|
This is a legit fascinating study in the psychology of fandom, though. Like, surely even if the art was used only out of laziness and ignorance (which I agree with Satans is almost certainly the case), it wouldn't matter if they didn't ask permission or give explicit credit. You're already a fan of the thing, you've already put work into this thing with the full knowledge that your world is saturated with this sort of thing, that you are functionally anonymous (fan artists are very often pseudonymous anyway), that nothing you do actually matters in any respect except to perpetuate the fandom. Then your fan art actually somehow breaks through the crowd of millions of others like you into not just being acknowledged by the creators of that which you are a fan of, but literally content and canon of the thing you are a fan of. But the fan artist and members of the fandom are actually offended, feel unappreciated, suddenly developing this socio-economic consciousness of one person's work being exploited, whereas previously everyone was okay with their work being absolutely worthless, just greasing the gears of consumption with no reciprocation. The only logical extrapolation is that fans do not actually like the things they are a fan of. They just have an uncritical devotion to consumption.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
I think they should physically steal the money and property of fan artists to reduce them to destitution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
The bg artist that decided to cut down on their workload by using fanart is probably in a bunch of trouble right now.
Ccs fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
reminds me of this https://twitter.com/PPDPPL_art/status/1021915806689583104 https://twitter.com/PPDPPL_art/status/1021916284752154624 https://twitter.com/PPDPPL_art/status/1021916787095625728 https://twitter.com/PPDPPL_art/status/1021917647313805313 https://twitter.com/PPDPPL_art/status/1021918431375974400
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
I remember an artist my friend follows on Facebook was complaining that Hot Topic stole his Harley Quinn design for a white/pink Valentine's Day Funko Pop variant and it was so dumb. That's like the most obvious thing. They most definitely thought of the idea independently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:This is a legit fascinating study in the psychology of fandom, though. Like, surely even if the art was used only out of laziness and ignorance (which I agree with Satans is almost certainly the case), it wouldn't matter if they didn't ask permission or give explicit credit. You're already a fan of the thing, you've already put work into this thing with the full knowledge that your world is saturated with this sort of thing, that you are functionally anonymous (fan artists are very often pseudonymous anyway), that nothing you do actually matters in any respect except to perpetuate the fandom. doing fanart for popular fandoms and such is a good way for artists to get noticed and land commissions and other work. some people do fan work to meet people with similar interests and feel like part of a community. i guess people don't like billion dollar studios swiping the work of individuals for a profit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
It's funny that people are only viewing ownership of intellectual property as something powerful companies have. If a big company created fanart of a small creator's work and displayed/promoted/sold it the way fanartists do to properties belonging to large institutions then I get the impression people would not feel the same way. Right now, big institutions are largely hugely permissive towards artists violating IPs. Give them an inch, I guess!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
LoseHound posted:doing fanart for popular fandoms and such is a good way for artists to get noticed and land commissions and other work. some people do fan work to meet people with similar interests and feel like part of a community. To get noticed by who? People who look at fan art? People who want to commission like works? The venn crossover between pop culture fandom and the extent to which this can practically advance an artist's career is a sliver compared to the overarching reality that most of these folks can not make a career out of this. And to the extent that some of them can make some cash doing it, they are often being commissioned more-or-less under the table for, as pick needs to routinely point out, make kitschy bullshit for someone's apartment using IPs that the artist has no rights over. Fan art is already an incredibly insular culture with virtually no overlap to a graphic design, character art or animation career. Both markets are already saturated with modestly competent and driven people, and no animation studio or advertising firm is actively looking for people trying to 'get noticed.' That you drew the Disney princesses as Marvel superheroes doesn't mean poo poo to them. As with anything, what they want is people who have pre-existing connections to folks already in these industries, people who can be relied upon to work under the brutally demanding conditions that leads to say, a background artist slipping in some fan art to meet a deadline. To be abundantly clear: I am not on Disney's side. But the spec art for an un-commissioned Rescue Rangers reboot that's never gonna happen is not a type of labor worth being defended. It's existence is already conditional on the inaction of massive corporate interests, and it serves only to reinforce a vacuous escape into ideas that they own. The solution is not to respect fan art as its own intellectual property. The solution is to reject intellectual property as a concept entirely, and hopefully strive for better working conditions for artists of all kinds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Pick posted:It's funny that people are only viewing ownership of intellectual property as something powerful companies have. If a big company created fanart of a small creator's work and displayed/promoted/sold it the way fanartists do to properties belonging to large institutions then I get the impression people would not feel the same way. It's almost like differences in power and wealth add a meaningful context to situations. God, what a world. GrandpaPants fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
