>>80448916If they own it then you can't tell people they can only use it for non-commercial, or commercial and merch rights or not, can't tell them they can't recolor or alter it. If someone owns something they can do whatever they want with it, no ToS applies if it's not licensed but owned. The artist also can't display the work in their portfolio because it's somebody else's work, they have to licene it/get permission from the owner. The owners are the effectively the legal author of the work. But that's not how it goes for any indie, they don't own their models, they're just too dumb to realize it.
>4view you'd have to be insane to not get all the rights to your modelWe're not talking about them, are we? Do you think OP is a 4-5view millionaire? We're taking about all of the 1-3view indies and even many 4views.
Work for hire contract is the deciding factor here. Just like with corporate artists and AI debate, they only have no legal argument if the corporation actually owns the work. If the corporation didn't get a work for hire contract then the artist still owns it. This has also been the case for a lot of high profile fuck ups like the Sonic comics artist Ken Penders. He won because it seemed like they faked the work for hire contract and other artists backed him up on it.
The moral of the story is if you don't have that contract then you don't own shit. If the commissioner does have that contract then you're powerless to prevent them doing anything they want.
