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.

When I run RTTs (going to this weekend) I do have a "best painted" prize. However you are only eligible to win it if you painted the army yourself. For local players I can usually tell especially if one army is Golden Daemon quality and another one he has looks like the minis were dunked in a paint pot. For folks I'm not familiar with I just have to rely on their integrity to tell me whether or not they painted it. If someone needs to win bad enough to lie I guess I'd have to let them.

What about when an army is partially the work of the player, and even he isn't sure which models are which? For example, I just had a bunch of marines and soritas painted on commission, to match my existing paint scheme. I had no enthusiasm for painting an additional sixtyish rank and file models myself, and except for a couple of things, like heavy weapons, there's really nothing to tell apart the models I painted from the ones I had painted.

Or another example, I picked up tyranids in third edition, buying them off a friend to finance his engagement ring. I really liked his paint scheme, so I've painted all of mine to match. While I know for certain which of the TMCs were already done, I have no way of being sure which of the hundreds of gribblies he did, and which of them were the ones I've added on in the subsequent decade.

Portugal Jones wrote:What about when an army is partially the work of the player, and even he isn't sure which models are which? For example, I just had a bunch of marines and soritas painted on commission, to match my existing paint scheme. I had no enthusiasm for painting an additional sixtyish rank and file models myself, and except for a couple of things, like heavy weapons, there's really nothing to tell apart the models I painted from the ones I had painted.

Generally, if there is a requirement, it would be that the army (or just the painting) be entirely the player's own work.

If you're entering them in a comp for individual miniatures, then you should be only entering something that you know for certain is your own work. Not just because doing otherwise is dodgy, but so that you know yourself that you won with your own work.

Portugal Jones wrote:What about when an army is partially the work of the player, and even he isn't sure which models .

Why should someone who only painted half his army win best painted over someone that took the time and effort to paint his entire army? Would be my return question.

Because he's got the best painted army?

I agree that if specifically entering a painting competition, using stuff you didn't paint would be a no go, but if painting is one of the tourney soft scores, I don't see it being an issue.

It depends on the rules of the contest. It is probably fair to say that it could be assumed that a painting competition implies that the contestants painted the submissions themselves, but how often is that stated in the contest rules? I don't generally read painting contest rules.

It would certainly be disingenuous to submit another author's work. And I agree that it could be considered fraudulent to do so, especially if it was expressly stated in the rules of the contest that submissions must be the original work of the contestants.

It seems like most people agree that it would be disingenuous and generally not cool to pass off another's work as one's own. The best reaction to any instances of it, I think, is simply publicity and shame. Copyright law is jumbled and subjective. It stretches in many different directions to cover lots of unique situations. Whether or not the law, given a specific set of facts, is in favor of one party or another; if the community feels that a situation is not equitable, legal recourse really isn't necessary to address the behavior.

Whats the stance on people who pay a commissioner to paint their army claiming the paint job as their own?

I recently took a commission for a small ogre kingdoms army. The guy asked me is it ok if he can say he painted them himself. I was a kinda impressed that he had the balls to ask so I agreed, the fear of losing the work may have played a small part too. I've never had this situation come up before. I mean the 3 or 4 other commissions I have done could well be claiming them as their own as well, I don't see them in my gaming circle so have no Idea. Did I make the right decision?

It's up to you. I use every example of my work as advertising to get more, so I generally wouldn't agree to it if asked. Generally though if someone would do that then they wouldn't ask.

There is a second line of thought though; I get a lot of sculpting commissions, and if a company wanted to say they produced the models that would be fine (as they deal with the mouldmaking / casting side), that is to say their branding goes on, but I'd still want Winterdyne Commission Modelling (there's a few of us now, so I'll make the distinction from myself) credited for the sculpt. and it generally wouldn't be me personally doing the sculpt anyway. It's not my strongest area.

vossyvo wrote:Whats the stance on people who pay a commissioner to paint their army claiming the paint job as their own?

I recently took a commission for a small ogre kingdoms army. The guy asked me is it ok if he can say he painted them himself. I was a kinda impressed that he had the balls to ask so I agreed, the fear of losing the work may have played a small part too. I've never had this situation come up before. I mean the 3 or 4 other commissions I have done could well be claiming them as their own as well, I don't see them in my gaming circle so have no Idea. Did I make the right decision?

Biccat and Polonius pretty much covered that earlier in the thread. US copyright is in many ways less friendly to the author, and as biccat has explained, commissioned painting could be treated as work for hire.

As to whether or not you did the right thing, that's really up to you. I don't think authors should be able to give up rights to attribution, but business is business. I have made and sold crafts in the past, but a similar issue never came up. Given the context I was working in, my customers were proud to attribute the work, so it was never an issue, and the scale was pretty minimal anyway. As an aside, I personally decided that making art as a business eroded my enjoyment of it, and I eventually gave up producing works for sale.

If you are primarily concerned about your business, I think you have to decide what is best in that context. winterdyne has suggested that attribution is an important part of growing such a business, and I am inclined to agree with that. Even so, what is best for one's business does not always fit comfortably with one's personal ethics or morals (which I am deliberately distinguishing from professional ethics, before someone jumps on that). In other words, you may have to do something that you don't like. If keeping that customer happy and maintaining the transaction were important, perhaps it was the right thing to do.

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.