Shirt.Woot

Since it's my lunch time, and I'm one of the few people who still hang out here for discourse anymore, I'll go ahead and chime in.

I think Parody is fine, if done well (see Forbidden Future), and adds to the "artistic collective". What is easier, cheaper, and more lucrative (bang for the buck) is to copypasta someone else's character into a new "clever" situation.
Sales ensue.

Slydon wrote:Everybody knows there's legal, and then there's moral. If you make a D&D themed shirt... well, nobody really OWNS the idea of a dragon. But if you make a shirt with a plumber fighting turtles, some people will call it a rip-off. And yet, what makes that plumber more important than that dragon?

whether or not the characterization is recognizable as traceable to a specific, copyrighted antecedent. there are many ways to draw a plumber, just as there are many ways to draw a dragon. fat dude with no facial hair, wearing a black tee shirt and showing butt crack whilst working under a sink; that's a plumber, but not that similar to mario. the more features there are that make a specific character recognizable - such as clothing style, etc. - the more one might claim 'ripoff'.

all imho ymmv wtfbbq.

As above. I appreciate parody, but it has to be well done. The trend of calling random mashups or character cutification parody is disappointing.

Mavyn wrote:As above. I appreciate parody, but it has to be well done. The trend of calling random mashups or character cutification parody is disappointing.

This is a succinct statement I can agree with. I can see that for artists it can be an important part of an income stream. Shakespeare lifted and altered plots, often improving characters, but that's not what's happening now. Money is being made from other people's intellectual property. Calvin and Hobbes takes always cause me to shake my head because that shows absolutely no respect for the wishes of the creator.

Dragons cross cultures and many people pride themselves on developing "their" take on a dragon. It is rare to see an evolution or innovative development in the plumber-turtle department.

Yup, I appreciate a good parody too. It takes some thought and skill to think up a clever play on the work of someone else.

I know that feeling of: "Oh come on, another mario (etc..) parody? Think of your own ideas, guys!", but try to think of a decent parody yourself and you'll discover that it actually takes some brain-power and original thought .

lonelypond wrote:Dragons cross cultures and many people pride themselves on developing "their" take on a dragon. It is rare to see an evolution or innovative development in the plumber-turtle department.

And this is a succinct statement that I can agree with. I was going to post something along these very lines, but you said it much better than I could.

A better comparison would be a human to a dragon. A plumber is a human with a defining quality that has already taken a step towards character development and a pre-established identity. However, the dragon is completely undefined. Is it a burning down castle kind of dragon, a traveling luck dragon, a treasure guarding dragon, a big goofy dragon that flies around dropping big ol' dookies on people for pleasure, et cetera... who knows?!?

As for the main topic at hand, I think people have the right to draw whatever they want. However, art that uses other people's creations (or IP) should not have a price tag on it. Simple as that! Fan art should be an act of appreciation and love, and NOT a (often rude and degrading) way to earn a quick buck.

chumpmagic wrote:
As for the main topic at hand, I think people have the right to draw whatever they want. However, art that uses other people's creations (or IP) should not have a price tag on it. Simple as that! Fan art should be an act of appreciation and love, and NOT a (often rude and degrading) way to earn a quick buck.

QFT

chumpmagic wrote:A better comparison would be a human to a dragon. A plumber is a human with a defining quality that has already taken a step towards character development and a pre-established identity. However, the dragon is completely undefined. Is it a burning down castle kind of dragon, a traveling luck dragon, a treasure guarding dragon, a big goofy dragon that flies around dropping big ol' dookies on people for pleasure, et cetera... who knows?!?

As for the main topic at hand, I think people have the right to draw whatever they want. However, art that uses other people's creations (or IP) should not have a price tag on it. Simple as that! Fan art should be an act of appreciation and love, and NOT a (often rude and degrading) way to earn a quick buck.

