@Kimberly-Batti You can also staple or tape watercolor paper to double thick gator board. (or basically really thick foamcore)
https://www.dickblick.com/products/gatorfoam-board/?clickTracking=true&wmcp=pla&wmcid=items&wmckw=13201-1016&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhd3Z5Oem4wIVKBitBh1TUARSEAQYAyABEgLLpvD_BwE

The watercolor paper might buckle a bit while you work on the paper (as the fibers expand) but if the paper is "stretched" (properly taped or stapled down) as it dries it will go perfectly, absolutely, positively flat.

@lmrush Cool!

Brief recap on watercolor and oil -- I did most of the image in watercolor and then sealed it 2-3 coats of a clear spray fix. Then mixed gel medium with water and applied 3-4 coats. Really seal that watercolor! Then went about painting with oils on top of the acrylic spray fix and gel medium in a normal fashion. Lots of thin transparent washes along with areas of opaque paint.

Have fun!

@Lee-White wrote:

I see that their poses are different, etc., but here's the test. How logical or believable would it be to say that you came up with those characters like that without seeing the source image first? So that is why it is more derivative in my opinion.

You make a really good point.
The question of (in this case) @JerrySketchyArt coming up with that character grouping (Moose, frog, bluejay)based on the original artist's work is without question. The new image is absolutely a derivative of the original. That quality is built in to a DTIYS right?

-- Man, this one makes my brain hurt --

I gotta say, I usually feel pretty confident about copyright questions but this is genuinely confusing for me. Mostly because of a clearly single and specific image as inspiration, no clear application of the Fair Use Defense, yet application of techniques that typically move a piece away from infringement.

@Lee-White @JerrySketchyArt I think it's really illuminating that Lee and I are coming down on different sides of the copyright question on this. Because it highlights an aspect of copyright infringement -- it is a subjective call.

Taken to court (or arbitration or whatever), one judge can find that there's no infringement while another can find that there is.

@JerrySketchyArt The DTIYS aspect is intriguing! I do wonder if posting an invitation/challenge like that is like putting the work into some version of the public domain? I don't know. . .

I mean, to invite someone to create a derivative of your work, but not explicitly grant them ability to distribute and/or profit from it?

Edit: Continuing to give this some thought -- I don't agree with my initial question/conclusion about a DTIYS challenge being equivalent to placing your work in the public domain. The only way to lose control of your copyright is to do so explicitly in writing. Without that copyright law automatically assumes ownership remains with the creator. That's a good thing and one that I wouldn't want illustrators to lose.

With that in mind I want to agree with @NessIllustration 's post above

I think it is only okay if the original artist is okay with it. So the answer should ALWAYS be to just simply ask.

Definitely -- be safe and respectful of other illustrators. Ask. Get permission to sell DTIYS images.

Really interesting question! One that I would want to take to an IP attorney! There may be other legal factors at play here that I'm not considering.

@Lee-White Awww yeah! This kind of thing is like copyright catnip for me! Because I look at this and think -- wow, I don't know! This is not cut and dry.

Okay, so to start there's no specific litmus test for a copyright infringement. It requires the consideration of multiple factors.

The case that Lee mentioned is Art Rodgers vs Jeff Koons

This involved taking a 2D photo and turning it into a 3D sculpture (complete with process notes given to the company tasked with actually making the sculpture from Koons that effectively said "Make it look more like the photo") Courts found that making a 2D image 3D was an infringement.

In this case there's no question you are pulling from a single image. Which would tend to count against you in a copyright infringement question.

BUT you are clearly not directly copying the image.
New camera angle, lighting, redesigning characters so they have volume. New pose for bird and frog.
Also the Moose looks decidedly scary with the glowing red eyes.
The feeling I get from the original is "happy and friendly", the new one "threatening and unnerving". This latter goes toward the concept of "transformative use".

If I had to make a definitive call on this from a legal standpoint, I would say this is not an infringement. From a personal standpoint, I would be cautious. It would not surprise me to get a cease and desist from the original artist, so I'd want to have my arguments lined up for the reply. And one of those arguments would be to get an opinion from a licensed intellectual property attorney.

@Whitney-Simms said in Pricing Your Work:

Great episode! And thanks @davidhohn and everyone else for the additional info! The struggle I’m having recently is explaining limited use licensing. My friends husband is starting a business hoping it will be something that ends up like salt life or tapout. It’s for a pretty specific market. However he’s not an artist. Which seems weird to me why he would want to start up something like this. But he’s hiring mutual friend for the images and I may try some for women’s. I would rather do a flat fee and a time frame that he can use the image.

