Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do a lot of commission painting for guys in my area and one customer in particular uses his army to mainly play tournaments. I found out recently hes been entering models that i built, converted and painted into painting competitions and winning or winning best painted at a tournaments. I couldn't care less what he does with the models he commissions me for as i hold no rights over them at all but i feel its disingenuous at best and at worse a real detriment to our hobby when someone can fork over cash for an army that will win best painted most times. it kinda makes the prize meaningless at that point and really isn't fair to most players who bust their ass finishing up their paint job for the tournament. how do you guys feel about this issue? its made me feel like im part of the problem it really makes me want to stop painting for people.

Write "made by -your name-" under every model you commission paint, and don't tell this to the client.

It's wrong to participate in a painting competitions with other peoples models, unless they get the prize

(I made my friend do this once. He told everyone that I made the model, and gave me the prize.)

I agree that it's a bit disingenuous... certainly not your fault though... and really the award is usually for "best painted", not "best painter". I know that's semantics but it is how things are generally viewed. Beyond that I think it's up to the T.O. to make restrictions on armies entered in painting competitions, so you don't get the same, professionally painted army winning best painted over all the local gamers doing their own stuff time after time.

For the first time I'm actually having a few models painted for me, and it's likely that the army they're for will be in competitive tourneys. The way I think I'll handle it i to present the army with a card stating which elements I painted and which were painted by another artist (with their name included). That way the judges have the freedom to score it down if they want to emphasize armies that have been entirely user-painted. I'm perfectly fine with that.

It's cheating, pure and simple.

Painting competitions are for your painting skill--not that of the guy who you hired to paint your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitsplitta wrote:I agree that it's a bit disingenuous... certainly not your fault though... and really the award is usually for "best painted", not "best painter". I know that's semantics but it is how things are generally viewed. Beyond that I think it's up to the T.O. to make restrictions on armies entered in painting competitions, so you don't get the same, professionally painted army winning best painted over all the local gamers doing their own stuff time after time.

Painting Competitions are a different thing than the "Best Painted" army pieces.

And quite frankly, the category should apply there as well.

As he said, it's cheating.

I think Git has the right idea. Nothing wrong with being recognized for having a spiffy looking force you (wholly or partly) commissioned, if you're up front about it. Snubbing hobbyists in a painting competition using another painter's work, however... you shouldn't have entered in the first place.

It's really about the focus of the event, I think. Painting competitions are for painters, not "model owners" - they aren't a dog show. Tournaments, however, are for gamers and if there's some recognition for the best looking army, it goes to the best looking army. Presenting commissioned pieces as your own in the former case is cheating. In the latter, it makes you a liar and a bit of a jerk, but it shouldn't bar you from winning.

oadie wrote:I think Git has the right idea. Nothing wrong with being recognized for having a spiffy looking force you (wholly or partly) commissioned, if you're up front about it. Snubbing hobbyists in a painting competition using another painter's work, however... you shouldn't have entered in the first place.

Nobody's saying that "you shouldn't ever commission". Some people don't enjoy painting, and that's fine. But context is important.

It's really about the focus of the event, I think. Painting competitions are for painters, not "model owners" - they aren't a dog show. Tournaments, however, are for gamers and if there's some recognition for the best looking army, it goes to the best looking army. Presenting commissioned pieces as your own in the former case is cheating. In the latter, it makes you a liar and a bit of a jerk, but it shouldn't bar you from winning.

And here's where context comes into play.

It's "Best Painted" Army, sure. But that's because the category is meant to help out those who might not have done well in a tournament gameplay wise but still showed up and had a fantastically painted army that they did themselves. There is no reason, at all, for anyone who commissioned an army to win "Best Painted"--it's effectively a null category for them.

It's a tough row to hoe. You are dependent on the player entering being honest.

In a perfect world players would field their own paint jobs, or recuse themselves from the painting portion of the event INCLUDING points earned for painting. In other words, if you can't even be bothered to lift a paint brush you damn well better be Rommel or Napoleon on the battlefield. I don't think it's enough to just remove them from "Best Painted"; if paint scores help towards "Best Overall" then having someone else paint for you is still getting points YOU DIDN"T EARN.