Well put. I had some scattered thoughts that didn't quite knit together neatly and they clarify with chumpmagic's switch of plumber to human. And thanks cdrewlow : )

And I do always feel that the universe has lost a little bit of heart when an artist I enjoy starts turning out pop culture take offs rather than original designs.

chumpmagic wrote:As for the main topic at hand, I think people have the right to draw whatever they want. However, art that uses other people's creations (or IP) should not have a price tag on it. Simple as that! Fan art should be an act of appreciation and love, and NOT a (often rude and degrading) way to earn a quick buck.

I was going to follow up to say pretty much this same thing, but instead went out for drinks.
Anyway.
This.

I'm really mixed about artistic ownership. I think to be either black or white on the issue is a bit harmful to how art flows across the world. I know that sounds cheesy, but that's sort of how we as people change and our ideas move. Once we 'birth' something, be it an idea or product or philosophy, it goes into the world and travels to everyone. Everyone puts their interpretation on it and it changes, sometimes for the good, sometimes not. You cant put the tiny art chick back into the egg. (Unless you trademark the art chick. Then you can shove his little yellow butt wherever you want.)

In the case of art or characters, It's a really hard call to make, morally that is. For example, when I go to cons or look at art sites, I see tons of absolutely incredible art of commercial characters. Art of characters that I have no attachment to, but the creator has put such a beautiful or unique spin on it that I love it. I might love it enough that I want to own it for my wall or just to stare at in awe. If I want to purchase the work, it's probably not because of the character, but the execution of the image. I'm wanting to pay the artist for their craftsmanship or work, not really the character. The artist has made an image of something that I love enough to pay for. It makes me happy to see people take things that exist and make them into something more than they were. Do I think this artist is a cheat or criminal? Not at all. It's very natural for us, as people, to use existing ideas that inspire us.

Now, the flipside of that is when people have no inspiration to change something or make it neater or better. They just sort of copy things and reproduce things. For learning as a kid, we all do this, but we eventually outgrow it. Im not a big supporter of those who do nothing but copy or use existing ideas or characters without change. Its not hard to tell which 'fanarts' were made with soul and which weren't.

Lastly, there's much more minor ownership, like we all here might like to claim on our own work. Im also in a weird area on that aspect. While I would like to think we should all be able to claim our ideas or characters and lock them down indefinitely, that just isnt possible. Someone's going to interpret it or redo it at some point. Would I like that? I dont know. Maybe not, or maybe their redo of my work would be way better, and I would love it.

I dont really see the use of pop culture now and then, or other IP as morally reprehensible. Even ideas that come close to others' ideas, that happens sooooo often, it's impossible to stop it. Putting a stop to it means stifling new interpretations. Some of those new interpretations might refresh an idea or show it in a light you've never imagined. That is pretty cool to see

bassanimation wrote:I'm really mixed about artistic ownership.

SNIP

That is pretty cool to see

Nicely put! Elegant, even..... shoved yellow butt notwithstanding.

I am frequently in awe of the artistry, imagination, and work (blood, sweat, tears, and ink) that I see on this site, and in works of art in general, regardless of the subject matter. Art invokes an emotional reaction in us all, one way or the other, and it is that reaction, over which we have no control, that leads us to buy. At least, that's how it is for me.

I find plagiarism abhorrent, but we have ALL been inspired and influenced by someone else at some point in time. That is the fine line that is walked every day by those who create, whether it is a drawing, story, computer program, or whatchamacallit.

Resisting the temptation to cite specific examples from this derby. Wow. Bad.

I don't see any gray areas here really. There is an argument for fair use when you are making a point about something to do with their work, or even about something else that their work can shed light on. But even though there are legal allowances that allow use of copyrighted material in certain circumstance, imo, if a preponderance of your motivation, or even just a plurality of your motivation, is to make money off of the thing you're producing, then I don't think that ethically you ought to do so. even if it's legal. It's not as if there aren't lots of ideas that can be made into art without using someone else's work.

