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.

Nicely put Winterdyne, I wasn't even going to waste my time with a reply, just added him to my ignore list and moved on. I have no intention of bringing up the issue with the client as we had no standing agreement beforehand and like you said its really not worth pursuing. I was simply curious how others felt about the issue.

i guess if some one won a prize for best painted in a battle tourney then its fair enough, after all it is the best painted, however you shouldn't enter painting tournaments with other peoples work, that would be like entering a battle tourney and ringing your mate for advice every turn

lol, that'd be me... much easier to just say I'll paint it, you play it mate.

I did the same thing but for free because I wanted to learn more techniques and go further with my painting. Found out that a guy entered a daemon prince I painted. worst part of it was that he got money for MY painting I gave him free I talked to other people and we banded together against the shop owner and told him that I shouldve won the money because I painted it. The manager banned him from ever coming to the store again (he didnt care that he lost one customer because he only bought 3 kits he told me) and got 100 bucks in my hand

I agree with the masses here. If someone else painted your models, you should give credit where credit is due.

And a painting competition is no place to enter someone elses work.

If the painting/modelling score is part of an overall tournament, the only thing to do is give credit to the person who actually did your models.

I think it depends on the circumstances
If someone if going to enter your work under his/her own, you should be mentioned, because you painted it, but technically, the models belong to the person you commissioned to... oh well its cheating

There are many facets to this hobby and not everyone enjoys all of them. There are gamers who prefer to build armies and perfect strategies of play where others don't enjoy the game but love the building, converting and painting aspects.

I wonder if a clear distiction needs to be made in the actual tournament rules ... "Best Painted" vs. "Best Painter". Maybe even have seperate categories for both types of submissions.

If an army is amazing looking, it shouldn't be rejected or disqualified if it wasn't painted by it's owner ... HE should not be labelled as "Best Painter" but that army may be "Best Painted". It all comes down to full and honest disclosure at the point of registration.

As a side thought, who's to say that a player's army list wasn't put together and developed by someone with a greater knowledge of the game ?

At any rate, I think misrepresenting another's work as your own is dishonest and should be called-out. I also think that finding a way to close the loopholes that allow for the misrepresentation would go a long way to curtailing the dishonesty.

Myrthe wrote:As a side thought, who's to say that a player's army list wasn't put together and developed by someone with a greater knowledge of the game ?

Happens all the time. It's called "Net Lists".

Once I actually had a guy on the other side of the table that had a "friend" there to "watch". I had to call the judge over after the third or fourth time the "friend" gave tactical advice... on turn one.

I kid you not.

I don't know if anyone has specifically identified this or not, but if you're doing commissions professionally with money changing hands and all that then you should probably add some clauses to the contract you work up with your client.
If the issue is that you would prefer to have the credit for any painting awards that the owner of the model would receive, then you should add a clause that specifically states that. I know a guy who has a contract with the guy who painted his army stating that any painting awards would be in the painters name. The guy who painted the army also had the right to take the army to big painting tournaments like Golden Demon (with the proper amount of forewarning of course). But, they were actually really good friends as I remember so I can understand the last part of it could be a little over the top for most.

If I did commissions I'd add that the client had to tell anyone who commented on his army that "so and so" painted those models over there, just for funs and giggles lol.

I think it is pretty scammy... I have a few pieces in my collection I didn't paint, but I identify them as such. There are 2 that I bought painted, but then continued to paint to a higher standard myself... I consider them to be my work at this point due to the changes and enhancements made.

That being said, I would not enter, say, my Sanguinor into a comp. That was painted by Brush Brothers and although I did modify some things and re-paint the base, I certainly did not do enough to call it mine in any way shape or form.

If the guy payed you, then spent a lot of hours working on them further to a noticeable and significant degree, that can be a bit murky, but, if he is just straight up using your work unmodified as comp entries, then imo, no two kaks about it it's wrong and fraudulent.

UNLESS, he enters it as owner of the army, not neccesarily the painter. After all, 'best presentation' is not 'best painter'. And, he did pay for it and does own it... I dunno it's tough say definitively for me I suppose.

Using my GS cult for example, I did all the concept art, sculted the prototypes, sculted 14 out of 21 figs and modded and sculpted further the 7 commisions... then I just had Sigur paint them beautifully, according to a 3 page document of color swatches, style instructions and detail planning. When I receive them, I will be painting them further, but not too much. Can I say they are mine? Can I say they aren't?

Jeez I was sure even when I started writing lol. In any case, if he only said 'I want ultramarines' and then left everything to you, he has far less of a case than if he did work on them, or participated heavily in planning with you at the very least.

Thats not cool at all cheating is what I say since if its cash or gift cert prizes then basically he is scamming you and cheating in the competition.

I have a few models painted by a friend and when people comment on how nice the paint job is I make sure to tell them that I did not paint them and tell them who did.

Add your own artistic signature to the models and tell the judges in the local area that any models with that little sign are painted by you they may be able to disqualify the person (a little symbol or your signature somewhere where no one really looks and no one thinks anything of it when and if an unknowing someone sees it.

