"Using his ostensibly rejected "design plans" to build a new but essentially identical "house" with a different contractor is intellectual property theft.

>>Oops...there it goes..."

Amazing. A retort that clearly indicates the quality of your wit.

Michael said:

The end product is irrelevant.

>>Irrelevant?

If the an architect's plans get stolen, but no
houses get built, does it negate the fact that the plans were stolen?

>>It's not a house. That's why the analogy is flawed.

As an artist, do you feel you are being compensated solely for producing
a piece of paper with lines on it, or are you being compensated for
designing and laying out what is on the paper?

>>>Depends on what rights are purchased. In the case of comics, the company buys the "image" for an agreed-upon sum; the artist is free to sell the physical artwork.

I've purchased commissions from artists who charge for a digital
commission and ask for extra to have the art physically sent. Should I tell
that since I've received no physical artwork, they didn't really do
anything?

>>>That’s because you can keep the digital image for yourself and sell the physical artwork to a second party. I'd charge more for that, too.

I think Darren outlined it best, by taking the scan of the
commission and having someone else "recreate" it, Pat, has pretty much
accepted the commission.

>>>Implied, perhaps. Overtly stated, no.

edited for failure to use spell-check. Ouch!

I said:
>>>But couldn't the copyright holders change that policy at any time by
pursuing all violators?

••
JB said:

"All" is the keyword. Suppose WhizBang Comix decided to stop non-
licensed (ie, commissioned) drawings of Captain Fonebone. And suppose
they went after Joe Staffhack for all the Captain Fonebone commissions
he has done since he left WhizBang. Staffhack would be able to say
"Unless you are going after everybody -- which means every single
drawing done of this character for which you did not receive a licensing
fee, like those done by kids at cons for a quarter a pop -- this is
harassment. Because this has been a standing tradition for half a century
or more, that horse has long since left the barn."

>>>Exactly! That's what law is all about. It's rarely about what's moral.

edited for attribution

Knut said:

"Using his ostensibly rejected "design plans" to build a new but essentially identical "house" with a different contractor is intellectual property theft.

>>Oops...there it goes..."

Amazing. A retort that clearly indicates the quality of your wit.

--------------------------

May I ask why you feel the need to engage in personal attacks? Do I know you?

As stated before, I have no problems with what Anthony did.  It's no different than what a ton of comic artists are doing out there.  Pat on the other hand screwed up royally.

Send me a PM Anthony... maybe we can talk about a commission for me.

An original composition, of course ;-)

NOW I've almost seen it all...the guy who gets paid for copying someone else's work (when the original artist didn't get paid for it) is behaving the victim!

Also interesting that a self-described Illustrator/Designer is blissfully unaware that this could be seen as questionable.