Josephus wrote:I don't see any gray areas here really.

if a preponderance of your motivation, or even just a plurality of your motivation, is to make money off of the thing you're producing, then I don't think that ethically you ought to do so.

There are always grey areas, especially when it comes to matters of things like ethics, which arent set in stone at all. They vary from person to person, which leaves a lot of room for opinion and interpretation. Just like some people eat meat and some dont because they feel it is wrong (for numerous reasons). Ethics arent laws, they're something we place on ourselves as a result of our -personal- beliefs.


If you choose not to support fan works, derivative ideas, or IP related things, that's totally understandable. But each person's view on it will differ. I happen to be very grateful for a lot of the IP work that I've purchased in the past. I also own commercial merchandise along with the fan made work, so nobody really lost out on any rewards (at least not from me). I feel that I can show appreciation for all kinds of media, original or derivative. It all requires effort and skill to make.

As for the money part, money's just how we trade as humans. If we still bartered on a goat system, I'd give people goats :D. Alas, goats take up way more room than dollars. They also poop and make noise. Bleh. Dollars FTW!

bassanimation wrote:There are always grey areas, especially when it comes to matters of things like ethics, which arent set in stone at all. They vary from person to person, which leaves a lot of room for opinion and interpretation. Just like some people eat meat and some dont because they feel it is wrong (for numerous reasons). Ethics arent laws, they're something we place on ourselves as a result of our -personal- beliefs.


If you choose not to support fan works, derivative ideas, or IP related things, that's totally understandable. But each person's view on it will differ. I happen to be very grateful for a lot of the IP work that I've purchased in the past. I also own commercial merchandise along with the fan made work, so nobody really lost out on any rewards (at least not from me). I feel that I can show appreciation for all kinds of media, original or derivative. It all requires effort and skill to make.

As for the money part, money's just how we trade as humans. If we still bartered on a goat system, I'd give people goats :D. Alas, goats take up way more room than dollars. They also poop and make noise. Bleh. Dollars FTW!

HEY! I didn't say anything about poop! dammit. missed opportunity.

I just don't think it's right for me (or you) to profit from some other artist's work. and by and large, a lot of these mashups do exactly that.

It just seems to me that in the case that "the creator has put such a beautiful or unique spin on it that I love it. I might love it enough that I want to own it for my wall or just to stare at in awe. "
it's a shame. It leaves me wondering what amazing thing they might have made had they put that effort into something original, something that belonged to them, rather than taking advantage of that really huge kickstart from the astonishing kazillions of dollars that Industrial Light and Magic (or whoever owns the pop culture icon you're buying) put into instilling the familiarity and love for those characters, or plot thickeners, that makes the art so much more popular.
But look, we disagree about this, that's all. I'm not mad about it. I just disagree.

I understand that you guys want to support artist. As an artist, I can appreciate that. However, an artist that does fan art for the right reason should not expect you to pay. The reward is doing what they love, with the things they love and sharing their interest and talents with other people. It's for pure pleasure and not work. People that do it for money are like the guys who buys a girl flowers and takes her out with the sole intent of "getting some" oppose to the guys who buys a girl flowers and takes her out simply because he loves or deeply cares about her and expects nothing in return. Both are good gestures that take time, effort and money, but the motives are completely different. One is right and one is wrong…

Seriously, if you love something, then why would you exploit it?

The only answers I can think of is that people love/need money, they don't truly love it but just use it because it's popular or current, and that everyone else is doing it which are all horrible excuses in my opinion. Also, there is always the possibility that people just don't know any better as it become more and more natural to use other peoples work these days.

Josephus wrote:
It just seems to me that in the case that "the creator has put such a beautiful or unique spin on it that I love it. I might love it enough that I want to own it for my wall or just to stare at in awe. "
it's a shame. It leaves me wondering what amazing thing they might have made had they put that effort into something original, something that belonged to them...

