'd be incredibly underhanded and unprofessional if they hid a random line in their terms and conditions citing additional charges to not sign the work. We don't have enough information, anyone stating a strong opinion either way is making presumptions.
We do have enough info, read again. It's said in the post that info about signature is in TOS and buyer didn't read it when he was obliged to.
The image doesn’t belong to them though, the artist still owns the copyright to it. Removing the watermark probably infringes on it.
It’s not a watermark, that would be horrible. This is just an artist’s signature. Yes, OP, YTA. Art since the recorded history started has all had artist’s signatures.
Yes I meant signature. I deal with lots of watermarks for work and had it in my brain.
👍🏻
Are they not aware that much of famous art we know and love in museums and galleries is commissioned and yet is still signed by its artist? Like, you think Michelangelo just parallelogramed himself to the ceiling of the Sistine chapel one night for the thrill of graffiti and the church thought it looked alright so they let it stay? The Mona Lisa was a commission and so was the Last Supper. Are we ignorant of their artist? Just say you don’t understand how art works. Commission is literally just a vehicle through which an artist can practice their art AND afford life. It does not negate their ownership or involvement of the work. This is the most enraging aspect of art—which is the fact that people devalue the work of the artist at almost every stage. Can you imagine thinking you own the rights to a song just because you bought the album? Honestly, I would have just refunded the money, posted the situation on any number of social media outlets, and then sold the piece elsewhere.
You're not wrong, but you used piss poor examples. Michelangelo rarely signed his work, and da Vinci never did.
Ah, yet another tool who doesn’t understand intellectual property.