This makes me think of that (unicorn?) character being put into Tesla firmware. Anything ever come from that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
starkebn posted:This makes me think of that (unicorn?) character being put into Tesla firmware. Anything ever come from that? Settled out of court and another datapoint in the "Elon Musk is a shithead" hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
I think the dumb Power Rangers reboot art labor is worth protecting. Not everyone ever is going to strike it rich drawing Steven Universe illustrations on Patreon but sometimes hocking kitschy poo poo helps pay the bills. Sometimes you land a gig drawing a comic book because you built your brand or whatever. welcome to 2018. I mean yeah a lot of fandom is some shallow gross poo poo and there's a lot of weird "#RepresentationMatters so give us more diverse mech to buy" stuff but it's not entirely soulless. I just think saying "artists should be GRATEFUL Disney stole their worthless garbage!!!" is a bit much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Not to mention 'getting rid of intellectual property' and 'protect artists' is kind of contradictory, while the Mouse abused the laws to hell and back, Intellectual Laws ARE for artists, writers, and creative types to assert ownership of their own works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:The solution is not to respect fan art as its own intellectual property. The solution is to reject intellectual property as a concept entirely, and hopefully strive for better working conditions for artists of all kinds. that's not a solution IP protection is currently being abused by very powerful corporations to protect their own interests and make them lots and lots of money, but it also helps to ensure smaller companies or individuals are properly compensated for their own creative endeavours or ideas. Like, I would hope the guy who makes a small webcomic on his own time (ex: Paranatural) can expect to be able to defend his rights to his ideas and not have it be made into a TV series without his permission. Disney should not be able to take his work without compensation. Disney, comparatively, is loving massive. You could, in fact lots of people have, make a webcomic staring popular Disney characters and post it online and it would never, ever affect Disney's bottom dollar. They probably won't notice or care. It's illegal, sure, but it's more trouble than it's worth shutting down fan art, cause there's just so much of it and it's nothing but bad press to try. So fan art is less "respected" and more "tolerated", and that's mostly based on how big the one being copied is. Zack Morrison would probably want to stop people who drew his characters from putting them on t-shirts and selling them without his knowledge. Disney, as a corporation, has the same rights but doesn't exercise them as harshly because that's money lost to them, so fanart of their characters showing up on t-shirts happens all the time and they can step in to stop it but there's just so much that they'd need a dedicated team to fire off C&D's all day. (ironically, as I re-read this I remember a bunch of tweets of people who make t-shirts noticing that Disney used very similar designs/catchphrases for their princess's in the Wreck-it-Ralph 2 trailers) ... but the "fanart showing up in the original work without the artist's knowledge or consent" is a weird one because IP laws are designed to protect art from being copied, not so much to protect the copy from being used by the original IP owners. So it's a lot less about IP rights than it is about workers rights, cause now it's no longer a fan creation, it's a work being used that isn't being paid for, with no contract created and no consent given. So lets say this goes to court. Disney can't use their IP rights because the art is used in the original work, it's not fanart anymore, and the artist can sue for theft because the art was taken without permission or compensation. Admittedly I'm not familiar enough with laws protecting workers rights, but from a layman's armchair viewpoint, it looks like Disney doesn't have any real leverage here. so again, best case scenario, enough of a fuss is kicked up that this story makes mainstream news headlines, and Disney reaches out to the original artist and pays them for their work SatansBestBuddy fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Sakimichan makes 400k a year doing digital paintings of nude Disney and final fantasy characters. Fan art can be a massive cash cow and help artists get on shows as board artists, etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Robindaybird posted:Not to mention 'getting rid of intellectual property' and 'protect artists' is kind of contradictory, while the Mouse abused the laws to hell and back, Intellectual Laws ARE for artists, writers, and creative types to assert ownership of their own works. The other big problem is that for all the making GBS threads on fan art, fan art is basically human nature. It's not something that started with Star Trek. People have been re-purposing characters and stories since there were characters and stories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Much like how the artists who spend the most time freaking out in online witchhunts about character theft and tracing are the ones who also pirate all their art software and cartoons without a second thought, the artists who are maddest about this are the ones who know deep down inside that they've reaped a ton of undeserved attention and praise by piggybacking off of someone else's intellectual property and can't stand having that mirror held back up to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Fan art can get you noticed. One of the designers for the Transformers in Michael Bay movies was hired because of this, and the fan art character he made was used in 4 of Bay's movies with minimal change as well as being made into toys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
