Getting started

Are you a repackager

On this page11

Start from the definition Decanting is the clearest case Mixing is a harder case and a bigger one Neither is a way out Relying on the original review is the real question The label names you, not them And the duty to update follows you Selling at a convention is still selling Giving it away is a different question Which is why this page exists at all References

If you put somebody else's paint in your bottle under your name, the statute has a word for you.

Start from the definition

Marketed or represented by the producer or repackager as suitable for use in making art. If you are marketing it and you are not the producer, the remaining word is the one that applies to you.

Decanting is the clearest case

Buying a litre of paint or primer and selling it in 15 or 30 mL bottles under your own label is repackaging in the ordinary sense of the word and in the statutory one.

Mixing is a harder case and a bigger one

A wash you blend from a paint, a medium and water is arguably a new formulation rather than a repackaging, which does not get you out of the definition. It puts you closer to producer than to repackager.

Neither is a way out

Both words are in the definition and both carry the same label contents. The distinction matters for whose toxicological review you can rely on, not for whether a review is needed.

Relying on the original review is the real question

A producer's determination is about their formulation in their container. How far it carries to your decant of it is a question for the toxicologist who did it, and it is worth asking in writing.

The label names you, not them

Subsection (b)(5) requires "the name and address of the producer or repackager of the art materials and an appropriate telephone number". That is your name and your telephone number on the bottle you sold.

And the duty to update follows you

(b)(6) requires new hazard information to be "incorporated into the labels of such art materials that are manufactured after 12 months from the date of discovery". A repackager who stopped paying attention after the first print run has a live obligation.

Selling at a convention is still selling

The statute turns on marketing a substance, not on the size of the operation or the channel. A table at a games convention and a web shop are the same act.

Giving it away is a different question

Marketed or represented is the hinge, and a free sample handed out to promote a product is closer to marketing than most people assume. Worth thinking about before a convention goody bag.

Which is why this page exists at all

Nobody in this hobby thinks of themselves as an art materials manufacturer. The statute does not ask what you think of yourself, it asks what you market and under whose name.

References

15 U.S.C. 1277, the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act. Subsection (a) makes the labeling requirements of ASTM D-4236 "deemed to be a regulation issued by the Commission under section 1262(b) of this title". (b)(1) defines an art material as "Any substance marketed or represented by the producer or repackager as suitable for use in any phase of the creation of any work of visual or graphic art of any medium", excluding economic poisons under FIFRA and drugs, devices or cosmetics under the FFDCA. (b)(2) "applies to art materials intended for users of any age". (b)(5) requires the label of an art material needing chronic hazard labeling to carry "the name and address of the producer or repackager of the art materials and an appropriate telephone number and a statement signifying that such art materials are inappropriate for use by children". (b)(6) requires new hazard information to be "incorporated into the labels of such art materials that are manufactured after 12 months from the date of discovery". law.cornell.edu

Written from 15 U.S.C. 1277, 16 CFR 1500.14(b)(8) and 16 CFR 1500.3(c)(6), and from the catalog as it stood on 18 October 2026. Where a requirement turns on a determination the Commission makes rather than on a fixed rule, this property says so. Nothing here is a toxicological review, which is the one thing in this area that cannot be done from a document.