That might help

If it's a competition to reward the best painter then it becomes cheating if the work is submitted without acknowledging the painter.

If it's a competition to reward someone for bringing an awesome army along with the idea of promoting more well modeled and painted armies then it doesn't matter. It would still be honourable to mention who the actual artists were but it would not be cheating to accept any benefit from owning such an army.

Certainly when best dressed prizes are given at racing meets and elsewhere they don't get hung up over who made the clothes, only who is wearing them. Now obviously if it's a wearable arts or similar competition then the artist needs to be recognized, but not for best dressed competitions.

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.

I do photography, i accept payment for work. I do not need to always sign a model release form for the other party to have full control over the pictures. Also the OP does not have a right to be indentified as unless he puts some form of signature on the model; the model and all subsequent art work etc would probably fall under the Orphan Law.

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.

I was not aware that the OP had applied for and been granted Patents and copyrights on his particular style of work. If he has then i would concede he is within his rights on this occasion on production of said copyrights.

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...

Really? I commision an Army, enter it and win. On receiving the army i give it a couple of washes to add MY Style to it. Guess what? Its no longer the original artists work, it then becomes a colaboration.

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.

This is puzzling, the question was aimed at the OP and his particular questions and statements. Not you.

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.

Correct me if im wrong but do you not set the price on your services? If your services are worth more than £3 an hour then charge more, also the OP might be charging $25 an hour so he might not have the right to bitch the same as you would.

I personally feel it's wrong for someone to do so unless they are honest enough to state they did not paint the army and are more than willing to give any credit or prize due to the person who did paint the army - I say this as someone who is currently painting a Sisters of Battle army for a friend (and then I will be painting a Dwarf army for him).

Most tournaments have something to tick that says 'I did not paint this army' - at least they used to.

This has never happened to me.......... ever

@GBDarkAngel:

First, a big smiley, 'cos this isn't a flame war.

For the sake of argument:
If I were to take one of your photographs (with no permission requested or given), apply a photoshop filter to it, perhaps tweak it slightly, and then submit it to a well-known magazine competition winning a prize, you wouldn't attempt to assert your right of ownership over the original picture? The piece is not a collaboration, it's a theft. As the work is not entirely my own, I would be behaving fraudulently in claiming it was.


Copyright in the UK is inherent in the production of the work. It does not need to be granted, merely asserted when required. A quick check reveals the same to be true in the US. An identifying mark is not required, but usually some form of proof and declaration will exist to make things easier should the right need to be asserted.

Similarly, if someone is to take a sculpt I've done as a one-off, cast it and sell it, they only have rights to do so by identifying the sculptor, and purchasing or licensing the right of use of the design.

From a quick read around, Orphan Works Law does not seem to apply, as the original owner is known by the intended user. A signature, or any other identifying mark other than the design / work itself is not required. The original owner turning up and saying 'hey, I wrote / painted / did that' is enough.


Now Patents are a different kettle of fish. Patents apply to similar works (methods of working or design), and do need to be registered. If I were to patent my particular method for SETMM, I would be free to ensure that no other studio or painter should use the same technique as me for a given period of time. The software industry is rife with patent applications, enforcements and violations. As most methods develop fluidly from others in concept if nothing else, there's usually a patent being violated somewhere, if you look deep enough.

In the UK, it's possible *explicitly* to pass over rights of ownership of any creative work - it has to be done via contract. In the video games industry (last contracted creative job I had) the contracts explicitly state that the employee is agreeing to relinquish all rights pertaining to any work done during the period of employment. Some contracts specify the work done at the behest of the company, others actually specify *all* work, including that done off your own back.

My point regarding the payment is simply a fact drawn on my experience in the commission business. The bulk of the accessible market is fairly low paying. £3 per hour is a slight exaggeration, but the working figure is usually well below minimum wage. It's not a job to do if you need cash quick or can't supplement it with better jobs.

I believe there are lower limits below which earnings do not need to be declared in the UK, however, anyone working 'professionally', or at least persistently should certainly be declaring. The same is as true for buying and selling junk on eBay as it is for providing any form of service.

@winterdyne

The example you give is not pertinent as the OP was paid to do this job.
Had you paid me to take a picture for you then that picture becomes yours to do as you wish regardless of whether i approve or not.

I have done a few photoshoots on a "time for prints or pictures" basis with a few young ladies hoping to break into modelling.
I sent her a selection of around 15 pictures as agreed, she then (like me) submitted a few of the best ones to the usual "Lads Mags" and one was printed.
When i contacted the magazine they informed me that they selected one that the model had sent earlier in the week.
Even although i took the picture i cannot complain as it was an agreement between the both of us.

The photoshoot stuff doesn't even apply to this, it's obviously a completely different situation.

I wouldn't be personally angry if someone entered a model I had painted for them into a competition. I would see them as a cheater but I wouldn't claim they couldn't do it. While legaly I may have a case once the model is out of my hands I have no intention of telling them how to use it. However if I saw someone winning a competition with a model I hand painted I would talk to the judes because I would rather someone who deserved it won.