Just to clarify a bit more, the flat fee for a limited time frame I would consider a "royalty" **. That is, you are licensing your work for a limited amount of time with the idea that if the product sells you will then relicense it for an additional fee (effectively a passive revenue stream as you don't have to sit down and create a new piece every time you receive a licensing payment) This is basically what happens with other "advance against royalty" arrangements like picture books, or t-shirt designs.

When I mentioned "Flat Fee" earlier I was referring to those arrangements in which copyright is either legally (Work For Hire) or effectively (All Rights) transferred to the client. Leaving little or no possibility for the illustrator to generate passive revenue

Then we can reevaluate after that. I don’t want to sign it completely over.

I generally recommend conducting your freelance business in this way.

Does that protect both of us? He doesn’t have to pay for a lifetime usage for something he might not need for a lifetime.

As a general practice, yes that should protect both of you. Be very specific about what rights are being licensed. This guy might think he's "buying" the artwork (i.e. Work For Hire in which he is now the legal "owner" of the copyright) As you can imagine that is (and should be) VERY expensive. Charging upfront for every potential use of an image for 95 years from creation involves accounting for many potential uses.

But when I tried to explain it to him and also another client it goes over their head. The shop owner said that “You listen to too many podcasts.” Yay. He’s still a great guy and I’ll let it go.

It's your job to understand how to license your work, since as a professional illustrator that's how we generate income from our creative efforts. And as you've already experienced, being able to educate potential clients is part of the job as well. If needed explain it like renting a car. If there's only a little money in the budget they get to rent the car for the day. If there's LOTS of money in the budget they get to "buy" the car for life. That should simplify it down to a level that someone brand new to licensing can understand.

** In light of this clarification I edited my initial post about royalties to be more accurate to the kind of license I meant. I always enjoy discussions like these as they encourage me to clarify my own thinking.

More thoughts on pricing:

You really can't have a discussion like this without mentioning the Graphic Artist Guilds Pricing and Ethical Guidelines.
https://graphicartistsguild.org/15th-edition-of-the-graphic-artists-guild-handbook-pricing-ethical-guidelines-published/
To purchase:
https://www.amazon.com/Graphic-Artists-Guild-Handbook-Guidelines/dp/1507206682/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8RBBE2HVE05W25G8HP5P

In Great Britain I am aware of the Association of Illustrators
https://theaoi.com/resources/pricing/pricing-basics/
Please post links to other illustrator organizations that address pricing issues for their members.

BUT one of the best articles I've ever read on how to think about pricing is from Jessica Hische:
http://www.jessicahische.is/thinkingthoughtsaboutpricing

I find it best to break Pricing discussions into two main categories:

1. Flat Fee. In which the illustrator creates the work and gets paid a one-time fee.

2. Royalties. Ongoing Revenue. This usually involves an advance of some kind with (potential) ongoing payments as the image continues to be licensed over time.

The approach you use to price each will involve some or all of the factors mentioned in the podcast.
I always prefer a royalty arrangement because there is never the "fear of leaving money on the table".

But that said, pricing work (either flat fee or royalty) should primarily be determined by the value of the image to the client.

@Susan-Marks Saw this thread and started following some of the links -- great resources! Thanks everybody!

As we discussed in the class I am still working to get familiar with ProCreate but it's similarities to Photoshop (at least the way that I typically use photoshop as a drawing and painting tool) are remarkable. After watching some of the videos linked above it does seem possible to mimic my digital charcoal technique in Procreate.

1. Do a line drawing.
2. Scan in or take a photo of your texture. For this technique, a sheet of paper covered with charcoal. Charcoal dust or charcoal stick it doesn't matter as long as you like the overall texture.
3. "Insert" (under the wrench icon) the photo of the sheet of charcoal. You should no longer be able to see the underlying drawing
4. Set the blend mode of the charcoal texture to "Multiply". You can now see the underlying drawing again.
5. Make a "mask" on top of the charcoal texture. This is your first value. By painting into the mask you can hide or reveal as much of the charcoal texture as you like (just like my photoshop method) And you don't have to worry as you are not affecting the underlying texture at all. So you can always go back and "fix" it as needed.
6. Repeat steps 3 -5 as many times as needed to continue adding layers of charcoal dust and create a drawing with a full range of values. In my practice piece linked below I created three layers of texture.