I have done a shitload of fanart in my time, and have many friends whose bread and butter is selling fanart/fancomics at conventions. I believe very strongly that ascribing inherent commerciality to fanart (and really all fan content) would financially destroy more artists than whatever earnings may be excluded in these niche circumstances. Fanart is allowed to survive almost entirely due to a shaky reputation for being inherently non-commercial and thereby being granted plausible deniability to fly under the radar. Don't take stuff like this away from me!! Also, this sounds pretty mean but it's basically correct: Guy Mann posted:Much like how the artists who spend the most time freaking out in online witchhunts about character theft and tracing are the ones who also pirate all their art software and cartoons without a second thought, the artists who are maddest about this are the ones who know deep down inside that they've reaped a ton of undeserved attention and praise by piggybacking off of someone else's intellectual property and can't stand having that mirror held back up to them. Pick fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Fan art can get you noticed. One of the designers for the Transformers in Michael Bay movies was hired because of this, and the fan art character he made was used in 4 of Bay's movies with minimal change as well as being made into toys. There was also an artist who drew DC comicbook characters in the style of 1940s pinup/nosecone art who got noticed at a con and DC collaborated with them and did a series based on the art. But like K Waste said, those few are just a tiny sliver amongst thousands upon thousands of artists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Guys, "Disney" didn't do anything. Nobody at "Disney" is looking at your fan art. Nobody. They don't give a poo poo. There is no plausible connection between ripped-off fan art appearing in the background of one shot of one scene of one episode of one of their million cartoons and the corporate monolith exploiting the small time artist. This is an ideological fantasy born out of the delusion of fandom, that by simply defining part of your identity around consumption you somehow meaningfully impact upon its commodity. You don't. Someone working in the background department passed off fan art as their own, and the background was approved because the people in charge of approving have absolutely no reason to believe that it's not an original creation of their employee. All parts of this sequence, the fan, the fan artist, the background artist, the manager, the parent corporation, they are completely alienated from one another. This invocation of the massive corporation is not an authentic critique of capital or even corporatism. It functions like a conspiracy theory. The idea of a highly corrupt and calculated exploitative force exists as a convenient rationalization of how, no, actually, it would be super awesome if a corporation saw how good my drawing of Poochie was and they commissioned me to do stuff. THERE HAVE BEEN LITERAL TWEETS POSTED WITH NERDS INDIRECTLY PRAYING TO THE CORPORATION TO HIRE THEM IF THEY WANT THEIR WORK. What is too terrifying is that the socio-economic relationships between the working-artist and corporation is simultaneously completely corrupt and predicated on theft, but also perpetuates itself completely unconsciously, that it's endemic to an entire implied social contract where there is constantly all this free labor working to the massively disproportionate benefit of the corporation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
So, like... I'm a BG designer. I report directly to the art director, who during the course of my assignment will check my progress and suggest tweaks when necessary. When it's to her satisfaction, my work gets passed along into a meeting of writers, directors and producers. If notes come back from them, it's relayed to my art director who oversees my corrections, then turns it back over to the appropriate heads. I've gotten notes back for everything from reducing swatch reflectivity to making sure stairs are up to code. (33° in public assembly spaces!) I cannot fathom how something featured that prominenty was missed by all channels. I assure you neither I nor any other BG designer I know would use something like that as a placeholder. We either leave it blank or scribble in a lovely drawing to note that something else needs to go there. If the fill image isn't assigned to BG, sometimes it's given to a character designer or matte painter. The clean-up artist and colorist are also aware of what needs to appear in that fill space, particularly the latter as they have to make sure the image insert meshes with the room temperature. What I'm saying is, I don't have any loving clue how that could possibly be an honest mistake. Don't take credit for other people's work. It doesn't matter if you can make money off it or if you think they'd be okay with it. Don't take credit for other people's work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Don't take credit for other people's work. It doesn't matter if you can make money off it or if you think they'd be okay with it. Don't take credit for other people's work. This is the heart of the matter, not the bullshit about socio-economic wankery or if fan art should be profitable venture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Fan art can get you noticed. One of the designers for the Transformers in Michael Bay movies was hired because of this, and the fan art character he made was used in 4 of Bay's movies with minimal change as well as being made into toys. But is the world really better for it though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:But is the world really better for it though? He made a NASCAR car transform into Dale Earnhardt Jr and redesigned the Decepticon cop car's robot mode to have a nightstick, a human-style handgun, and knuckle dusters that say "protect" and "serve". Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Trap sprung, now everyone knows you watched the Transformers movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Trap sprung, now everyone knows you watched the Transformers movies. Like half this subforum?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Guys, "Disney" didn't do anything. Nobody at "Disney" is looking at your fan art. Nobody. They don't give a poo poo. There is no plausible connection between ripped-off fan art appearing in the background of one shot of one scene of one episode of one of their million cartoons and the corporate monolith exploiting the small time artist. This is an ideological fantasy born out of the delusion of fandom, that by simply defining part of your identity around consumption you somehow meaningfully impact upon its commodity. I only used 'Disney' as a shorthand for the people in the corporate structure who facilitated the Big Hero 6 tv show. If I didn't, I would have to go through the credits and research and figure out who the bg artist, layout supervisors, lawyers, network execs, or whoever. And I certainly do not know the structure of an animation studio/TV network to understand whose responsibility it was to keep stuff like this incident from happening. By the time I could, the conversation would have already swapped to another tortured grousing about Boss Baby and 'What if Bee Movie was actually... Good?!?' So instead I used the Royal 'Disney' to decry the corporate structure to allow it to happen But yeah, I'm mainly peeved off at this situation just coming off the coattails of the whole IGN plagiarism debacle. That kinda colored my whole opinion. I think really I just want people who would actually do the work and not steal art to be the ones to head this industry. A lot of talented artists and business people who would kill to be working on a Big Hero 6 were denied the opportunity, and instead jerks who caused this situation got it and caused this. Das Boo posted:Don't take credit for other people's work. It doesn't matter if you can make money off it or if you think they'd be okay with it. Don't take credit for other people's work. Robindaybird posted:This is the heart of the matter, not the bullshit about socio-economic wankery or if fan art should be profitable venture. What I was pretty much trying to get at. My mind has been poisoned by too much socialism memes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Upset that the Big Hero Six show stole my MSpaint illustration of the fat robot with added twelve sets of Gigeresque genitals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Guys, "Disney" didn't do anything. Nobody at "Disney" is looking at your fan art. Nobody. They don't give a poo poo. This is objectively untrue. The people who work on these shows are, well, people, and many are flattered or enjoy seeing fans connect with the work they create. Some shows will even have areas in their office where they'll post fanart they receive, and fanart has been a vector that has gotten people hired onto productions. In short: Das Boo posted:Don't take credit for other people's work. It doesn't matter if you can make money off it or if you think they'd be okay with it. Don't take credit for other people's work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 09:27
|
|
|
It's very 2018 to think if you can reduce an argument to an overly-simplistic soundbite that all the complicated implications of a policy go away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
Pick posted:It's very 2018 to think if you can reduce an argument to an overly-simplistic soundbite that all the complicated implications of a policy go away. Oh come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Oh come the gently caress on. It's just super indicative that everyone wants to rush to the defense of the "little guy" not realizing that the little guy is already being given a huge amount of leniency and that demanding special treatment has broader negative implications because the amount of leniency they're given (up to and including making a living violating IP) can be revoked at any time. People treating intellectual property protections like it's only something a big bad uses to exploit poor little old the-me-who-thinks-my-art-matters. Reminds me of the stories of people calling the cops because someone stole their weed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
I am not an artist or anything so to me the whole ip thing just seems like a ploy to keep getting paid repeatedly for a singular “performance”. Like if a carpenter builds you a house he doesn’t keep getting a cut if you rent it, or get to dictate under what terms you get to use it. And this might be a hyperbole but it doesn’t sit well with me eirher that someone could theoretically use ip laws to sit on the cure for cancer or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
Owning an intellectual property does not give automatic ownership of everything derived from that property. It can limit how people can legally make money off of a property, but that's not what the issue we're talking about is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
So with the theoretical cancer cure a non-profit could still make and distribute it, just not sell it? For something more directly related though, I remember a lot of fuss about disney suing kindergardens for having Mickey Mouse paited on their walls - they were generaly seen as a bad guys there too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
