![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
azrchr.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
artists_beware
[Resubmitted as a more general post per mod request; sorry for messing up the first time! Didn't know name mentions extended to usernames, I'm a derp.]
I need advice/help in figuring out why I'm so bothered by something.
A few months ago, an artist I used to watch had posted an adoptable for sale, based on the protagonist from the game Bloodborne. They did the same a while later with the Dark Souls 3 protagonist, citing 'inspiration'.
In the beginning, when the artist had only posted the first two designs based on the proganonists of these games, I was not bothered. They were recognizable, but it seemed permissible.
However, the artist has been posting more and more designs from the Souls game series, as they 'sell like hotcakes', and they have been creeping towards outright plagiarism [and as a professed fine arts major, should know better]. I could recognize all of the named characters immediately without even clicking on the submissions. They haven't bothered to change their original names in the submission descriptions or even fiddle with their outfits at all, save for removing their pants, really. The only major difference is that they're furries and not humans.
Is it morally acceptable for an artist in the furry community to sell adoptables that are no different from copyrighted characters, save for being furry versions of them? In fursuiting [an adjacent part of the fandom], for example, it's not considered okay to rip off someone's style, let alone entire characters, and suits based on existing copyrighted characters from pop culture are recognized as cosplays [as opposed to original/owned-by-suiter characters]. Designs that are similar to others within the fandom are met with much skepticism and scrutiny.
Is it okay to rip off of copyrighted characters from video games, etc., even though those characters were created by another artist and are owned by that artist and their company? This money clearly isn't going towards helping FromSoftware pay the artists that did the work to conceptualize these characters, so it bothers me a lot. Please help, AB! Is there anything that can be done? SHOULD anything be done? Or do these count as a form of 'design cosplay', if that is even a legitimate term for adoptables/art designs intended to be sold?
I need advice/help in figuring out why I'm so bothered by something.
A few months ago, an artist I used to watch had posted an adoptable for sale, based on the protagonist from the game Bloodborne. They did the same a while later with the Dark Souls 3 protagonist, citing 'inspiration'.
In the beginning, when the artist had only posted the first two designs based on the proganonists of these games, I was not bothered. They were recognizable, but it seemed permissible.
However, the artist has been posting more and more designs from the Souls game series, as they 'sell like hotcakes', and they have been creeping towards outright plagiarism [and as a professed fine arts major, should know better]. I could recognize all of the named characters immediately without even clicking on the submissions. They haven't bothered to change their original names in the submission descriptions or even fiddle with their outfits at all, save for removing their pants, really. The only major difference is that they're furries and not humans.
Is it morally acceptable for an artist in the furry community to sell adoptables that are no different from copyrighted characters, save for being furry versions of them? In fursuiting [an adjacent part of the fandom], for example, it's not considered okay to rip off someone's style, let alone entire characters, and suits based on existing copyrighted characters from pop culture are recognized as cosplays [as opposed to original/owned-by-suiter characters]. Designs that are similar to others within the fandom are met with much skepticism and scrutiny.
Is it okay to rip off of copyrighted characters from video games, etc., even though those characters were created by another artist and are owned by that artist and their company? This money clearly isn't going towards helping FromSoftware pay the artists that did the work to conceptualize these characters, so it bothers me a lot. Please help, AB! Is there anything that can be done? SHOULD anything be done? Or do these count as a form of 'design cosplay', if that is even a legitimate term for adoptables/art designs intended to be sold?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 12:35 am (UTC)I might be more morally liberal than others, but if people want to buy it, I don't see the harm in taking advantage. If people weren't buying, that artist wouldn't be making them.
mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:08 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:12 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:20 am (UTC)In any case, if you are so morally opposed to this artist's actions, then do not support them.
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:31 am (UTC)I have to find materials to back THIS up, but I believe that selling stuff like that at conventions is actually still super illegal, but companies will overlook stuff that promotes them more than harms them. I feel like artwork where the person isn't literally trying to sell off the character designs with the intention of someone using it as their original character [the base implication of an adoptable, it's not a normal piece of fanart in this case, such as a print or charm where everyone acknowledges that they don't own the characters depicted] is more permissible.
It just chafes at me that this is something that is allowed to happen and is permissible within the fandom, and I feel like there's some ridiculous double standards in there. People will often jump, with rabid gusto, into condemnding any characters that look like fandom-famous characters, but won't do it for non-fandom characters. It just interests me, y'know? Thanks for contributing to this discussion :>
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:38 am (UTC)The owners of characters that are cool with fanart, just like the companies that don't go after fans, have characters that aren't defended.
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:45 am (UTC)In this case I'd personally agree that it falls under parody, but the double standard does exist. Some folks treat company characters with the same weight and regard and someone's personal fursona.
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:58 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:44 am (UTC)I agree there are double standards. I stand on the minority side of this issue, but I believe characters that look like other characters shouldn't be as lambasted as they are (unless it's a deliberate rip-off. Oftentimes it doesn't seem like it was intentional, though). We could probably argue forever on why people do this, but I think that's a topic for a place other than Artists-Beware.