I am OK with someone fielding a commission painted army to get them past the minimum requirements to enter, but don't think it should help their score one whit, one iota, or one point in any way. Period.

I thought that most tournaments would ask you to say if you had paid to have someone paint your army and knock you out of any painting component of the contest.

In terms of entering your work as their own in pure painting/modeling contests, that is the absolute definition of being a cheating begger.

Personally I request that I be identified as the artist behind my work.

If someone enters it into a tourney 'best painted army' contest, that's fine, as long as it's under my name.

If someone enters it into a painting contest under their name, then I would take offence at that, and make sure they were named and shamed, not just to the tourney in question but to whoever cares.

Similarly, when doing a commission, sometimes I may request that I hold onto it long enough to enter it into a competition...

I guess I view commission work as a two-party thing really - on the one hand the client is effectively providing the materials and paying for my time (which otherwise would be taken up with work I'd enjoy less) and on the other I provide the skill and experience to produce a set result.

I think anybody who does this should be KILLED. (Or maybe just publicly humiliated)

Here's another question (in counterpoint). How would you feel about someone being General for someone else's army in a Tournament? I for example, have the gaming ability of a somewhat dazed and confused halibut. My chances at winning in Tourney (and feeling proud of my army) are really very small. Not through sucky dice skills (I'm actually pretty lucky), I'm just tactically inept. I'd need a partner.

Not to say it's a case of doubling up - one person would be solely responsible for modelling painting, the other for tactical / army selection choices.

Kanluwen wrote:It's "Best Painted" Army, sure. But that's because the category is meant to help out those who might not have done well in a tournament gameplay wise but still showed up and had a fantastically painted army that they did themselves. There is no reason, at all, for anyone who commissioned an army to win "Best Painted"--it's effectively a null category for them.

I'm not a tourney player, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, here, but aren't "best painted," "best sportsman," etc. usually separate "pat on the back" awards with no direct impact on tournament results? There are often soft scores, of course, but from what I've seen, any army fully painted to tabletop standard gets points - it's not a ranking, it's a checklist. In a "yes or no" scenario like that, the gamers and hobbyists both deserve the points if they both fielded painted armies. Do I respect the hobbyist more? Probably, but that's my bias. Docking the other guy who met the requirements, to the letter, would be unfair. The OP asks about painting competitions in the title and tournaments in the body - others have responded, without always being clear as to whether the two events were truly inextricable. This is why I tried to separate the two into cases I would consider permissible or not.

I would ask you this, then: If I took a commissioned army to a tournament, I wouldn't enter it into any separate painting comps. If all armies were to be displayed and judged, I'd say "This is my army that I had this other guy paint." If I came as a gamer, not a hobbyist, and made it perfectly clear that I didn't do squat but buy and play my army, what do I do if I still get the votes? Berate the judges for being insensitive to the hard-working painters? Tell the crowd off for ogling the fruit of my wallet, not that other guy's blood, sweat, and tears? Withdraw in protest? Or should give credit once again to my army's painter and go congratulate the runners up on giving a pro a run for his money?

I want to be clear that I'm not calling you out on this point, Kan, since I've been responding to you specifically, before this, but I've noticed a lot of elitism on the "whole hobby" side of the fence. Everyone here seems to agree that submitting another painter's work to net yourself a painting trophy is wrong. No argument here. But I have to say, I'm a bit taken aback by how quick many folks are to break out the torches and pitchforks when a competitive player goes to an event that supposedly caters to him, because he shares their aesthetic sense but not their insistence on achieving it by his own hand.

I think we are in agreement Oadie, I dont have any problem with the guy taking his bought army to a tournament and I dont think he should be docked on any checklist for paint soft scores. What I felt was wrong was his army winning best painted and winning several individual category painting awards. Its similar to entering a photo contest but your not a photographer so you hire one and buy the rights to his photographs then turn around and enter them into the competition under your name.

Winterdyne:
I dont think anyone would have a problem with you and your friend teaming up to win a tournament as its between you two. and any prize support or recognition you get is still going to you.

