[ SECRET POST #2651 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2651 ⌋

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, 051 secrets from Secret Submission Post #379.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 2 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

All the artists I know use copier paper and cheap colored pencils for their art, so why would any artist need more than that?

(The above isn't true, but see how ridiculous that sounds when you apply your argument to art instead of just writing?)

[(Anonymous)]

no, you're the one who sounds ridiculous here.

show me a person who uses something fancier than a basic word processing program for their writing. go ahead, i'm waiting. hell, i know plenty of people who still handwrite their stuff in notebooks and type it up later.

you're so desperate to make yourself a martyr that you're just coming off as stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but yours sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Because it's some serious false equivalency. It would be like saying that artists have to spend as much as musicians to practice their craft on a sellable level. Both are creating something, sure, but to create something of a quality that you can generally sell to the public, you have to invest in your materials, and one of them (in this case, music) has way more expensive materials and set-up fees.

All the examples of things you spend as a writer you gave--paper, printing cost, research materials (dude, unless you are researching some seriously obscure stuff that 100% NEEDS to be right, you can literally get all of your research for free on the internet. Meanwhile, artists often need photo books, models, etc), a computer, internet access--the artist needs those too. PLUS the cost of materials, because at the end of the day the crappy thing you drew on copy paper and colored with crayola markers isn't going to sell unless you can pull some kind of Post Modern Art BS-ing shenanigans. OR, if you edit it on the computer. With a tablet, usually, and a program that is way more expensive than any word processing program. And again, you can be smarmy about "well, none of the artist I know need____ is as silly as saying none of the writers I know need any word processing program except the free stuff" except that that is bull, because even the pro-writers use basic word-processing programs, or free (or extremely cheap) writing tools available online. Because the quality of how your words look doesn't matter the way that the quality of how your art looks matters.


Honestly, I don't buy the argument anyway. I think it boils down to "the risk/reward for going after fanart versus going after fanfic is not equal to the original creators" and "fanfic has caused creators legal trouble in the past, and now everyone's gunshy" than "art is more expense!" (Art is FREAKING expensive, though.)

I just think it's stupid as balls to play the "well, if I replace your words with the words of the opposite situation it proves you wrong, because clearly these two things are completely the same." in a situation where...no, they are not the same.