Graphics Scamming

[holy cherrys]

Whether or not this will cause the issue of bad quality graphics or not, it is definately incorrect to have the designer's time allocated inefficiently.

 

[Halo3Player]

I only read the OP, but here is my 2¢

Your firecape analogy is bad.

Once the Gfx is completed, perhaps you didn't like their work? The difference being with the firecape situation is, a firecape is straight forward, and you know what you're getting. You will use it. With a watermarked image, there is really no practical way to use the image. Yes the maker loses time, but they have another reference piece as an example, or could edit it slightly if some one else wanted it.

 

[Zerkeronrs7]

The fire cape situation can't be compared with the graphics situation because if you decide you don't want the graphics after the artist has made and watermarked it, then your not getting anything. The artist walks away with nothing and so does the buyer. When you hire someone to get you a fire cape, then after they get it for you, you decide you don't want it, that is scamming. The buyer pays nothing but gets a fire cape, and there's no way for the seller to 'un-get' (lol) the firecape. I think i did a terrible job of explaining that, but i'm sure you know what i mean.

It should only be considered scamming after the buyer has received some form of un-watermarked graphics. It does seem a little bit unfair that the artist can put time into the graphic for nothing, but you have to look at it from the buyers perspective. The artist could do a fantastic job on the graphic but the buyer might not like it.

I doubt any of that made sense but the point is you shouldn't be reported a as scammer for wasting someones time. If this rule goes ahead then shouldn't gold traders be able to report people for wasting their time if they back out of a trade when it's about to occur? The gold trader spent time taking pictures/recording conversations/talking on msn for ages etc, didn't they?
No support.

 

[cuda_boi]

I half support this, because the buyer could genuinely not want to purchase the design for a number of reasons.

I think something should be done however, because it is a waste of peoples time if they design a decent bit of work and then it goes to waste.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

This.

When you pay someone to get you a firecape, you know exactly what you're going to get.

Great point. When you're purchasing graphics, you don't know what you're going to get.

I don't support this, graphic artists need to satisify customers in order to get paid by the customer.

 

[Wrote_Murder]

You don't have to pay for a bad haircut....

I don't see the difference.

 

[Lvl 75 Def]

I half support this, because the buyer could genuinely not want to purchase the design for a number of reasons.

I think something should be done however, because it is a waste of peoples time if they design a decent bit of work and then it goes to waste.

wich number of reasons occur in 2 hours time.

 

[kulala]

support, fair enough

 

[Host]

The alternative is to make the buyer pay first, and then what happens when the selling artist doesn't complete it for some reason or it's not satisfactory? Not only did both the buyer and seller waste time, as per what you're concerned about, but the buyer loses both time AND the money they paid.

Yeah, it makes more sense for the buyer to pay first, if the artist is a trusted and respected one, then you should put your faith in them that the end-product will be good.

 

[Cheese Toast]

Providing the customer can reject the piece on the basis he doesn't like the end result and pursue another design then I like the idea of the rule. If the buyer has to buy from the designer even if they don't like it then I think it's a bad rule.
I do agree that it would be frustrating for someone to say that they no longer want the graphics etc for no reason.

 

[Daxel]

I 1000% Support this idea, If I ordered a Fire Cape for example I know exactly what I'm getting but when ordering a piece of GFX you GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

I'm over the moon with my signature which was made my Moonglare, he's an extremely talented artist, the point saying you get what you pay for is abit stupid, if you pay high you get a high quality of service, vise versa for lower payments.

I think that a ban should be given only if they USE the GFX.
And a TWC if they are obviously time wasting.

 

[Jack]

You don't have to pay for a bad haircut....

I don't see the difference.

You don't pay for the haircut, you pay for the further styling they do to change it to how you would want it.



For all those people that are saying no support due to "what if they produce something that I don't like", you're derping.

Graphic design is not a finality, once the artist has shown you a design you don't have to accept/deny it, you make suggestions for him to mold it around your desires.

