Does This "Contract" Sound Fishy?

[Hermes2020]

A bit of background: I have a friend who posts selfies on social media, showing different styles of make-up and clothing. They have been approached by a person calling themselves an artist, who allegedly has been commissioned by a client to paint a portrait of someone wearing make-up. The artist has offered payment for this. I have no idea what the purpose of such a painting would be. My friend has now received an email with the following so-called "Artwork Contract" attached, and they have asked my opinion about its validity. I may be paranoid, but I am a bit suspicious, so I would appreciate some thoughts on this contract:

 

[Bartc]

I suspect not actually written by a lawyer, as the similarity to common contracts I'm aware of is incomplete. In other words, sounds like an artist went to AI or online examples and cherrypicked clauses.

I'm not an attorney, however, and cannot render a legal opinion, just an observation from having worked with various forms of contracts over the years.

If it is legit, it's an attempt to make sure the artist isn't in court over a dispute of ownership of a "likeness". I've read that famous individuals can claim some ownership of their likenesses under certain circumstances. There's also the issue of the artist's interpretation of the subject, which a sitter might find objectionable (think a grotesque rendering or adding nudity or situational changes.) And some artists might fear that their "unique" methods could be exposed. So there are conceivably legit reasons for a contract, I suppose.

Just don't know what is moving this one, do you?

 

[PaintBoss]

Yeah, before signing anything, she needs to take this to a good lawyer. Who knows what this person wants to do with her likeness. Plus, the confidentiality means she won’t be able to talk about it. I don’t know. This day and age I’d be very worried. Signing something away without really knowing what this person is all about. she’s trying to build up her own following then giving away anything about her likeness. Might not be a good thing. Who knows what that person could do, but he could piggyback on her efforts. All for money that may or may not appear. If he was a known artist who does work that can legitimately be seen as his, and there’s a track record, maybe there would be more answers. But this is just too vague. Who knows what she’s putting her signature to.

 

[Enyaw]

I agree with Christine. The artist has all rights to do whatever. I would not touch it. Any artist can get models from colleges or university or reading the advertisements in local papers.

 

[PaintBoss]

Yes, it’s so vague. The only thing certain is if she signed it, she has signed away her rights, there is no certainty of anything else. I would caution her not to be enticed by being flattered to be approached or for money just talked about which often times does not materialize. All this person needs is a signature. That’s the easiest part.

 

[Hermes2020]

I suspect not actually written by a lawyer, as the similarity to common contracts I'm aware of is incomplete. In other words, sounds like an artist went to AI or online examples and cherrypicked clauses.

I'm not an attorney, however, and cannot render a legal opinion, just an observation from having worked with various forms of contracts over the years.

If it is legit, it's an attempt to make sure the artist isn't in court over a dispute of ownership of a "likeness". I've read that famous individuals can claim some ownership of their likenesses under certain circumstances. There's also the issue of the artist's interpretation of the subject, which a sitter might find objectionable (think a grotesque rendering or adding nudity or situational changes.) And some artists might fear that their "unique" methods could be exposed. So there are conceivably legit reasons for a contract, I suppose.

Just don't know what is moving this one, do you?

Thank you for that, I appreciate your input.

 

[Hermes2020]

Thank you, Christine and Wayne. I have the same feelings about it and will pass on your thoughts.

 

[TK H-H]

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents as well.

I'd be iffy about signing it too, not really knowing anything about the artist, or even the potential client for that matter. Not that it's always necessary to know about the client, but given the specific circumstance, the desire is to use her likeness to produce a work specifically for someone, and nothing is known about either. Feels a little strange...

They could easily find already-paid models, publicly-available photographs and modify them, etc. The fact she's specifically being approached, for an already determined client, with a vague reasoning is a little odd to me.

Makes me wonder if the client wanted a painting of her specifically, but that isn't being disclosed for whatever reason?

 

[Bartc]

Ya know, it has a sneaky resemblance to the contract in "50 Shades of Gray." Just a thought....