I have to agree with the general consensis here, plain and simple he cheated.

oadie wrote:I'm not a tourney player, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, here, but aren't "best painted," "best sportsman," etc. usually separate "pat on the back" awards with no direct impact on tournament results?

Depends on the tournament, however, painting scores as well as sportsmanship are piled in to one overall "winner" along with battle points. Some tournaments also have quite substantial prizes (or just prizes in general) for best painted and best sportsman. As mentioned above, if you didn't play your army during the tournament, you should not be awarded the prize if you won "best general".

oadie wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It's "Best Painted" Army, sure. But that's because the category is meant to help out those who might not have done well in a tournament gameplay wise but still showed up and had a fantastically painted army that they did themselves. There is no reason, at all, for anyone who commissioned an army to win "Best Painted"--it's effectively a null category for them.

I'm not a tourney player, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, here, but aren't "best painted," "best sportsman," etc. usually separate "pat on the back" awards with no direct impact on tournament results? There are often soft scores, of course, but from what I've seen, any army fully painted to tabletop standard gets points - it's not a ranking, it's a checklist. In a "yes or no" scenario like that, the gamers and hobbyists both deserve the points if they both fielded painted armies. Do I respect the hobbyist more? Probably, but that's my bias. Docking the other guy who met the requirements, to the letter, would be unfair. The OP asks about painting competitions in the title and tournaments in the body - others have responded, without always being clear as to whether the two events were truly inextricable. This is why I tried to separate the two into cases I would consider permissible or not.

I would ask you this, then: If I took a commissioned army to a tournament, I wouldn't enter it into any separate painting comps. If all armies were to be displayed and judged, I'd say "This is my army that I had this other guy paint." If I came as a gamer, not a hobbyist, and made it perfectly clear that I didn't do squat but buy and play my army, what do I do if I still get the votes? Berate the judges for being insensitive to the hard-working painters? Tell the crowd off for ogling the fruit of my wallet, not that other guy's blood, sweat, and tears? Withdraw in protest? Or should give credit once again to my army's painter and go congratulate the runners up on giving a pro a run for his money?

Honestly, if it were me?
I'd bow out and let the runner-ups get the bumps they deserve. But I'm a hobbyist first, gamer second so...it's a bit of a bias on my part.

I get that "best painted" is supposedly something that comes across as part of a checklist, but I feel there's an important thing being missed in this--namely that if it's a "soft score" or something that effectively has no bearing on tournament results, why is it there? It should simply be a Y/N question in that situation.

I want to be clear that I'm not calling you out on this point, Kan, since I've been responding to you specifically, before this, but I've noticed a lot of elitism on the "whole hobby" side of the fence. Everyone here seems to agree that submitting another painter's work to net yourself a painting trophy is wrong. No argument here. But I have to say, I'm a bit taken aback by how quick many folks are to break out the torches and pitchforks when a competitive player goes to an event that supposedly caters to him, because he shares their aesthetic sense but not their insistence on achieving it by his own hand.

I think you're misunderstanding when hobbyists "break out the torches and pitchforks"--or at least only seeing the threads where it's purposely being blown up out of proportion.

There's nothing wrong with people going to tournaments with commissioned armies. It's their money and their models--if they think someone else is better off painting them, that's their pejorative.

The problem is when the tournament gamers whine about being "disqualified" because their army is unpainted or it's painted below the accepted standard. If the tournament rules say "Armies must be painted with at least a basecoat and a wash or dipped and must also be based" and you come with a primed/bare material army--you should be disqualified. The tournament rules are there for everyone to abide by, not just the "painter geeks" or "the tourney geeks".

As an Avid painter, I would be sorly offended if someone entered into a painting specific compition with some of my work. I've won several painting copititions and if somone would have entered in one of my own pieces it would be like copeting with my self. Not to mention if i lost to my own piece.

I also think that they are paying for your tallents and skills as a painter. They don't own the rights to your tallents much like a people don't own the rights to a Photographers photo's. (My parents are professional photographers). If you buy a photo from a photographer and entered one of those pictures into a contest of some sort and you don't identify them as the creative genious behind the photo your looking to get sued. Granted i doubt any of you are looking to sue, but it stands to the same principal. If somone is taking credit for your work you should feel slighted.