The rights issue is actually pretty simple. Let's say that a photographer takes a picture of you. As a non-public figure, you own the rights to your own image-so without your consent, the photographer cannot use your image for commercial services. However, the photographer also owns the rights to their work-so without their consent, you cannot use their photograph of your image either. The issue here is the same. Disney owns the rights to the characters depicted in the image, but they do not own the image itself, which puts them legally in the wrong for having used an artist's work without their consent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 10:49
|
|
|
Makes sense when put like that, thanks. What about the yellow jumper Fetny example, are they legally in the clear there since they didn’t use the image itself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 11:11
|
|
|
If allowed to use fan art unpaid they will quickly shift to doing so whenever possible, crowdsourcing whatever they can to the fan community. Free fan art could already easily take the place of official promo material and printed merchandise. In the extreme you might get something like marvel encouraging an online community of fan artists to produce full comics, then publishing the best ones without having to pay. Everyone else already tries to fleece artists by paying for work with "exposure", so it wouldn't be stretching norms too far for bigger companies to follow suit. If any of that strikes as you as impossible or ridiculous consider some examples. Most tech companies outsource massive amounts of tech support to the community. For instance, if you want support with a google app or with your mobile phone your only recourse is probably going to be their troubleshooting forum, where your answer will most like come from another community member who had the same problem. Oracle, makers of Java, were one of the first companies to move on this, specifically citing the linux volunteer support community as their inspiration, and where the norm was first established. And beyond tech support huge amounts of code that ends up in highly profitable products is originally programmed by unpaid individuals, who share it online with the intention of benefiting other community members. Steam and Reddit outsource all their moderation to the community, with the norm established by free forums (or in rare cases paid forums owned by small time individuals rather than massive corporations). If you think it can only happen to admin tasks and not creative work consider how the website Medium found a way to create what is essentially a profitable and flashy online magazine by fashioning it as a blog publishing service. To corporations the fact thay people freely contribute to online communities is absolutely to be exploited for free work. I remember my marketing professor being wildly enthusiastic about "corporate crowdsourcing" for product ideas and innovation. They can pay for it with relatively cheap prizes (compared to actually employing people for their ideas), like in the case of the Dell Social Innovation Challenge. Or forgo prizes entirely if people have enough loyalty for the brand, like General Mills Innovation Network or Anheuser-busch's crowdsourced Budweiser craft beer varient and video marketing initiatives. There are consultancies that specialize in this. IT company Cisco achieved $79 million ROI by engaging with crowdsourcing website BrightIdea. Proctor & Gamble and Ford prefer 100%Open. Pfizer uses Spigit. Adidas and Nestle use Hyve. I'm sure media production would love to tap into the unharvested volunteer labour supply of online fandoms, and once they figure out how to frame and normalize it people won't even recognize the exploitation. Moon Atari fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
quote:The rights issue is actually pretty simple. Well, insofar as any rights issue can be simple. If this does go to court (which it won't), Disney would probably argue a fair use defense, asserting that the use of the image is transformative, that it doesn't diminish the value of the image, and that the nature of the work is not copyrightable. If the artist wins, they may not be able to claim any damages from Disney, since they would have to argue both that stealing the work cost them financially - *and* that their original creation of the work was not commercial. Moon Atari posted:If allowed to use fan art unpaid they will quickly shift to doing so whenever possible, crowdsourcing whatever they can to the fan community. Free fan art could already easily take the place of official promo material and printed merchandise. In the extreme you might get something like marvel encouraging an online community of fan artists to produce full comics, then publishing the best ones without having to pay. Everyone else already tries to fleece artists by paying for work with "exposure", so it wouldn't be stretching norms too far for bigger companies to follow suit. This already happens. Even saying that fan artists have to be asked for permission wouldn't change the situation too much in the 'exploiting artists sense'. However if there's a general sense that fanart could create legal issues for the original creators (in this case, hurting not the BG artist but *Disney itself*), I suspect the situation will get suddenly a lot more hostile. The result would, I suspect, be that rights holders would be a lot more active. Open art communities would be acted against, instead fanart would be herded into gated communities where to draw [insert character] you have to explicitly sign a contract that gives the original creator rights to the work and signs them up to binding arbitration in the rightsholder's location of choice. That would be a no brainer move for big rights holders even if they were acting in good faith and just want to protect themselves, and completely legal. My impression as an artist is that you create original works for your own advancement, profit etc, and fanart for enjoyment and to support the original creators. This seems to be the current cosy consensus that allows fanart to exist despite it in many cases being indisputably a breach of the original creator's rights. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:23
|
|