I like this statement. It took an innovator to create "the plumber." Who's going to create the next big thing if we are all just leeching directly off the past and doing nothing new

Re: personal ethics; I think it's perfectly fine to cheat on one's SO. I think it's perfectly OK to exploit girls with low self esteem for my personal enjoyment. I think it's perfectly OK to spout racist invective all over the Internet....none of these things are illegal. Personal ethics FTW.
Eta: Point being; ethics is societal to start with, going above societal expectations is acceptible personal ethics, going below isn't. This ties to a point I made in another thread, that the "Internet kids" view IP much differently than the generation(s) before them. Societal ethics change accordingly.

Re: legality of "borrowed" IP.
This is determined by the level of litigeousness displayed by the IP owner. Why don't you see as much Disney "parody" for sale as you do Nintendo or HBO or LucasFilm? Point being, it's as "illegal" as the likelihood of getting sued over it.

j5 wrote:

Re: legality of "borrowed" IP.
This is determined by the level of litigeousness displayed by the IP owner. Why don't you see as much Disney "parody" for sale as you do Nintendo or HBO or LucasFilm? Point being, it's as "illegal" as the likelihood of getting sued over it.

so the legality of your actions are directly proportionate to the percentage of how likely it is to get caught/punished? What are the percentages on caught murderers, or rapists? That would be a horrible way for anyone to judge their actions.

blanked wrote:so the legality of your actions are directly proportionate to the percentage of how likely it is to get caught/punished? What are the percentages on caught murderers, or rapists? That would be a horrible way for anyone to judge their actions.

I put quotes around "illegal" to highlight the absurdity of the notion that it isn't illegal if you don't get caught, which is how IP theft is treated. IOW, legal not in the eyes of the law, which a court would have to decide, but legal in the sense of "I didn't get a C&D, so it must be OK"

Eta: I'm not well versed in the intricacies of copyright law, but I don't think cops go around arresting people for potential infringement. It's up to the copyright holder to file charges/send a "lawyer letter".

j5 wrote:I put quotes around "illegal" to highlight the absurdity of the notion that it isn't illegal if you don't get caught, which is how IP theft is treated. IOW, legal not in the eyes of the law, which a court would have to decide, but legal in the sense of "I didn't get a C&D, so it must be OK"

Technically you put the quotes around borrowed and parody. And understood.

Though I likely should have used something like cheating on taxes as an example as another form of theft is more comparable than crimes of bodily harm. And the reasoning is similar. After all unless the audit would reveal enough skimming to pay the auditors salary what are the chances of it happening? And the gov would just lose the money in the ether, I could benefit so much from it...

blanked wrote:Technically you put the quotes around borrowed and parody.

Check my last sentence.

And understood.

OK.

Though I likely should have used something like cheating on taxes as an example as another form of theft is more comparable than crimes of bodily harm. And the reasoning is similar. After all unless the audit would reveal enough skimming to pay the auditors salary what are the chances of it happening? And the gov would just lose the money in the ether, I could benefit so much from it...

You can still use the bodily harm analogy. Is it murder if I kill someone in self defense and nobody finds out about it? Has to go to trial to find out.
Is it snuffleupagus if I have rough consensual sex? Depends on how consensual it really was.
Is it cheating on taxes if I do creative accounting? An audit will have to determine that.
Tangential path, lets reconverge; Was "cotton armor" or "dark knight" infringing? Not until someone said it was. Even then, it may have been perfectly legal, but Woot chose takedown over fight it, which is perfectly understandable.

I almost think the more texty designs are more likely to be infringing, though I am unsure how to explain. But basically if it says nabisco, it is nabisco. Maybe if I could tell fonts apart it would be different.

chumpmagic wrote:I understand that you guys want to support artist. As an artist, I can appreciate that. However, an artist that does fan art for the right reason should not expect you to pay. The reward is doing what they love, with the things they love and sharing their interest and talents with other people. It's for pure pleasure and not work. People that do it for money are like the guys who buys a girl flowers and takes her out with the sole intent of "getting some" oppose to the guys who buys a girl flowers and takes her out simply because he loves or deeply cares about her and expects nothing in return. Both are good gestures that take time, effort and money, but the motives are completely different. One is right and one is wrong…

Seriously, if you love something, then why would you exploit it?