Re: Fanart isn't "characters"... Well legally, the whole concept of characters in the furry fandom is really flawed. We all "own" our characters and use them over and over again, and we expect that others won't use them. But legally this has no basis. Characters can't be copyrighted, they can only be trademarked. And there is no "poor man" version of a trademark (unlike with copyright). Further, trademarks are applicable only to services/goods. So someone who has actually trademarked their character can really only do so if they use it in some way that allows them to gain money (Assuming I've interpreted this correctly (https://www.legalzoom.com/knowledge/trademark/topic/registering-trademark-requirements)).
Very few, if any people actually trademark their characters in the furry fandom. They have no basis for it. But what we do hope to have is some mutual respect of eachothers "property" because if we didn't, a lot less people would be willing to contribute to the furry community as a whole.
But generally speaking, I'd wager that most people don't care when others "rip off" characters from licensed materials because big businesses are impersonal and get profit in other ways. Meanwhile, if you "rip off" someone who's in the fandom, it's a lot more personal because they're usually not a big business that makes loads of money, and oftentimes, their characters are facets of themselves instead of just something to put in art.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not saying your opinion or viewpoint is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But these opinions shouldn't directly illicit outrage.
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:48 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:49 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:50 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 02:08 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-25 11:41 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:54 am (UTC)Still, where do people typically draw the line? Does it differ for certain entities? This is as much a survey as it is an advice post and a discussion, so thanks again for sticking with it :3
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 02:07 am (UTC)Legally, these things are very well-defined, and are called torts. What is generally boils down to is "does it cause harm or loss." I commented elsewhere where I said that this situation (artist making fox versions of game characters) doesn't cause harm to the original creator. But in your example elsewhere in the comments, the artist ripping you off would cause harm.
A tort has specific requirements + if it causes harm or loss. If the thing that is happening doesn't clearly fall under all requirements, then it is legal. You can read more about torts here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort).
As far as things being socially acceptable, that is definitely different depending on the community. What might be acceptable to the majority on dA, for instance, might be completely rebuked by the community on FA. What is socially acceptable can also evolve over time. So the line for "community appropriate" can seem like a spaghetti noodle at times.
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 02:13 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 02:28 am (UTC)Yeah it was nice chatting with you too =)
Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:53 am (UTC)Re: mod comment
Date: 2016-09-15 01:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 12:51 am (UTC)Is it highly original? No.
Is it more original than 90% of adopts I see? by a long shot.
Should they at least change the names? Yes.
Are they getting lazy? probably.
Is it illegal? Pretty sure not in most of the world.
Is it moral? You're going to get the entire spectrum of opinions. Everyone has different morals.
Does it break the rules on any major website? None that I visit.
All that said, you are claiming two very different things here.
1. It's a furry, not a human
2. it's no different from the original.
Both 1 and 2 can not both be true. Either it's exactly the original character *or* or it's been changed to be a furry. Can't have both be true.
#1 is legal, be it called parody, fan art, cosplay or some other name.
#2 is not, at least not as an adoptable.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 01:23 am (UTC)I'm not Namco, so I can't do anything [and I doubt they would care], but I at least wanted to foster a discussion about this, y'know? So thanks for replying.
I would disagree with the idea that it's MORE original than most adoptables, as it's literally something that was already concieved by another artist, but with a single change [that it's a mostly blank furry underneath all those clothes]. It doesn't really help that they've been literally using the game name and original character names to market it :/ I feel that doing something like that crosses the line from fan-parody to something closer to theft.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 01:33 am (UTC)Maybe we just travel in different circles, but my experience doesn't line up with yours by a significant margin.
Rather clearly, neither do my morals in this.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 01:48 am (UTC)So it bothers me when people rip off of anything, because I ask myself, what if that's me and/or one of my clients in this position one day? Will the fandom think it's defensible to take a design, change one aspect of it, and call it 'parody' while using it purely for profit and juicing up the stolen aspect of it in order to make it sell faster and for more money? If someone was using my name/branding as a way to advertise content stolen from me, and making $150 a pop off it, I'd be right miffed.
Also, to define, I think using another artist's base for profit is wrong, ESPECIALLY if they offered it to the public for free. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right. Nobody should have to pay for a free base.
What stuns me is that this artist also does a lot of seemingly original work, in the same way that I do, so seeing them turn to this is a little strange and makes me worried that their other works are as referenced or unoriginal conceptually as that. I mean, people don't live in a vacuum, we draw inspiration from everything we do. However, it's not okay to basically copy and paste concepts you know you didn't come up with into something intended for sale that doesn't benefit the original artist, in my view. Unoriginal paraphrasing is considered plagiarism when writing papers, even though nobody can technically own words. Why isn't unoriginal 'paraphrasing' considered bad in art?
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 01:59 am (UTC)This is different from what's happening in your OP. You're an artist selling adoptables, and the other artist does the same thing. Them ripping you off directly hurts you. You'd be right to be miffed.
In your OP, the artist is making art based on the game. It's a different format (art vs game), the character is different (human vs furry), and is not claiming to be sold by the game manufacturer. It does not directly hurt the game/manufacturer.
