|
|
Post by jombra on Jun 26, 2012 19:12:43 GMT
Okay, we are all aware of the definition of intellectual property, right? Gunnerkrigg Court and it's characters legally belong to Tom, therefore it is illegal for any of us to sell pictures of them, even if we drew it ourselves etc. We can draw whatever we want, but it is illegal to make money off of our drawings if they feature his characters/settings.
That one guy on twitter is crazy, and it gives me the giggles.
For reference:
Tom: @piraticalartist The default assumption should be that it is NOT okay to sell someone else's intellectual property unless stated otherwise
Kaze: @gunnerkrigg @piraticalartist I assume you didn't pay Miyazaki for the Mononoke-hime reference, with the drawing of the ghost in the corner?
Tom: @kazenokae And I'm going to assume you're joking by pretending to not understand the difference between a paid commission and a reference.
Kaze: @gunnerkrigg You make money through the comic, don't you? I'm guessing you've not got adverts just for lulz
Tom: @kazenokae If my reference is proven to not be fair use, I would be happy to remove it. Those pages are not included in the printed books.
Kaze: @gunnerkrigg Hmm, ok. In all honesty, you *shouldn't* have to remove them unless Miyazaki has some problem with your interpretation.
@gunnerkrigg Money shouldn't be the issue, it's your work after all.
@gunnerkrigg Likewise you're justified in objecting to your creations being rule-34'd but not to the fact that the artists are selling them
Tom: @kazenokae That's an utterly wrong and stupid thing to say. People can draw my characters doing whatever they want, just don't sell them.
Kaze: @gunnerkrigg If the artists were working for a company and the profit was going to stockholders instead then it would be another matter
@gunnerkrigg Unless I suppose you were against profit from creative works in principle, in which case it would be the same as rule 34...
@gunnerkrigg ...but you evidently don't
Tom: @kazenokae You're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem here. In such a way that I see it would be impossible to convince you otherwise
Kaze: @gunnerkrigg Disagree, not misunderstand. There's a difference.
Tom: @kazenokae This is exactly why it's too difficult for you to understand. Sorry dude.
I don't want to start a fandom backlash or anything, I thought we'd all just have a giggle and reassure Tom that we're not all this idiotic.
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 26, 2012 19:21:31 GMT
This guy is comedy gold. I think he just wants to have a problem with Tom because he want's to have a problem with Tom. Vague accusations of stealing are just an avenue. "Man, even after all this time I still get pissed when I see someone openly selling commissions of my characters. Especially if it's porn. " -Tom Is this really happening? I don't want to start a fandom backlash or anything, I thought we'd all just have a giggle and reassure Tom that we're not all this idiotic. "Libertarian left activist, geek, Mancunian, Spanish student (although currently on a year out), trans woman, aspie, procrastinator, insomniac, etc" Too late.  |
|
maximkat
Full Member
Look at my face, my face is amazing
Posts: 111
|
Post by maximkat on Jun 26, 2012 21:23:04 GMT
I feel like the most important info is missing from this whole story...
|
|
|
|
Post by Per on Jun 26, 2012 21:33:31 GMT
When I see this topic in the forum I get the impression it's some sort of roll call: "Let's steal from Tom! Who's with me?"
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 26, 2012 22:25:35 GMT
On the other hand, and as far I know, payed commissions, by amateur artists, of characters belonging to someone else, are fairly common and is not usually considered of form of plagiarism among the art community, it amounts to pay someone else to draw fannart and there is no real damage: the drawing isn't passed as a drawing of the original artist, nor is the commissioned artist pretending they created those characters, and they get money because they do a drawing, not because they use the original artist's image/reputation.
This is more akin to the doujinshi practice in Japan, where drawing original stories using existing characters and setting then selling them on a small/amateur scale is considered a normal and legitimate practice (to the point that doujinshi in Japan have dedicated bookshops selling only those), and many professional artists started as doujinshi makers.
