This is a link post with no self text.
Read-only view. Voting and replying are not offered because the app-only OAuth token cannot perform them.
threads deeper than 5 levels start collapsed
Thats not mildly infuriating, thats called a scam
imagine paying a restaurant to make food for you, the bowl arrives, and they ask you for additional 75% of og price to remove the lid
lmao what this weirdo thinks comissions are for nowdays?
You wanted silverware? Yeah, there's an extra fee for that.
Don't give them ideas
Yeah. A picture with a watermark is a sample until they get paid. I wouldn’t give them another penny and just find a way to remove the watermark myself.
It’s inbetween. A pure scam would be they don’t create the art. Some artists do take paid requests for art for their channel they were not going to create.
That said, both the setup here and price to remove seem egregious. This is one of the few cases where I would just use AI to remove the watermark. ChatGPT will happily do it.
Normally I’d call that unethical and be against it and stealing someone’s art. But here I’d make an exception.
edited
Yeah, for sure. The art was paid for. If the artist did not mention that they'd leave a huge ass watermark on it then that's on them. What can you even use it for with that thing plastered on it?
Oh no, someone removed the watermark for free. What a bad person. Hope you can avoid to use this version
Thank you!!
Make sure they know you got it removed.
!gif
Yeah, send her a copy saying something like “lol, I’m not very good with computers, so it took a while, but I did figure out how you’re supposed to remove it” and then you attach the cleaned version.
“I printed it out and used my old toothbrush and the shit came off”
“I already paid you for the commission. By default, that means you should have delivered me the final product without watermark. By charging me an additional 75% to remove the watermark, that means you not only did not complete the commission that that I full paid for, but now you’re trying to scam me additional money to get my commission. Someone else removed your watermark for me for free, by the way, and there’s nothing you can do about it because the piece of art I paid for is owned by me, so I can modify this however I wish.”
if you wantthe little details onthe nose area back heres that version as well,
I'm honestly shocked that I came across an instance where this is totally justified.
This is disgusting and you’re going straight to hell with all the other celebrities, partygoers, and generally exciting, cool people.
Beat me to it. I would happily spend my own time to fuck up a greedy scammer 😁
"commission, do not use" okay but the point of me commissioning it was so I could use it. If I paid to have something made and a non-usable product was delivered, I'd just do a chargeback. You don't deliver what was agreed upon, you don't get paid. Simple as that.
100% this. I'm a designer, i would never sell someone the design they paid for with watermarks on it after they paid. lol what a joke.
Fr, the entire reason for a watermark is so people don’t use it without paying. He PAID.
I don’t know any designer who would try to pull this with a straight face.
Edit: I’m a designer, never said I could spell…
edited
Exactly. Now it looks like you stole it
Which makes me wonder if the original "artist" stole it.
This is the sort of watermark and artist throws on a commision if they still want to put it on their web portfolio. You just don't put it on a finished product!
Yeah, OP is 100% being scammed.
Blocked out her signature and @ but as y’all can see in the last pic it’s giant and take up 1/3rd of the banner. I just wanna use my commission that I paid for in full without feeling like a thief :(
Nah, dude, name and shame and prevent others being robbed and scammed.
This.
Don’t be scared of offending a scammer; destroy them.
Use AI to remove the watermark from all of this artist's art and start posting it
Fuck scammers like this
Yeah let's not use plagiarism bots. Just do a charge back lmao
💯 In this situation I think a charge back does make sense. You would only want to use it on someone you never want to do business with again, and this is exactly that.
In this case, I think using AI to remove the watermark is acceptable. An artist who does this kind of thing in the age of AI is simply shooting themselves in the foot.
Absolutely dispute the charges. If this is the artist's policy they should outline it prior to taking the money.
someone in here posted a clean version already. enjoy your banner!
Also you should definitely name and shame so others don't get scammed by the same artist. When people search the artists name this post should come up so people can be warned.
This OP
If you paid for a commission, it's technically work for hire, meaning you own the rights to modify it. Unless you signed a contract that only gave you limited use rights, this is the default.
Source: worked extensively as a contract ghostwriter on commission. Wife works as a contract artist on commission.
She's scamming you. This is heinous behavior.
Imagine you went out to a restaurant and ordered food and they brought it out raw and then were like "oh, yea, so it's not actually listed anywhere but if you actually want to eat the food, it's gonna be almost double the original price"
Or going out to a bar and ordering a vodka soda and they say "yea, we made you a vodka soda, you paid for it, and I only gave you soda. Why would you expect vodka to be included in the price? That's extra"
Just do a chargeback, OP. I'm an old fart artist and the "commission do not use" is for showcasing commissioned art. The person who MADE THE COMMISSION (i.e. YOU) gets the un-watermarked, full-quality, layers-intact version of the file to do whatever the hell they want with because THEY PAID FOR IT.
Warn them first if you want to be nice, but I'd be damned if I ever commission art and they hold it hostage from me after I frigging paid for it.
Expose her so no one would fall into the same trap. That's so scummy.
Exactly this. Always name and shame scammers.
This person's pretty dumb. Typically people only put that giant "Commission: Do Not Use" watermark on commission works they post publicly (somewhat common practice if an artist wants to show off a commission they did publicly), but give the clean version to the original person who paid.
If I had to give the person some benefit of the doubt, it's possible they didn't know how this works and thought it was common to keep "Do not use" on the version for the client... But charging almost double for the version without that is not normal.
edited
Yeah, I think they're just not that bright. Because what would be the purpose of paying for digital art with giant ugly text on it. What would you even use that for?
What would you even use that for?
Read the words. It literally says "Do not use." You're not supposed to use the artwork you commission, silly. ;p
if it wasnt clearly stated earlier then thats very shitty behavior and the "\^\^" too, couldve left it out, makes it seem even worse than it is
You got scammed
That’s a scam.
What did you scribble out? Because that seems like the artist's actual watermark/signature you're scribbling out for privacy reasons. Requiring 75% of the payment for the "commission do not use" text to be removed is not something I've ever heard of and just seems like extortion to me tbh.
You should have waited to tip.
This is absolutely valid reason for a chargeback, if you paid by credit card.
Read-only thread. Why there is no reply box →