It doesn't happen too often, but when it does, it sucks.

Basically what happens is: An artist accepts a request, spends time and effort into it and in the end it's all wasted because the request had been canceled.
Im not talking about requests beeing closed because someone else was faster or better, but rather about requests beeing closed for stupid reasons like "changed my mind" or "dont want/need it any more".

A new rule could help prevent those situations, something like a fee that has to be paid, a percentage of the actual payout or maybe something else...

Maybe not everyone can relate to this issue, but admit that this is completely unfair for the artists of the community.

I could see this being a thing, that's how it is with item auctions, if you win an auction and cancel out, you have to pay a certain percentage of what your bid was. Why not have it with art?

Honestly don't see this being a major issue—if I didn't want any of the art found in a request thread, it's obvious I found something better. It's frustrating, sure, but that's the marketplace.

@Kozmo: That rule is in play due to the nature of auctions—backing out of a bid after winning results in a fine. A potential art buyer shouldn't have to pay money to every artist who took up his request if he doesn't like the concept or the art itself.

I don't see this as an issue, in fact it just layers more power on the artist. It's a two way street and this is a one way rule.

I've had many artists pull out of sale and request. Yes, they are the artist, but I am still a customer who could easily feel even more shafted by lack of a consumer protection rule.

If your request was cancelled, and a customer doesn't want what you made so you wish to be somehow refunded, just sell the art on the art selling forum to someone other. That's your refund.

Considerate suggestion but I think I could see how this could be exploited. Requester makes a request. Artist takes it upon themselves to make the art. Posts wip. Requester seems happy with the wip. Price is predicted. Finished piece turns out to be not that great (Artists's intentions). Requester in turn, decides on not buying the art. Artists request the decided 'Cancellation Fee'. You see what I mean?

But there are more then 1 artist working on a request. Imo this would case more reports and issues then it would solve problems.
U just cant force someone to pay for something they dont like. And the artist can alwways sell the art on forum.

I'm of course not counting cancels with the reason of the lack of quality into the "stupid reasons". That's obviously not how it should be, but Hassan's right too, easily exploitable.

It the case of an artist, time is money, so while they work on the request they've taken up that gets cancelled, they could have been working on another request instead.
Obviously there'll have to be some time limits and a few exploits to find solutions to, but I think the concept itself is good.

It would require a slight rework of the request system though, at current any number of artists can start work on a request, and they dont have to tell the customer that they did, they can just present a finished product for sale. The suggestion wouldn't work with this kind of system, so a more formalized request system would have to be established.

Would a post requirement be enough for this?
Additional Rule: Artists taking on Requests have to make a post telling so, a request cannot be ended until all participating Artists finished their work.

Of course additionally a Time Limit because... who would want to wait months over months for 1 artist that "can't get his shit together".