 

[Fendle]

You don't pay for the haircut, you pay for the further styling they do to change it to how you would want it.



For all those people that are saying no support due to "what if they produce something that I don't like", you're derping.

Graphic design is not a finality, once the artist has shown you a design you don't have to accept/deny it, you make suggestions for him to mold it around your desires.

Some people are just generally bad at GFX and your work would never end up looking how you want it.

 

[R]

I agree and disagree at the same time.

I think the customer should be made to pay the artist, as they were aware of what sort of outcome to expect from the examples provided... heck, hence why the examples are required to be provided.

but

I think that, alongside requiring the customer to pay, the artist should also amend the finished product until the customer is happy. If that means scrapping an idea and starting again, so be it - so long as the customer receives a finished product.


Once an order is started, the customer has agreed to pay for work. The artist should then create and amend the work until the customer is happy. If the user then backs out of the transaction after this, it should be a breach of the agreement and therefore the rules.


As long as the artist does their best to fulfil the needs of the customer, there shouldn't be too many problems regarding payment. I've dealt with some artists from Sythe, not going to name them, but they've given me the run-of-the-mill, 10 minute job and made me feel like the bad one because I'm not happy.

 

[HNCdice]

Some artists just do a shitty job, and I'd refuse to pay them. I don't care how long they work, if it looks like shit then I'm not paying for it.

I will always continue to do this if an artist can't please me.

This. Some people claiming to be Artist make you something that you would expect to see from someone using photoshop for the first time

Some people are just generally bad at GFX and your work would never end up looking how you want it.

Fully Agree

 

[Heeatz]

Yes but think...

You walk into the shop, buy a chocolate bar; you dont like it, you dont get a refund, its tough luck... You should see the artists previous works, if you dont like them, dont waste his time in even contacting him. Personally, ive always paid for work ppl has done for me, no matter how shit it looked

 

[Punjabi3]

Yes but think...

You walk into the shop, buy a chocolate bar; you dont like it, you dont get a refund, its tough luck... You should see the artists previous works, if you dont like them, dont waste his time in even contacting him. Personally, ive always paid for work ppl has done for me, no matter how shit it looked

Chocolate is a product and if it is gone bad you can get a refund.

People should stop comparing other products to this because they are not the same and in most cases products can be returned and services are easily disputable.

By making a thread they know some people will not enjoy the service they receive and the artist can't expect remuneration for the graphics because they did not complete it to the expectations of the buyer at the end if the buyer chooses not to use the graphics the seller has another example and can easily alter it for somebody else who may enjoy the graphic.

Graphic examples aren't good representations of an artists ability to match your imagination or expectations because the artist is not altering the example image to match your expectations but are instead starting new which in most cases will never be identical to an example which was shown unless it was discussed before hand.

 

[Austintheman]

No support, if I imagine something the way I want it to be and it doesn't come out the way I thought it would be, then I shouldn't have to pay. However, an alternative for graphic sellers is to either:

A) Force a payment for their services, not their work (up to the graphic creator)
or
B) If a (buyer) person doesn't like the work created, they should be required to pay a specific fee that is arranged with both the buyer & seller beforehand. Failure to pay would be scamming.

Of course, me asking for a blue sig with a specific style is not created and instead a green sig with absolute paint garbage is created, then I shouldn't have to pay.

Again, I'm not saying my rules should be made official, but maybe an idea for gfx artists to use as part of their ToS or whatever.

 

[DipperBaby]

Don't agree 100% but I can understand why this is an issue. I don't think the solution is the suggested one, but maybe artists should all charge a standard fee for starting an order that in non refundable, similar to paying for an OMM's time.

 

[Voluntaryist x]

Don't agree 100% but I can understand why this is an issue. I don't think the solution is the suggested one, but maybe artists should all charge a standard fee for starting an order that in non refundable, similar to paying for an OMM's time.

This is the only solution that I know of, most other solutions would be potentially risky for the buyer.