[Note: I am not saying this as a "matter of fact" statement, I am just describing what I perceive to be the consensus in the amateur drawing community —as far as I can tell, the same people who vehemently condamn plagiarisms and things like "tracing" see no problem with payed commission of characters of other artists]
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 26, 2012 23:07:50 GMT
On the other hand, and as far I know, payed commissions, by amateur artists, of characters belonging to someone else, are fairly common and is not usually considered of form of plagiarism among the art community, it amounts to pay someone else to draw fannart and there is no real damage: the drawing isn't passed as a drawing of the original artist, nor is the commissioned artist pretending they created those characters, and they get money because they do a drawing, not because they use the original artist's image/reputation. This is more akin to the doujinshi practice in Japan, where drawing original stories using existing characters and setting then selling them on a small/amateur scale is considered a normal and legitimate practice (to the point that doujinshi in Japan have dedicated bookshops selling only those), and many professional artists started as doujinshi makers. [Note: I am not saying this as a "matter of fact" statement, I am just describing what I perceive to be the consensus in the amateur drawing community —as far as I can tell, the same people who vehemently condamn plagiarisms and things like "tracing" see no problem with payed commission of characters of other artists] Some good points and relevant context, but it's still rather distressing. The line is a bit fuzzy, yes, but I think I draw it here. Tom's well established now, but he's only a few months into this as a full time job. Even if imitation is the highest form of flattery, flattery doesn't pay the bills, so when people are selling fan-art of other artists' characters they're taking some of their dollars and turning them into spiders. He's certainly handled this better than I would have. I would be livid. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Jun 26, 2012 23:17:13 GMT
The line is a bit fuzzy, yes, but I think I draw it here. Tom's well established now, but he's only a few months into this as a full time job. Even if imitation is the highest form of flattery, flattery doesn't pay the bills, so when people are selling fan-art of other artists' characters they're taking some of their dollars and turning them into spiders. Fan artists, if they give credit to the original work as they should, actually help to spread publicity of the work in question. People run into good fanart, and want to see what the original is like. That's why most creators don't actively try to condemn fan art or fanfiction, since it usually works to their benefit. That being said, many artists dislike porn being made of their work. Rule 34 is pretty unavoidable thing in this world, but I understand why Tom would be upset at people who do it for money with his characters. |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 26, 2012 23:59:36 GMT
It should also be said that many commissioned drawings of other artist's characters are the result of a demand on the part of the fans of the original work, eg:
<fan> wow, DrawingArtist, I like your work, here is some money can you draw me something?
<DrawingArtist> sure, what would you like?
<fan> oh, can you draw Robot and Shadow2 from Gunnerkrigg Court pretty please? Here is some reference!
<DrawingArtist> ok
|
|
|
|
Post by catgirl26 on Jun 27, 2012 0:31:32 GMT
I feel like in this kind of case, the rights owner (ie. Tom) should have final say on what can and can't be done, for profit, with his characters. Some artists might not mind other people drawing their characters and profiting (though usually these requests tend to be of more well-established, commercially successful creations, not webcomics whose creators are trying to scrape out a living), but Tom has clearly stated that he's not okay with it. Any respectful person would back off. This guy is clearly a bit of a troll, and like someone else stated, has a problem with Tom just because he wants to have a problem with Tom.
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 27, 2012 0:53:42 GMT
It should also be said that many commissioned drawings of other artist's characters are the result of a demand on the part of the fans of the original work, eg: <fan> wow, DrawingArtist, I like your work, here is some money can you draw me something? <DrawingArtist> sure, what would you like? <fan> oh, can you draw Robot and Shadow2 from Gunnerkrigg Court pretty please? Here is some reference! <DrawingArtist> ok Yeah, and I imagine demand has been high since Tom is too busy to do commissions of his own at present, but they should really drop him a line and work out some sort of arrangement before they attempt to profit monetarily. |
|
|
|
Post by mudmaniac on Jun 27, 2012 7:10:08 GMT
I like that Kaze keeps bringing up rule 34 whereas Tom clearly states that it is not even an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Belrisa on Jun 27, 2012 7:12:39 GMT
I don't understand how somebody could be a fan of Gunnerkrigg Court, and yet be so disrespectful of Tom.
