fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2621 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2621 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Hard Candy]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Luther]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILERS for Teen Wolf]

__________________________________________________

14. [WARNING for incest]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #374.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Okay, I was looking through old secrets and saw the fawnlock one. And it turns out that the whole kind of idea of fawnlock was kind of made up by one tumblr user/artist. Anybody else who uses it has to credit back to them. It's kind of explained here: http://fawnlock.tumblr.com/contributing Isn't it kind of weird that one person on tumblr had claimed an entire idea? It'd be like owning a meme or a trope. And the origins are fandom-y in the first place, it's not like Sherlock is their own creation. IDK, they seem really nice and 'give creative license to everyone' but it seems kind of weird that they have the right to do that in the first place. Not referencing them seems like it would be kind of a dick move though.

Speaking as someone that's had an AU idea "appropriated" by a more popular artist (to be fair, she didn't intend it, she drew it because she liked the idea) and thus having all subsequent references to the idea traced back to her and how wonderfully creative she was for coming up with it...I kind of get it. It'd be nice if I would get a little bit of credit for the whole thing.

Seems kind of sketchy to me.

"Quicksilver eyes studied the vast expanse of white snow that blanketed the forest before them, eyebrows above the expressive gaze twisted into an expression of barely repressed exasperation."

What is that sentence I don't even.

Sounds like BS to me. Referencing them is a nice gesture, but only a pretentious twit claims ownership of an idea.

Honestly it all reminds me of the old zoognosis world building in the FMA fandom. Right down to fawns. Which had a starting base of 5 or so ppl and expanded to a few hundred but there wasn't any mandatory idea crediting.

Kinda miss zoognosis actually.

Edited 2014-03-08 06:36 (UTC)

[ SECRET POST #2621 ]

Fawnlock

Re: Fawnlock

Re: Fawnlock

Re: Fawnlock

Re: Fawnlock

Re: Fawnlock

Re: Fawnlock