[ 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

[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)]

Because often artists do commissions to supplement their income. It'll mean less art, period. It'll mean they probably do other things. They won't be doing more original work. They'll be doing other things.

[(Anonymous)]

This, basically. One of my friends is an artist. She has her own original works, but the bulk of the money she makes comes from commissions, which are usually fanart. If she didn't do those commissions, she wouldn't have enough money to be able to work on her original art and she'd have to work more hours instead.

[(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)]

...Wow. Wow. So basically you're less pissed about them drawing fanart, you're pissed because it's not the content you want.

Okay, lmao, bye