I also hate it when people think that they just disagree with you, as if the conversation were about opinions instead of facts.
It's almost as annoying as when somebody thinks you misunderstand, only you do understand and think they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eversist on Jun 27, 2012 7:17:44 GMT
...I thought we'd all just have a giggle and reassure Tom that we're not all this idiotic. If my entire fanbase was that stupid, I think I'd just stop. I don't understand how somebody could be a fan of Gunnerkrigg Court, and yet be so disrespectful of Tom. I also hate it when people think that they just disagree with you, as if the conversation were about opinions instead of facts. It's almost as annoying as when somebody thinks you misunderstand, only you do understand and think they are wrong. Word. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Jun 27, 2012 7:47:19 GMT
Drawing and selling other peoples' characters might be accepted in the amateur artist community, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Up to now people have just been drawing characters from larger studios who have better things to do than go after an individual selling a sketch of Spiderman.
The problem is that now, when self-owned work like webcomics are becoming popular, people looking to make a buck see these properties as the same as any mainstream property. I.e, the creator is a faceless millionaire and they won't mind some little guy trying to scrape a living. Unfortunately, I'm not a faceless millionaire, and neither is someone like Andrew Hussie, or anyone else that puts their own work online.
The taking of someone else's property, even intellectual property, is fundamentally unethical and the rules are there to (believe it or not) protect the creator of a work from being ripped off. You may as well be selling photos of my family without my permission. A company couldn't do it without going through legitimate, legal channels, paying for licenses, obtaining permission, splitting profits, etc., so why should that not apply to someone who feels they want to make some quick money? Just because we are all small time here doesn't mean I have to be okay with people selling my stuff.
It's become "accepted" because this is what you see on Tumblr and DeviantArt; talented artists who don't want to put the effort into creating their own properties, so they take something that already exists and sell it. The amount of work is not the issue here, it's the fact that they are selling something that was never theirs in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by descoladavirus on Jun 27, 2012 8:02:37 GMT
I know the laws for it are a little different in the UK Mr. Siddell, but can't you send this person a notice telling them the characters are your copyrighted intellectual property and that his use of them for monetary gain is illegal and notifying him/her/it/whatever the heck, to stop?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Jun 27, 2012 8:22:45 GMT
As soon as I take that route I then become The Man, trying to keep the independent artists down. I'd be seen as the bad guy and it would more than likely cause a lot more people to do the same thing and generate a lot of negativity towards me. I've seen it happen.
|
|
arden
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by arden on Jun 27, 2012 9:22:01 GMT
I've been following Gunnerkrigg since 2007. I've recommended it to friends and peers as I've followed the journey of Annie and co, and it's one of the most immersive stories to ever hit the medium.
But this isn't an issue of ethics. What's permissible is so arbitrary and subjective that comparing it to theft doesn't even hit the plank the nail is embedded in. You are not losing stock and your original strokes aren't being reproduced. There isn't even an argument that potential dollars are lost through a sated demand because commissions aren't yet being accepted.
I've printed t-shirts, stickers, and ties with my designs. Occasionally I'll include other characters. My wallet has Calvin & Hobbes dancing across it, and the only piece of merchandise Watterson approved is a t-shirt currently in the Smithsonian. Why am I allowed to create fanwork?
By the definitions I'm seeing in this thread, I am more entitled than someone without artistic ability to own a reproduced concept because there wasn't a transaction involved. Assumedly I can gift one of these items to someone as long as I receive no profit off of it. This is the gray area. If it's permissible to recreate a likelihood at the base of it, where do things become unethical when I charge for the time and resources I spend?