The only answers I can think of is that people love/need money, they don't truly love it but just use it because it's popular or current, and that everyone else is doing it which are all horrible excuses in my opinion. Also, there is always the possibility that people just don't know any better as it become more and more natural to use other peoples work these days.

I guess Im pretty right to still be hated by the Adder crowd ^^;. I just can't be so black and white with this issue. If that makes me a terrible, unethical person, then I guess Im doomed. Dooooomed!

I really dont see why making something that has a familiar bent to it is 'exploiting', at least not right off the bat. (here's where shades of grey come in) If someone makes a fanart, and sells a limited number of 10 prints of it to fans who love a show or book, that's hardly 'exploiting'. That is very little profit for the artist, seriously. Now, if someone makes 5000 tshirts with a copyrighted character on it, that is exploiting. I dont see a need to throw the art baby out with the bathwater on this topic. Not everyone is making fan works for massive profits.

" Both are good gestures that take time, effort and money, but the motives are completely different. One is right and one is wrong…"

This is a very puritanical belief that goes against the very laws of nature. I'd like to honestly ask any functioning male (I myself being a functioning female) that if they take a woman out to dinner and buy her flowers, if there's no part of them that would like a little 'action'. Now, just like with art, there's varying degrees here. No male takes a woman out with _zero_ thought of return in some fashion. Is that wrong? I dont think so, really, but it depends on the degrees. It's -natural- for that expectation to be there, but I would like for it to not be the -sole- expectation. I certainly wouldnt expect a guy who's taking me out to expect zero in return, even if it's just a smooch ^_~. In the relation to art, I see no harm in giving someone a .50 cent profit for a fan work print. Sort of like a 'smooch' of appreciation .

If you truly think of all artists who sell fan works or derivative ideas as unethical, I guess you must see a loooooooooooooooooot of artists in a poor light (wow, a lot). Many of my art peers here make original art, and they make derivative works or references in their art, which they are selling for profit. It's not a huge profit, but profit nonetheless. I dont begrudge them that one bit. Im happy to see them use their cleverness in using the references in new lights. I would hope they continue to also make original works as well, and most of them do.

Tho let me tell you guys, if someone becomes a jillionair off their Star Wars reference tees, you better fly me to your moon ranch so I can frolic with your unicorns!!!

Ok I will leave now and continue to be cast outward into the darkness of lawless greed ~_~.

chumpmagic wrote:I like this statement. It took an innovator to create "the plumber." Who's going to create the next big thing if we are all just leeching directly off the past and doing nothing new

You do realize that most artwork is derivative of something else, right? What we like to term "innovation" is often just a creative spin on an existing idea. If you dig deeper into any "original" idea, you will almost certainly find an idea or other creator that influenced that idea, even if unintentionally. Take an art history class sometime, and you'll see how frequently art is influenced from previous sources.

I hear people refer to Steve Jobs as an innovator. Hell, Apple's entire business approach is to be thought of as "innovators", even though all they really do is take ideas that are already out there (often poorly executed) and either made them more accessible or efficient. Really, there's nothing wrong with that. Like the saying goes, "Innovation is just being able to conveniently forget where you got your ideas."

In the world you suggest, you'd ask us to throw away one of our greatest strengths as a species (to be able to improve upon other ideas) in lieu of some preposterous idea of "ethical creation". Cars forced to have square wheels or other more ridiculous means of locomotion simply because the round wheel had already been done? That's the end result of your suggestion that anything but completely reinventing the wheel every time is "leeching off the past".

I'm all for people trying to think outside the box with their ideas, but this notion that being inspired by somebody else's ideas is always bad isn't just short-sighted, it's actually detrimental to the creative process. This is totally not a black and white thing.

j5 wrote:Re: personal ethics; I think it's perfectly fine to cheat on one's SO. I think it's perfectly OK to exploit girls with low self esteem for my personal enjoyment. I think it's perfectly OK to spout racist invective all over the Internet....none of these things are illegal. Personal ethics FTW.

I think we're confusing ethics with morals, here. That's probably my fault. Ethics are more societal, and morals are more personal.

Also thanks for taking this discussion to a new low, J5. It's too bad you can't be a bit more adult on the matter. Instead you've chosen pretty extreme and vulgar behaviors to make your 'argument' stand more valid. If you choose to think in terms of extremes, then you miss a lot in the middle.

Also those extreme behaviors have nothing to do with the topic we're talking about. Applause! You're using a typical strawman argument here. (I mean the real strawman argument, not the kind people try to cite here regularly)

Stercrazy wrote:You do realize that most artwork is derivative of something else, right? What we like to term "innovation" is often just a creative spin on an existing idea. If you dig deeper into any "original" idea, you will almost certainly find an idea or other creator that influenced that idea, even if unintentionally. Take an art history class sometime, and you'll see how frequently art is influenced from previous sources.

I hear people refer to Steve Jobs as an innovator. Hell, Apple's entire business approach is to be thought of as "innovators", even though all they really do is take ideas that are already out there (often poorly executed) and either made them more accessible or efficient. Really, there's nothing wrong with that. Like the saying goes, "Innovation is just being able to conveniently forget where you got your ideas."

In the world you suggest, you'd ask us to throw away one of our greatest strengths as a species (to be able to improve upon other ideas) in lieu of some preposterous idea of "ethical creation". Cars forced to have square wheels or other more ridiculous means of locomotion simply because the round wheel had already been done? That's the end result of your suggestion that anything but completely reinventing the wheel every time is "leeching off the past".

I'm all for people trying to think outside the box with their ideas, but this notion that being inspired by somebody else's ideas is always bad isn't just short-sighted, it's actually detrimental to the creative process. This is totally not a black and white thing.

"derivative of" previous styles of art or design is a long way from 'directly combining features from popular movies, comics, tv shows, art works, or characters from such' in order to make a profit without paying the legitimate owners of those projects. Oh, and the patent, trademark, and or copyright on the wheel has long since expired. ;^)

bassanimation wrote:I guess Im pretty right to still be hated by the Adder crowd ^^;. I just can't be so black and white with this issue. If that makes me a terrible, unethical person, then I guess Im doomed. Dooooomed!

I really dont see why making something that has a familiar bent to it is 'exploiting', at least not right off the bat. (here's where shades of grey come in) If someone makes a fanart, and sells a limited number of 10 prints of it to fans who love a show or book, that's hardly 'exploiting'. That is very little profit for the artist, seriously. Now, if someone makes 5000 tshirts with a copyrighted character on it, that is exploiting. I dont see a need to throw the art baby out with the bathwater on this topic. Not everyone is making fan works for massive profits.

" Both are good gestures that take time, effort and money, but the motives are completely different. One is right and one is wrong…"

This is a very puritanical belief that goes against the very laws of nature. I'd like to honestly ask any functioning male (I myself being a functioning female) that if they take a woman out to dinner and buy her flowers, if there's no part of them that would like a little 'action'. Now, just like with art, there's varying degrees here. No male takes a woman out with _zero_ thought of return in some fashion. Is that wrong? I dont think so, really, but it depends on the degrees. It's -natural- for that expectation to be there, but I would like for it to not be the -sole- expectation. I certainly wouldnt expect a guy who's taking me out to expect zero in return, even if it's just a smooch ^_~. In the relation to art, I see no harm in giving someone a .50 cent profit for a fan work print. Sort of like a 'smooch' of appreciation .

If you truly think of all artists who sell fan works or derivative ideas as unethical, I guess you must see a loooooooooooooooooot of artists in a poor light (wow, a lot). Many of my art peers here make original art, and they make derivative works or references in their art, which they are selling for profit. It's not a huge profit, but profit nonetheless. I dont begrudge them that one bit. Im happy to see them use their cleverness in using the references in new lights. I would hope they continue to also make original works as well, and most of them do.

Tho let me tell you guys, if someone becomes a jillionair off their Star Wars reference tees, you better fly me to your moon ranch so I can frolic with your unicorns!!!

Ok I will leave now and continue to be cast outward into the darkness of lawless greed ~_~.

Your perspective on men bothers me a lot. also on the OKness of taking profit from others' artwork, but I think we've agreed to disagree about that.
...but about this dating thing. I can safely say that I have NEVER gone out on a date, bought dinner and movie tickets, or gone to a club, or whatever, and had ANY expectation that I was going to be repaid 'in kind' for my payments. My expectation/ hope has without fail been that my date would enjoy her evening with me. If I had a secret wish within a date, it would have been that my date enjoyed her evening enough that she would like going out with me again. But that's just me, a fairly typical guy IMO.

Stercrazy wrote:

In the world you suggest, you'd ask us to throw away one of our greatest strengths as a species (to be able to improve upon other ideas) in lieu of some preposterous idea of "ethical creation". Cars forced to have square wheels or other more ridiculous means of locomotion simply because the round wheel had already been done? That's the end result of your suggestion that anything but completely reinventing the wheel every time is "leeching off the past".

I did not suggest that at all....

I'm all for improving what's already out there. I'm all for being inspired and motivate by my surroundings (I couldn't fight that if I tried). You just happened to missed key word here, "directly." Who would take the step to making a car if everyone was too busy making different wheels (this one has polka dots!) and completely content...

I want people to move forward instead of jogging in place, so I'm not sure what your issue is here because it sounds like we agree.

bassanimation wrote:I guess Im pretty right to still be hated by the Adder crowd ...

If you truly think of all artists who sell fan works or derivative ideas as unethical, I guess you must see a loooooooooooooooooot of artists in a poor light (wow, a lot). Many of my art peers here make original art, and they make derivative works or references in their art, which they are selling for profit. It's not a huge profit, but profit nonetheless. I dont begrudge them that one bit. Im happy to see them use their cleverness in using the references in new lights. I would hope they continue to also make original works as well, and most of them do.

I don't hate you (and I have no connection to adder other than a few common views). Just because we have different view doesn't upset me the slightest. People vary and that is a good thing. Again, no hatred at all towards ya, Bass!

And I won't lie, I do see a lot of artist in poor light. It's not because I think I am better than them or anything Iame and cocky like that. It simply because, I respect Artists and other peoples creations. They are our elders. They have inspired us, entertained us, motivated us, raised us, and so much more. After all that, to turn around and just and take from them, without permission, is just wrong. I'm sorry that my love and respect for Shigeru Miyamoto outweighs any fan-artist that thinks they can use mario to make a quick buck or two anytime they wish.

I am not here to be mean. I am here out of respect for the ones who have raised me as an artist and continue to inspire me with their imagination and creations. I respect artists enough to speak up. In my mind, by not supporting fan art, I am respecting the true creator.

I won't lie, even I have made a few references myself (in very small doses), none of which I have sold (except one so far since it mocked fan art), and I lose a little respect for myself even. There is no green light for me at this point.

___

Also, minor tangent since I mentioned small doses, fan art wasn't so bad in small doses or when it was more subtle ( a few years ago), but now that everyone and their moms is doing it, it's a problem. There are now artist out there that basically build their whole portfolio off others people's creation with intent to sale simply because its a standard now. Not cool

___

Anyhoo, It's all about giving credit where credit is due in my opinion.

This discussion has taken a turn that makes me very uncomfortable... to go back to art for a moment:

To the best of my understanding, there's a different between fair-use and parody-exception between copyright and trademark. For example, it took me about five minutes to find the trademark for The Dark Knight as related to clothing for men, women, and children [registration 3680538, serial 77329791 if anyone is curious] and another 30 seconds to establish that DC/Warner has filed multiple "Notice of Suit Incoming" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (i.e., notifying the USPTO that a lawsuit will be filed in some jurisdiction regarding a violation of trademark); however, those notices are batch-published and I'm not sufficiently motivated to poke through them to see if I can find a notice of a Warner suit against woot. I suspect, however, that the issue with The Dark Knight was likely trademark-related rather than copyright-related.

The distinction between trademark and copyright is important in terms of fair use, and I hope that artists understand the difference. There's some wiggle room with the latter and very little, if any, wiggle room with the former.

bassanimation wrote:I think we're confusing ethics with morals, here. That's probably my fault. Ethics are more societal, and morals are more personal.

Also thanks for taking this discussion to a new low, J5. It's too bad you can't be a bit more adult on the matter. Instead you've chosen pretty extreme and vulgar behaviors to make your 'argument' stand more valid. If you choose to think in terms of extremes, then you miss a lot in the middle.

Also those extreme behaviors have nothing to do with the topic we're talking about. Applause! You're using a typical strawman argument here. (I mean the real strawman argument, not the kind people try to cite here regularly)

I disagree.
The notion of moral relativism was put forth to defend a position on Art and borrowed IP, with the example of vegetarianism as defense. I merely took that and expanded on it, admittedly with some hyperbole, but nothing I would consider extreme, relatively speaking. Even within the context of my examples, shades of gray (but maybe not 50) are in evidence.
A:
Leonard v Priya
Bill Clinton
Arnold Schwarzenegger

B:
"neg hits"
"PUA" community
Tucker Max

C:
"Asians in the library"
Golliwog Dolls on Etsy (hey look! We're back to art.)

Also, I am not a Minion of Adder. While he did have lofty ideals and some good ideas, I found his attitude reprehensible. I don't hate you either, nor do I have issues with your work. I own a few of your prints, including the much maligned "Cheese", which I still think is an excellent Portal riff.

Finally, thank you for coming on here and defending your position in the face of not a small amount of opposing opinion.

goldenthorn wrote:Woah. Woah woah woah woah. Holy Woah of Woahs. Megaton Joey Lawrence WoahNuke Incoming. This attitude? The seeming prevalence of this attitude? This is why I always pay my own way and run quickly and safely away at the merest whiff of date entitlement. And also--on-topic extrapolation!--feel incredibly uncomfortable supporting/purchasing very obvious remashy-rehashy popcult art product. Otherwise, to me, it's kind of really... dirty. Tawdry, even. I mean, I get that it's just a matter of cultural differences and it isn't inherently wrong because Moral Relativism. But, still, as a lady who has to live in this world, it hurts a little to see that.

i totally see where you're coming from here, but i don't think bass was off base. i think it's just that "expect" was a poor choice of word on her part. if i'm on a date (that is going well) i would want my date to HOPE for something, regardless of who is paying for things. if he's actually EXPECTing some kind of "repayment" for his money spent, isn't that basically prostitution?

as far as IP stuff goes, i do enjoy a good riff, as long as it's clever and thoughtful, but 'shoehorned' crap for the sake of profit is one of the more annoying things i see in the derbies. i will admit to being the kind of person who is bothered by it mostly because it often keeps what i really liked from printing.

nevermind.

Banksy.

Hanksy.

Look up their artists' statements.

I rest my case.

Moueska wrote:Banksy.

Hanksy.

Look up their artists' statements.

I rest my case.

Can't find. Please link.

j5 wrote:Can't find. Please link.

This