Now the tournament scene is a whole nother beast. I don't feel a player should lose any soft points due to part of the army or the whole of the army being commissioned. However, should it be entered to win "Best Painted" army, it should at least be known that the General isn't the Painter. They should still be elligibale to win, but not under the guise that they were the master mind behind the paint brush.

If i were you, Sir lord of Corn, I would make it known to your customers that you don't mind them entereing into tourneys with it but you don't appreciate any "credit snaking" with painted tourneys and if you see it, you will bring it to the attention to the contest judges. I would also photograph your work and possibly your work in progress. I would also wright up a small bill of sale for your comissions just to be able to provide proof of work. I know it seems like a lot but i firmly believe in protecting your work.

Um, tell the event organizer. I'm sure they would ban this person from all events. Very shady.

Kanluwen wrote:Honestly, if it were me?
I'd bow out and let the runner-ups get the bumps they deserve. But I'm a hobbyist first, gamer second so...it's a bit of a bias on my part.

Honestly, I'd probably do the same. Most of what I've been saying is an attempt to get a bit of discussion beyond "yes, OP, he's a ," but it's always a nice bonus when someone actually seems serious about taking the high road (provided that's actually a road and not just a short path to a really big soapbox, which it all too often is).

I think you're misunderstanding when hobbyists "break out the torches and pitchforks"--or at least only seeing the threads where it's purposely being blown up out of proportion. [snip] The problem is when the tournament gamers whine about being "disqualified" because their army is unpainted or it's painted below the accepted standard. If the tournament rules say "Armies must be painted with at least a basecoat and a wash or dipped and must also be based" and you come with a primed/bare material army--you should be disqualified. The tournament rules are there for everyone to abide by, not just the "painter geeks" or "the tourney geeks".

I completely agree that standards are standards. If it's in the tourney doc, it's there for everyone to see and everyone should be held accountable. I also wasn't trying to imply there aren't people on the other side that deserve a good smack. As I said, I can't talk from personal experience participating in any events, but of the dozen or so tournament docs I've seen, it really was just a "yes or no" matter regarding painting. Battle points were primarily earned through games, obviously, and bonus points were given for things like having a fully painted army, registering/checking in early, etc. So yes, my expectations are not necessarily the norm, but that's a result of the events I've checked out, not the electronic bitching I've seen.

Don't most painting competitions have rules about entering something who haven't painted? Anyway, in my opinion it is cheating.

I agree it should be frowned on.

Half of one of my armies was given to me painted by a friend who no longer wanted them (something about shelf space or some nonsense). I have expanded the force and matched his paint scheme. When I go to my LGS's next tournament I intend to point out the models I personally didn't paint.

Interesting thread and a few comments.
Heres my thoughts and yes they will antagonise but its my opinion.

<antagonizing remarks redacted; there are ways of sharing unpopular opinions that do not require the language used in your post --Janthkin>

Live and learn. Create a "Terms of Use" for your customers to sign when they engage you in a commission.

Do not take action against your customers, that is bad business.

And turn this around, post pictures of your customer's winning models and use them as selling points and marketing on your web site. In a way, they have done some marketing for you by entering and winning with your painted work, now use that to your advantage.

As long as the customer doesn't deliberately pass the work off as their own, I guess it's ok, although some recognition for the painter would be polite.

oadie wrote:...but I've noticed a lot of elitism on the "whole hobby" side of the fence. Everyone here seems to agree that submitting another painter's work to net yourself a painting trophy is wrong. No argument here. But I have to say, I'm a bit taken aback by how quick many folks are to break out the torches and pitchforks when a competitive player goes to an event that supposedly caters to him, because he shares their aesthetic sense but not their insistence on achieving it by his own hand.

Personally, I don't mind going to 'Ard Boyz or some other event that only stresses the competitive angle. That's fine, and I prefer that such events happen and cater to those types of players. I'm not one, but they have fun so power to them.