The defense for intellectual property laws is that without them, there runs risk that artists will be shorted. However, if an artist isn't tapping a market and hasn't made attempts or intentions to, the spirit of the the law isn't being broken and ethically, it is justified.
tl;dr: Unless the integrity of Gunnerkrigg's image is compromised or cash-flow is being redirected away from you, there isn't anything wrong with third-party interpretations of your work. This is why parody is protected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Jun 27, 2012 11:41:57 GMT
The owner of a piece of work, intellectual property, patent or whatever has the right to do whatever they want with it, and if this means they choose not to exploit it then that is their absolute right. Watterson is a perfect example of this: he doesn't want his work turned into merchandise so he chose not to go that route. You are not allowed to decide for him (or me) what is best for him, or that a market should be tapped.
Nobody but the creator, or at least the current owner of the rights and licenses to a piece of work is allowed to decide how it should be used.
and yes, if you happen to be an artist who can reproduce for yourself pictures and characters that you like, then you are more entitled then someone without the ability to make that stuff themselves. You can go crazy making as much fan art as you want, giving it to friends, posting it online (ignoring that even doing this is still legally shady, but only in a technical sense that would be of no benefit to pursue) but the line is explicitly drawn when money changes hands. This changes the nature of what you are doing and this is when the law steps in to protect the owner of the property. If it didn't, what do you think copyrights, trademarks, patents and so on, are for?
This isn't about me losing money, this isn't about other people affecting the integrity of the work, this isn't about keeping someone else from making a living off their own talents, this is about people selling my work. The person who lacks the creativity to make something of their own, and so takes something that belongs to someone else, is the one with the problem here. Not me. All I do is make a piece of work and decide for myself how I want to handle it. If it means I want to hire people to make merchandise for me, fine. If I want to lock it all in a safe and throw it in the ocean, that's also my right and I'm not going to appreciate when someone tries to tell me that I'm not allowed to make that choice for myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Jun 27, 2012 11:55:03 GMT
The whole issue is rather troublesome. I want to sympathise with Tom for his property getting used without permission, but if this means that I should condemn all fan art, it's harder than it sounds. Plenty of great artists started out making fan art, slowly developing their own style and subjects, loosely based on those that inspired them. Likewise, many, especially in comic book and video game industries, found their livelihood by making high quality fan art of their favourite characters, and got themselves poached by the creators in question to do official artwork for them. I can't honestly bring myself to say that making fan art would be detrimental to individual's creativity, or that it would cause financial harm to the original creator.
It was so much easier when I simply assumed that making porn out of Tom's work was what got to him; that's something that I can fully understand. Ofcourse there's still the issue of paid commissions, which are in the annoying gray area of artist ethics and copyright law. Even most webcomic artists that I know of have not made effort to quell those, since it would result in bad publicity for them, and allowing them to be seen by as many people as possible gets them more viewers from the fans of the artist who did the commission. Though many have also gone down hard on people who do such art with subject matters they don't want to associate with their works.
In rule of thumb I still say that respecting the wishes of the original artist should be given, and if they don't want commissioned fan works to happen, this should be adhered to. But all creators don't use these restrictions, and they aren't inheritly expected. So I'm going to side with Tom in all matters concerning Gunnerkrigg Court, but beyond that individual artists set their own rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Jun 27, 2012 12:59:10 GMT
I'll say it again:
Fan art is great! Everyone should draw fan art! I wish there was more fan art of my comic all the time! Draw it for yourself, draw it for your friends, draw it for your portfolio to show your skills, draw requests, draw fan characters, I really do not mind!
I don't even care if people absolutely have to masturbate to pictures of my 13/14 year old characters, I really don't. I won't allow it on my forum, and I won't congratulate you for emailing it to me, nor will I draw it myself when I do open up commissions again, but I really don't care what people draw.
Just don't sell it.
Do not sell it.
