How to deal with artists who want to retain ownership of the artwork commisioned?

Approximately how much are you looking to pay for the design? How many shirts are you going to print on the first production run? What is the likelihood of you doing multiple production runs of this particular design?

The reason I ask these questions is that while you probably want exclusive rights to the design, your business is probably not big enough to actually be effected by having a non-exclusive agreement. If this artist can create the artwork you want, then get the art and print the shirts and make money. Unless you are in a position where other clothing companies are copying what you do, then the exclusive agreement isn't worth as much as you think it is. Besides, other companies can still copy your ideas anyway.

If you really must have an exclusive agreement, then use a different artist. This one probably won't give you what you want unless you are paying a price worthy of exclusive rights.

nayfinxoxo said:

I guess I shouldn't have included the scenario about my current artist since I'm asking for a reference for any other artists that I may work with since I'd hate to limit myself to artists who only accept Work-For-Hire.

Click to expand...

You can delete whatever part of your post you are not comfortable keeping on the forum.

nayfinxoxo said:

I have NO problem letting them keep ownership, so I guess what I'm wondering is if by letting them keep ownership, could that cause any problems down the line?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible it could cause problems. Because they would still be able to sell the design outside of the rights you paid for. But I seriously doubt it's going to affect your business that much. And I doubt you are going to take legal action to protect whatever rights you do pay for. So I guess it's not really going to cause problems.

nayfinxoxo said:

And if I can get all rights, should I (before stooping down to getting only the right to print them on t-shirts)?

Click to expand...

It's nice to get full rights, but don't overpay for them. Just pay what you can afford. And only pay for what you need.

Put it this way... Exclusivity is a sham. Profitability is real.

As soon as you release a design, it becomes "stealable." So what do you think exclusivity from the designer is really getting you? Profitability should be higher on the priority list than exclusivity. If you think you can make money on a design, then pay for whatever rights you need and start making money.

There are thousands of talented artists in college
right now who are knowledgeable in using graphic
software and eager to work around their class
schedules.

You can employ them and they have no problem
giving you the rights to the projects you both come
up with.

You would be amazed at the talent that is out there
if you just visit a few campuses and visit some
of their online forums.


I work with several awesome artists and I will only
give repeat business to people I trust and who
deserve it. You may have to do some homework
but there are plenty of people who work as true
professionals and will set your mind at ease.

We have a few on this forum who are talented,
trusted and professionals at what they do
and their prices are very reasonable.


.

How common is this anymore? I've never liked this practice. From the buyer's point of view, you don't really own your logo, and if it was done by a print shop, you cannot take it somewhere else if their rates increase. From the artist's point of view, do you really keep track of every design you've made and take legal action against everyone who breaks the agreement?

I can understand that for something like t-shirt art where the artwork holds value if you were to use it yourself (i.e. sell framed prints or other merchandise like mugs) that you would be more likely to want to hold ownership. But if you don't aggressively pursue every case, then later down the road when you see someone using a design you still own on mousepads in an office supply store, you have a high chance to lose a lawsuit because you have not been proven to take action in the past. Only someone with large funding, like a large print and design firm, or an already-established famous artist, would be able to do this. Most people fresh out of design school are unlikely to have the resources to pursue this.

There is no "kind" of contract for this case, you and the artist can simply sit down, figure out what the two of you are willing to part with, then put whatever you discuss on paper. That's your contract. If you present the artist with a contract and you keep changing it to suit the needs, you'll end up with the same, so you may as well figure out the terms of the contract ahead of time and draw one up from scratch.

My question: did the artist say up front that he has to retain rights, or did they bring it up after some haggling on your part? I ask because maybe their compromise is you get the artwork for a lower fee but they can continue to make money off the same artwork in other ways, such as prints. This is the only reason why an artist would want to retain ownership and is a very good one as it benefits them should the design become popular.

But as stated earlier, you could just avoid the matter altogether and find someone who'll sell you ownership outright. This would be much easier for you as you won't have to go back to negotiate the contract when it expires, or should your t-shirt become popular (since the artist owns the image, they WILL come after you for better royalties if your shirt becomes popular).

if it's legal for that to be agreed upon, and i don't see why it wouldn't be, how could he sue you? assuming you don't violate some part of the contract, what grounds would he have? 'just cuz i wanna' isn't a very good legal argument, lol. methinks it would be a pretty durn short court appearance, but i'm no lawyer. they could sue for a ridiculous amount and hope you settle.

that's what i'm saying about having a good example to go by. if there's a mistake in the contract, i don't know if the law says the whole contract is void or just that one mistake needs to be judged. or if, despite all the good faith in the world on both sides, a voided contracted means he could ask for more royalties (though i rather doubt it. believe it or not, judges are interested in seeing that justice is being done and would probably look at the intentions involved before giving some sleazy plaintiff a huge windfall because you forgot to dot an i. possibly it can depend on what the mistake is and how bad it is, i guess. it's hard to take these things for granted, though). i once wrote a contract that i was pretty proud of, basing it on two other contracts. my lawyer said it looked good to a layman, but was otherwise pretty much crap. granted, that was for a land contract, but, still, the new contract basically only contained one more element i wasn't aware of (okay, it was a pretty important element, lol).

in all reality, though, it's probably never going to amount to all that. you might want to research elements of a good, solid contract, see if there are any 'must have' information, all just to be on the safe side. 'simple,' as in 'simple contract,' is a relative thing, eh? not suggesting it should keep you awake at night, but if you're not confident in it, i don't think there's any harm in researching it online for a few minutes, which is only fair, yeah? not sure if it would be more than two pages, one with the agreement, one for the sample of the artwork....

I am an artist, printshop, and see both sides of this. But Sounds like the terms having the design rights for just doing the shirts and if they want to do prints or sell it for digital media etc then I don't see that being a problem for you and its more beneficial for them.

I think you are maybe being a bit too concerned about all this but just try to work with some artists/designers that will make designs specific for your clothing and pay the flat fee then be done with it. That way they won't feel the bond with the work like a painting or design they did prior to working with you as selling the rights to their first and best design/painting would be a lot more difficult to sell the rights to vs a design they made specifically for you. I wouldn't sell the rights to most of my paintings and good work but I would design specifically for a line for a decent price.

So I don't know if that's what your artist/designer is feeling and the reasoning behind these terms or if its something completely different but hopefully that will help you out a little bit with understanding how ones work can be like a child and the parting (adoption) of the child is probably not going to happen but letting you babysit or taking it to the park with your other children isn't a problem. Artists are very selfish and controlling people and I don't mean that in a negative way (remember I'm an artist) but its true and ones craft and talent is deeply rooted in them also years of work experimentation etc so it really could be that your just not paying the artist enough for them to sell the work 100%.

More details on the artist and designs also the prices and contract terms we could probably come up with more reasoning and a better solution to this but I would just ask the artist why and what it would take to get designs that are 100% yours for reproduction and use- why not ask?

Best of luck and be fair with the artists not all designs take a couple hours even though it may seem like a simple logo or design so if your not in the art/design field its hard to understand the work that goes into making good design/artwork.