What I do mind is when a tournament professes to be more "whole hobby" and someone insists they be able to bring their commission painted army and reap the "Best Overall" when painting is factored into that overall score. They are not the best over all, because they didn't paint their army. Now I have no problem with such a player being "Best General" and view that whole prize being available to the player that won the most games, regardless of what their army looks like. It just sticks in my craw that a player could be bumped from the running by someone that edged them out by a few points by purchasing a commissioned paint job from a full time artist. That shouldn't be.

PinkTerror wrote:Live and learn. Create a "Terms of Use" for your customers to sign when they engage you in a commission.

Do not take action against your customers, that is bad business.

And turn this around, post pictures of your customer's winning models and use them as selling points and marketing on your web site. In a way, they have done some marketing for you by entering and winning with your painted work, now use that to your advantage.

That is 100% perfect advice. Stop whining and use it to your advantage.

I've been in the same ball park before by painting someone elses army. I even got some honourable mentions at a Golden demon. It doesn't bother me much. Whenever I enter the same painting comp againist my own stuff I alway win because I blow my wad on stuff I keep.

GBDarkAngel wrote:

PinkTerror wrote:Live and learn. Create a "Terms of Use" for your customers to sign when they engage you in a commission.

Do not take action against your customers, that is bad business.

And turn this around, post pictures of your customer's winning models and use them as selling points and marketing on your web site. In a way, they have done some marketing for you by entering and winning with your painted work, now use that to your advantage.

That is 100% perfect advice. Stop whining and use it to your advantage.

I would hardly call the OP whining. Simmer down chap.

GBDarkAngel wrote:Interesting thread and a few comments.
Heres my thoughts and yes they will antagonise but its my opinion.

Oh yeah. They do me.

1. (edit - Commission Guy) - you are being paid to do a job. If you are not happy with your own terms then change them, bare in mind this will affect your business. Once the model leaves your possesion it and anything the owner decides to do with it have nothing do with you.

Not quite correct. Passing off of ownership of any created work must be done explicitly. OP: Unless you've signed a contract releasing creative ownership of your work (painting style, whatever) you retain the right to be identified as the artist behind it.

Legally, you have a right to intercede in ANY gain that is made as a result of the work done. It's a really unpleasant thing to do, and obviously it has expenses that make it frankly stupid at the sort of level we're talking, but still the right is there. Now we're working in a field where certain copyrights and licensing issues do come into play (namely that the colour schemes, insignia etc may be owned by another party). It gets ugly fast. Again, in this field suing for wrongful gains is pointless, and would do you, as a commission business more harm than good, as is mentioned above. A polite reminder to your clients (you don't need an explicit Terms of Use agreement as your rights are inherent in the work) should be all you need.


If the client were to win a prize at the army painting contest saying they painted it when they did not, then they have no right to the prize. The original artist does. The client has committed fraud, and potentially obtaining (goods or money) by deception. Naughty client. If they say the actual artist painted it, and they accept a reward on that artist's behalf they are NOT acting fraudulently. Technically they may or may not be committing theft, but still...

Also are all your earnings fully declared to the Tax Man?
If they are not then what is the difference between them "cheating" and you?

Yes, they are.
The difference is in the fact that I've not committed fraud.

3. Devils advocate time - Lets just say you paint an army for a guy, he enters it in a competiton and wins. You find out, stick him in and he gets disqualified.
Now lets add that the guy has a minor disability that prevents him painting, or lets say his parents have just split up and that little win, a mere speck of dust in the grand scheme of things gave that guy a little boost in an otherwise gakky life.
You would take that away from him?

Yes. The fact he's disabled does not stop him being an donkey-cave. I'm all for equality, me. Similarly those that have entered commissioned pieces in GD for recognition need a slap down. I don't care *who* they are. Fair is fair, and right is right.

I really do despair at the pettiness of some people, especially those that charge for a service then bitch about their customers.

I think if we were paid more, we'd bitch less. :-p
It's no fun to work for £3 an hour and produce something real nice only to give it away and have someone else pretend they did it. Never happened to me, but I can understand how annoying it'd be.