[ SECRET POST #3422 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3422 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #489.
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

[ninety6tears]

Wealthy copyright owners going after the little guy vs. fandom people having their unrealistic expectations of intellectual courtesy is kinda...apples and oranges. It would be different if I believed most of the business that protects mainstream intellectual property actually acted mostly out of concern for, you know, the actual person who came up with that idea, and I'm not sure they do.

[(Anonymous)]

What exactly do you mean? Fanart, depending on the situation, is still protected by copyright depending on what's going on. Even more so when parody occurs. So when you say "unrealistic expectation" are you talking about fandom getting angry when their hard worked fanart is stolen or people making a massive profit off a character they didn't create but get upitty when someone reposts that work?

Yeah the whole "don't steal my art, but at the same time I can make prints of a character that isn't mine" mentality is controversial, but it doesn't mean that "oh, this character isn't yours! So that means I can just steal your art, re-print it, or make money off of selling your fanfics!" If anything, it can be argued that fanproducts are add-ons to creative works, like how some people can "steal" music videos and alter them in the name of art.

[ninety6tears]

I thought OP was referring to people taking cues from other people's general ideas/concepts in fanart, with no open acknowledgment of where they got the idea, not straight-up stealing. I can't think of a specific example but certain ideas can practically become memes in art with no one really knowing who came up with it first, which is unfortunate and doesn't preserve the "courtesy over hard rules" attitude that applies to a lot of positive fandom activity but is kinda what you expect from such a viral atmosphere. And that's an issue of creative pride, which I'm just saying feels so separate from the issue of complaining about the consequences of breaking a sometimes tenuously justified law that even if I see both sides of the argument I'm just not sure HYPOCRISY is really the point.