lol face of disapproval is awesome.

but ya as an artist the main infraction here ISN'T that he wants the artist to draw something she isn't into.

it's that he wants to use HER CHARACTERS to do it.

But that's just me. and mind you if people got commissions from me, I'd probably not exclude any fetishes.

Conker said:
Well not really, techally she can still be sued for likness taken for what she doesnt own...

so yeah since they are based around pokemon which isnt hers to begin with she shouldnt care what she draws for money

>she shouldnt care what she draws

all artists reserve the right to not draw something, even if its for money. You should change this "money wil buy anything"/"Artists should do anything for money" attitude

Conker said:
Again the artist does not own the rights to said chars being the chars are pokemon, and the artist draws stuff for money.....given we know that the artist should have no problem drawing that image since they are getting paid. Its not even there char. :/ I mean if you want art to be about freedom of expression and free will then they wouldnt charge money for said 'art' However because they do, insert "shut up and take my money/paint my porn" response here.

kinda a selfish attitude, IMO.

the legality of copyrights on the characters aside, if an artist doesn't want to draw something, throwing money at them until they do is not a mature response

Conker said:
Not really, its the artist JOB to draw images for money, yes I know they can pick and choose however unless they want to stay in business they should just shut up, take the money and draw.

if thats how they want to run their business, that is the artist's choice, not the consumer's. I know I wouldn't run a business like that, though (international laws aside). if one doesn't like it, they find a different artist. simple as that. artist attracts different client, client gets a different artist, maybe one thats even excited to draw the sorts of things they want.

vulpinepilot said:
if thats how they want to run their business, that is the artist's choice, not the consumer's. I know I wouldn't run a business like that, though (international laws aside). if one doesn't like it, they find a different artist. simple as that. artist attracts different client, client gets a different artist, maybe one thats even excited to draw the sorts of things they want.

just saying that the line kayla drew with 'her' characters is totally within the her rights to do so.

Conker said:

But the chars are not 'her's

thats what the quotes meant, silly.

as for your other point. here is one lawyer's opinion:

The standard for copyright infringement is "substantially similar" artistic expression. "Substantial similarity" is measured by whether a normal observer would recognize the second work as a copy of (or derived from) the original. For cartoon characters, courts consider not only the visual resemblance but also narrative aspects of a character, such as their personalities, behaviors, biographies, and story lines

take that as you will, and I doubt I am changing your opinion, but I might as well give you mine: characters based on creatures created by other people is uncreative, and I would never commission a drawing of such a character anyways. if I ever did find an artist who didn't want to draw what I wanted (regardless of who or what is in the drawing), I would find a different artist and not complain about it. artists who make most their income one their art are allowed to be picky about what they draw too.

but that's like, my opinion, man.