Assuming money is involved, who holds more "power/rights"

power/rights in what sense

The copyright holder is the one who does the work. Period. If someone hires you, they only gave you the money to create it; you're still the one who did it.

Unless of course you agreed to a contract saying you forfeit all rights to the work, which you should never do.

>>3005619
Let's say that you have been contracted to make some game assets, or character designs to be used in a game and maybe sequels. Is it normal for the game dev to keep those rights, or the artist?

>>3005626
Game dev.

>>3005626
Not him, but in this case it's most likely be the game dev.

Commercial art has the company owning the rights typically, which is why artists distinguish between commercial and personal commissions, and why commercial commissions are much more expensive.

Regardless, this is something that varies between contract to contract.

>>3005440
The blunt answer is that the party who understands the contract and has the better lawyers has more rights.

The long answer is that if you're hired to do a specific job under the direction of the company, the company has more rights. If you as an independent entity create something and then it gets picked up for licensing/publication, then you have more rights unless you sign them away.

>>3005619
No. You're wrong - if you're hired to make something, it's now work for hire, and different laws/rules apply. In work for hire, it's expected and standard the client will have the rights, unless they release them by contract.

Granted, if you go into a work for hire with no contract, you're an idiot.

>>3005626
Most of the time, work done for commercial products is done as work for hire, where the rights belong to the client, like Disney hiring you to design a Mickey Mouse toy, or doing an album cover, where the band/label will do a buyout of all rights for a flat fee.

If you license photos, you can make more deals - like sell an image for a magazine, but only for that magazine, and you have a contract that states that you are only allowing the magazine, and no reprints, annuals, posters, or any other versions.

Painters often sell paintings, but retain the publishing rights - you can buy the physical painting, but you can't sell posters of it.

Illustrators for book covers often only sold the rights for the hardcover, which would force the publisher to re-negotiate the rights for the paperback, which is why paperbacks often have cheaper/worse art than the hard cover. This is becoming very rare, now. I also know of situations where artists could negotiate contracts where every reprinting of the book would give the artist another payment - this is also rare these days.

This is stuff you guys gotta learn, if you're gonna sell art. You need an ironclad contract. You can get sample contracts in the Graphic Artists Guild handbook - buying the book is automatic entry into the guild, and it's not just for graphic artists, illustrators can join, too.

>>3005440
Depends on the CONTRACT.

>>3005667
>No. You're wrong - if you're hired to make something, it's now work for hire
Right.

> In work for hire, it's expected and standard the client will have the rights, unless they release them by contract.
Wrong. The creator holds the rights in the US.
The only exception is if the creator is employed (not hired, EMPLOYED) and creates said work as part of his job.

>you pay me to draw something for you
>I hold the rights, unless the contract explicitly states otherwise

>your company employs me
>I create X as part of the job
>the company owns X

>>3005671
Again, you are wrong.

If Disney hires you to make a poster and fails to transfer the rights in the contract, you own the rights.
If Disney, as your actual employer (contracting you to make poster =/= employing you) has you make a poster, it belongs to them.

> if the work is created by an independent contractor or freelancer, the work may be considered a work for hire only if all of the following conditions are met:
> the work must come within one of the nine limited categories of works listed in the definition above, namely (1) a contribution to a collective work, (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a translation, (4) a supplementary work, (5) a compilation, (6) an instructional text, (7) a test, (8) answer material for a test, (9) an atlas;
the work must be specially ordered or commissioned;
there must be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire by use of the phrase "work for hire" or "work made for hire."[1]
>In other words, mutual agreement that a work is a work for hire is not enough. Any agreement not meeting all of the above criteria is not a valid work for hire agreement and all rights to the work will remain with the creator.

>>3005811
You just restated what that poster already said in practical terms. There aren't many situations where a company like Disney would hire an artist to do something they don't own.

>>3005632
>Game dev.

this

>>3005440
As stated in previous threads it's determined by supply and demand. High supply of artists trying to fill the same slot = less power. High demand from clients for a specific artist's skillset = more power. As far as rights go, that depends on what's written in the contract you signed. Work for hire contracts and spec work don't afford you many rights for instance, but if your art is valuable you can negotiate rights and royalties on the assets you create. Getting these things to work in your favor are up to you as an artist and businessman.

>>3005811
Good luck taking on (((Disney's))) team of lawyers. And even if you win do you think Disney and other movie studios will want to do business with you again?

>>3005867
>Reply
Pretty much, but the whole thing whiffs of neckbearding, so there's no point in responding. Let him think he's "won", and let it die.

File: 4588548556848.jpg (111KB, 572x853px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 572x853px

>>3005440
It depends how you use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw