[ SECRET POST #2902 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2902 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #415.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If this was about original art, I would agree, though if someone thinks it's too expensive it could be because they think it isn't worth as much money as the artist is asking.

But fanart? That people sell it is already a big DNW for me, but specially expensive ones (that make obvious that the artist is just using fandom/other's people creations for profit) are the reason I HATE fanart commissions.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel the same way. Charge as much for your original work as you want. And I could even understand making fan art to, say, donate the proceeds to charity or even for a little bit of extra money on the side.

But when you're pushing over $100 per piece and using someone else's intellectual property, I say fuck right off your high horse.

[dreemyweird]

I really cannot understand why this mindset is so common. Okay, I get it when we are talking live TV, maybe, and photorealistic fanart, but the rest of it? Characters from books?? Characters from audio podcasts??? How is it any different from certain kinds of original art? Do people not realize that the majority of "original" artworks have bits of other people's ideas in them?

It's as if taking someone else's character makes drawing them any easier, or the artistic techniques used in the drawing any less original. Seriously, it's beyond me.

[(Anonymous)]

For me the thing is this: characters (even from non-visual media) that can be recognized are easier to sell than original characters.

It feels to much like "using other people hard earned fame" for money and I hate that kind of opportunistic approach.

But if they draw fanart (either because they enjoy or just to make a name for themselves) and then take commission for non-fanart stuff, I don't mind at all.

[dreemyweird]

But people have been using other people's ideas to make their art more marketable since forever. As long as it doesn't harm the creators' welfare (which it does not - if anything, these fanartists support the original creators), I don't see how there's anything wrong with it. The "it's using other people's hard earned fame" attitude feels like unreasonable possessiveness rather than reasonable defense of the creators of the original product.

Also, logically, your reasoning should also apply to things that are in public domain (e.g. the original Sherlock Holmes), because there's no moral difference between using them and using modern media, and this just strikes me as silly.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree.

Go to any art gallery or museum and a huge amount of the artwork will be based off someone else's ideas. Characters from religion and legend used to be popular to base your artwork off. Now it's commercial stuff like Warhol's soup cans.

Copyright was originally invented to prevent direct reproduction of artworks. It was never intended to prevent reinterpretation of existing characters.

[(Anonymous)]

General idea =/= exact same characters, though.

And although IA with you that as long as it isn't detrimental for the author it should be ok... when money is mixed, can you really say the creator isn't losing anything?

Anyone who wants to use someone else's creation (that isn't in public domain*) usually gets permission of the author and pays them for the rights to do so, since they're using someone else's well known creation for money and a big part of the reason they are selling anything is thanks to the original creation being well known.

And if they support the original creator? That's great, but they aren't they only one and they aren't entitled to use the original fame for they own sake.

*And I think it takes far to much time for anything to be in public domain, since intellectual property rights should protect the author instead of being a toll to "keep" someone else's ideas for as long as possible (like Disney tries to)

[(Anonymous)]

Then get used to not seeing as much fanart, because artists aren't gonna waste their time on doing something for free when they largely need money on an individual basis. They have to pay the bills.

But, hey, I guess they should starve a bit more for your pleasure.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, if they don't want to create fanart but sell their original stuff, that's great. I'm not asking anyone to create anything for me for free.

and everyone needs to pay bills and people still "waste" their time doing stuff they don't get paid because they like it/some other reason, so your point is...?

[(Anonymous)]

Not a problem. I'm a-okay with seeing fewer weirdly androgynous renditions of copyrighted characters making out in exchange for the "artists" to start making their money on their own merits instead of freeloading off of other people's original ideas.

[(Anonymous)]

Fanart takes the same amount of objective effort on the part of the artist as original art. Why shouldn't they charge for the time, effort and materials spent on it?

[(Anonymous)]

It's not about effort. Just... here, I'll just quote myself:
"For me the thing is this: characters that can be recognized are easier to sell than original characters.

It feels to much like "using other people hard earned fame" for money and I hate that kind of opportunistic approach."

DA

[(Anonymous)]

Which would make sense if fanart appeared out of nowhere and didn't take time. If time were infinite, you'd have an argument. But no, you're literally paying for them to take time out of their day to do something when they could be doing something else--like a game they enjoy, drawing fanart for themselves, etc.

You wouldn't complain that a woodcarver is being opportunistic by using common designs, and you'd pay their fees happily. Art is treated differently because people act like it doesn't take much time at all.

you're why clientsfromhell exists.

[(Anonymous)]

you're paying for their time and materials used, not just the finished product, dumbass.

Sorry people aren't giving you free shit.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, no.
They don't sell the (percentage of) materials used, they sell the product and I'm not asking anything free, so try again.

[(Anonymous)]

If you went to a woodcarver, you'd be paying for their time + materials used, not just the final product. Time + Materials is how they get the price.

If you commissioned someone to make you a prop for cosplay, you'd be paying for the materials and the time it takes to make that item.

Why is it different when going to an artist?

[(Anonymous)]

Look, no one sells something for less than the price of materials and labor. But people don't buy time, materials and expertise, but the result of those things.

The problem with fanarts is that part of the product is not from any of that, but is the intellectual creation of someone else and in fact, they depend on that to be able sell, since selling their own intellectual property is not that easy and they know their potential customer wants *insert famous character* not an unknown one.

Using that for profit is something that morally sketchy and not legal (with some very few exceptions) even if few bother suing in such cases.

(I'm not going to answer anything else after this; I get people think intellectual property rights shouldn't be respected even if money is involved because fanartist are so ~special~ and so they're entitled to whatever they want.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, whatever, freeloader. They pay for the materials used. They pay for the time that goes into it. Otherwise, I'd just hand you the paints and you could do it yourself.

[(Anonymous)]

They're not asking for free art, jeez.

[(Anonymous)]

Close down museums.

They're full of art of religious figures--how dare they make money on the success of something else.

Destroy every book featuring Roman and Greek and Norse and etc. gods. It's copyright and not an original idea.

[(Anonymous)]

na

a lot of that art is made by people who died long, long ago and probably had little concept of intellectual property and certainly no copy rights and the art from living people is used with permission. it's not really a good comparison

[(Anonymous)]

Their problem with fanart is that they see it as people riding the coattails of someone else's success.

A good degree of famous art of religious figures, of even present-day writing with deities, is riding on the coattails of the success of that religion (see: angels and demons from Christianity, Greek gods, etc) by that same argument.

I'm showing them how ridiculous their argument is.

[(Anonymous)]

So, what specific person's intellectual property rights are being violated by the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? You need to provide actual names of injured parties here, because otherwise you're only making a fool of yourself. That's not even an apples to oranges comparison. More like apples to socks.

[(Anonymous)]

...You realize the Sistine Chapel was... Forcibly commissioned, right? Michelangelo was PAID for that.

[(Anonymous)]

Except no one was getting famous off their originally created Old Testament character. God doesn't get royalty checks.

Because the language of religion and arts during these times meant something vastly different than seeing two anime boys fucking.