"Also, to define, I think using another artist's base for profit is wrong, ESPECIALLY if they offered it to the public for free. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right. Nobody should have to pay for a free base."
In this case, the customer is paying for the idea of the character and/or the work to color it. They are not paying for the lineart. It's also worth mentioning that this is not wrong unless the lineart's original owner states reselling is against their terms.
When someone buys lineart, they're [usually] buying a royalty-free license to use the lineart in whatever they want. These are contracts that exist everywhere, not just inside the fandom. Plenty of real, legit companies pay a one-time fee for something (ex. stock photography) and then use it continually in things.
When you have lineart that's offered for at no cost at all, that is creative commons, which is sort of like copyright. You can re-sell derivatives as long as it's not strictly prohibited.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:02 am (UTC)In this, you are overriding many line artist's spesific wishes with your own. It is common for line artists to say their line art is fine for adoptables.
You are also thinking strangely, since it's not the base being paid for. It's the design, which the seller added.
As for paraphrasing ... different societies, different standards. Those who perfectly copy masterworks of literature are not held in esteem the way those who can perfectly copy masterworks of art. The first takes no skill. The second takes extreme skill.
The fact that to be a commercial artist often requires copying another artist's style also plays in. So to do well you have to be a skilled copier.
No such thing exists for writers.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:10 am (UTC)Another deleted comment will lead to a suspension.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:16 am (UTC)Something that is a base, is, by definition, free to use and comes with permission to do so.
Why do you assume that all lineart used is against the artist's wishes?
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:29 am (UTC)"this is free" = "never sell it"
Think about the real world for just a second with that equation.
I get what you mean now, but your phrasing does match up at all.
When something is free to use, it doesn't come with qualifiers by assumption. It's free to use.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:55 am (UTC)I own plenty of free bases I make money off of. They're free because I didn't pay for them. But the artists' rules specifically state they can be used to make a profit.
And people aren't paying me for the lines--they're paying me for 1) my time and effort spent coloring, and 2) for ownership and use of the specific design I've created.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 02:48 am (UTC)An example: I recently did a design for a very popular cartoon that parodied an image from ANOTHER very popular cartoon. But that doesn't change the fact that the artwork is mine, and that the execution of the idea was mine. Taking inspiration from something and using that inspiration to create your own interpretation of version of the subject you're drawing insp. from is perfectly fine from a moral perspective (imo) and from a legal perspective.
There's a reason why convention artist alleys don't get hammered with large copyright fees. GENERALLY (this is not including companies or creators who choose to more actively pursue their copyright), as long as you're not selling a.) exact copies of official art, or b.) anything with the trademarked logo on it, as long as the art is drawn in your style with your own creative ideas in it, that's perfectly acceptable. (there's an actual percentage by which art being sold has to differentiate from the original, but I forget the exact figure)
Anyway, I'm sharing this to try and give some perspective on the situation. Try to look back and think about this, objectively, and try to find out what is really is that has you so bothered by this artist's actions (since you even said yourself that you're not a fan of the artist anyway).
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 03:32 am (UTC)This is all my own personal opinion and I present it as nothing but that, but honestly nah. Because when you break it down, all that's really happening is this: the artist drew a furry version of a character, someone went "hey this is neat here's $XX", and then everyone involved all made a sort of agreement to not draw that particular furry again except for that one person who gave the artist money. Nothing was actually being sold. It's not like prints of fanart being sold at cons where a physical product is being exchanged for money, or commissions where skill and service are being traded for money (skill and service went into creating the adoptable, but it was entirely voluntary on the artist's part, and they may never receive money for the adoptable but it's still going to exist), or custom fursuits where both a physical product, and skill and service are being sold.
I think it's fine for you to get mad and heated up about this and you have a right to that opinion but also at the end of the day it's an opinion, just like everything I wrote is an opinion. Personally I think if it makes you uncomfortable you should just not buy it and leave it at that.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 04:10 pm (UTC)I have to disagree with this. I have met more artists who will refuse to let the commissioner post the artwork bought than with adoptables.
It may be limited distribution rights, but it's the same rights one usually gets when buying a commission.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-16 12:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-16 01:14 am (UTC)My point is that any definition you care to put on what is traded for money is as true for most adoptables as for most commissions -- no physical goods are traded, the same rights are granted and the 'skill and time' aspect is true for both.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-17 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-15 11:21 am (UTC)But it's not really 'wrong' or 'illegal'. Trust me when I say FromSoft has much bigger fish to fry or care about, and given that these are furry RE-interpretations I don't see much wrong with it. If anything this artist could be a big fan as well, and wants to share that while making profit from the work they create. (I am literally typing this while watching a RedGrave lore video lol, oh boy)
Either way, I don't really think it's a huge deal in the end. People who wish to donate money (As that's what this is, adoptions are not exactly a product you're paying to 'own' ) then I can't see anything wrong. I get up in arms about fanart being sold of things I love in a similar way but then have to remind myself "It's not always bad, It's not always illegal."