Do not sell my stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 27, 2012 13:35:14 GMT
[Watterson is not a good example though: the courts actually ruled that unofficial Calvin & Hobbes derived products were legal because there was a deliberate lack of official ones. Though maybe the law has changed since then?]
|
|
|
|
Post by Mishmash on Jun 27, 2012 14:27:56 GMT
This is a really interesting topic, I didn't realise there were so many issues surrounding something so simple as whether it is okay to make money off someone else's characters (for the record, I don't think it is!)
Tom, it's pretty cool of you to drop in and explain your views on it so eloquently. I hope when/if you have the time and inclination to start doing commisions again this becomes less of a problem! Not that I think the lack of availibility at the moment justifies anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Jun 27, 2012 15:41:53 GMT
I'll say it again: Fan art is great! Everyone should draw fan art! I wish there was more fan art of my comic all the time! Draw it for yourself, draw it for your friends, draw it for your portfolio to show your skills, draw requests, draw fan characters, I really do not mind! I don't even care if people absolutely have to masturbate to pictures of my 13/14 year old characters, I really don't. I won't allow it on my forum, and I won't congratulate you for emailing it to me, nor will I draw it myself when I do open up commissions again, but I really don't care what people draw. Just don't sell it. Do not sell it. Do not sell my stuff! Worth repeating. I've made myself a few shirts, using an airbrush and a solid projector to duplicate pictures I like (mostly M. C. Escher), but when people asked me "how much?" my response is "Sorry, can't sell it." Even if someone were willing to compensate me for the sixteen to eighteen hours of labor I had in it, I don't need the money if it means ripping off other people's work. (Besides, I have my own designs that are for sale. :) Loren |
|
Sivo
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Sivo on Jun 27, 2012 16:53:55 GMT
I do find someone targeting Tom like this a few notches more odious for the same reason that I find piracy of indie games more revolting than I do of big-name game companies. Both are in the dubious realms of ethics, but the former is an act of theft much more likely to injure the victim. Selling counterfeits of someone's IP, however, puts you well within gratuitous criminal territory.
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 27, 2012 17:29:58 GMT
I'll say it again: Fan art is great! Just don't sell it. Do not sell it. Do not sell my stuff! Just in case anybody was still unclear, this is the message you should be taking away from this thread.All questions of legality aside, it's just plain WRONG to sell other people's work as your own, it doesn't matter if you can hypothetically convince a court that its an original work. If you like the artist, there shouldn't be a grey area to this, only an area that you don't fuck with because you respect their livelihood. I imagine such an area would be colored yellow with black stripes, but that's just my mental image. |
|
|
|
Post by jombra on Jun 27, 2012 22:48:09 GMT
I'll say it again: Fan art is great! Just don't sell it. Do not sell it. Do not sell my stuff! Just in case anybody was still unclear, this is the message you should be taking away from this thread.It's amazing how much this needs to be repeated in order for people to understand. HERE:  Since this comic is technically fanart, the only right I have is to say who can use it, except Tom can use it even without my permission because it involves his intellectual property. (Neopets does this all the time with beauty contest entries and comics.) But it's a silly comic, so you can all use it! |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 27, 2012 23:44:24 GMT
Hah, that's wicked! I was going to make a flowchart to be extra sarcastic, but this touches all the bases AND it's pretty.
|
|
|
|
Post by jombra on Jun 28, 2012 0:21:04 GMT
Haha, thanks.
I really need to get off my butt and do some proper fanart sometime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Per on Jun 28, 2012 0:46:00 GMT
That's clearly not Tom. I see a hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 28, 2012 0:57:02 GMT
Jombra > that's a bit disingenuous, while some people have made money with fannarts of GC, to my knowledge none of those people have claimed to be the original author of these characters, it was still clearly presented as fannart, but payed-for fannart.
I perfectly understand that both things get disapproved, but I also think they are not strictly equivalent and should not be equated.
|
|
