CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74 
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on Jul 7, 2014 8:28:58 GMT
|
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 7, 2014 14:33:25 GMT
Oh, yeah, don't treat any of these things as rules to be followed blindly. For every rule you find out there, you will find some examples of people successfully breaking them. Anyway, just by looking at that Scott Pilgrim sprite, I felt it used hue shifting*, so I went to the trouble of saving it and checking every color in the palette. It uses a very subtle hue shifting in most of the sprite, except for the pants, for whatever reason. It does in fact use a black outline, and it is really good pixel art, but I still would argue a different outline color inside the sprite (black for the outside is fine) would make it at least a little better. Picking the colors directly from a reference image is fine -- I did the same for the base colors in my Annie --, but you should still do some hue shifting for the shadows and highlights. Hue shifting is the only technique I know that always makes pixel art look better -- unless you somehow manage to do it wrong. Uhm, here, I took the liberty to edit your Kat myself:  The only thing I changed was the palette, without even touching the base colors. Most differences can only be noticed if you open both images and change back and forth between them, but you can probably already see that the feeling of the colors is a little different. I hue shifted all the shadows and the highlight in the hair (and I couldn't resist the urge to replace the black with a really really dark blue -- though that makes almost no difference at all). The most drastic change was in the shading of her skirt; I shifted the hue of the shadow from green all the way to blue/cyan. It still feels like green, but a color-picker will reveal that it is just a little closer to blue than it is to green, and that change enhances contrast quite noticeably. I am not really sure it will look better to you, though. --- *I did a pretty lousy job at explaining what it is before, so to make it a little more clear: it consists of changing the hue of the highlights and shadows in relation to the base color -- usually, but not necessarily, highlights tends towards yellow, and shadows towards blue. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jul 7, 2014 16:45:31 GMT
Oh, yeah, don't treat any of these things as rules to be followed blindly. For every rule you find out there, you will find some examples of people successfully breaking them. But the people who successfully break them, do so deliberately in order to achieve specific effects. And not wantonly - a good rule-breaking work will generally follow MOST rules more strictly than the typical work of its kind, while thoroughly breaking a few rules. So you gotta know the rules, and know how to follow the rules, before you can really start learning how to break the rules and make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Jul 7, 2014 20:56:37 GMT
Don't do X until you've learned why you shouldn't do X.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aegis J. Hyena on Jul 8, 2014 4:03:30 GMT
Hmm. Wonder if someone would do pixel art of Aegis... heh.
|
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on Jul 8, 2014 7:25:53 GMT
As you said yourself, I did have to take a good side by side observation to fully notice the changes. And after doing so, I can say that there is certainly a change in the overall feeling of the picture. It's a really cool edit. While some things I do personally kind of prefer a little in the original, like the highlight in the hair, I do find a lot of other things to be an improvement, like the darker blue-ish hue shades. Overall you're pretty true to your word in the shading, and probably with the inside colors too. Think I see what you're trying to say. Some artists can get away with breaking this system. However, I don't think adding hue should be something that mostly always needs to be applied to sprite art. There are plenty of examples of great pixel art where the artist simply uses darker colors for the shading. Here's maybe an example from a great artist I admire by the name of "Balthazar".  As you can see, there's not much hue involved in this animation's palette. I'm just trying to sort of keep the style of Tom's illustrations in the comic, which usually present the characters in all black outlining, as true to the usual comic style. Like I said, I based a lot of the look of these sprites based on those pictures in the comic, while improvising a tad on the shading. But your tips are really useful, and I will consider using them on something else. But for now, I just find it a little easier to sprite in that style. Maybe when I'm not basing these on the panel artwork, I can get a little more elaborate on my colors and shading to try and replicate some of Tom's other greater pieces like these, that provide more colors to work with.  Sorry everyone, I'm not trying to turn another thread into a huge discussion, I know we're kind of derailing here. :/ |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 8, 2014 15:50:15 GMT
 Fairy! I wanted to do some pixel art at a small size. It's fun to play with the space limitations. Since it's so small, here's it at 200% and 400% zoom:  @cloudedatthemoment: Yep, we should stop discussuing pixel art here, so here are my last words on it: Balthazar seems to be mimicking the style of Street Fighter II sprites. I don't know exactly why Street Fighter does not use hue shifting, but I guess it's either because it's an old(ish) game or because the sprites are fairly big (hue shifting is most effective at smaller sizes). Anywaym here's an intersting thing: that Goku sprite doesn't have one single black pixel in it; the hair is dark blue (which is not really hue shifting, but is based on the same principle; paintings also use a blue hue for the darker colors, and never ever use black), and the outlines are colored based on the parts of the sprite they're outlining. And it is really faithful to the original nevertheless. Now, if you want to mimic the style from the Scott Pilgrim game, then go ahead, there's nothing wrong in it; just keep in mind the style you're mimicking does use some hue shifting, even if just a tiny bit (some of it may not even be intentional). But the people who successfully break them, do so deliberately in order to achieve specific effects. And not wantonly - a good rule-breaking work will generally follow MOST rules more strictly than the typical work of its kind, while thoroughly breaking a few rules. So you gotta know the rules, and know how to follow the rules, before you can really start learning how to break the rules and make it work. Well, yeah, I know. That's why I bothered to point out what some of the rules are. Though they aren't really rules. They're just conventions. |
|
|
|
Post by jombra on Jul 16, 2014 0:07:03 GMT
*after being gone for like over a year* Regarding commissioning people to draw you GKC fanart, the whole thing was addressed in this previous post: gunnerkrigg.proboards.com/thread/1599/stealing-tomI'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! ^^^ Is pree much the most important part of the whole thread. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jul 16, 2014 1:46:02 GMT
Just don't sell it. Do not sell it. Do not sell my stuff! |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 16, 2014 16:55:43 GMT
 I wonder why I didn't draw her before. I am sorta obsessed with drawing GKC fan-art. There are things I like more than Gunnerkrigg Court, and I just don't feel like making fan-art of. I think it may have something to do with the instant feedback this thread provides. In deviantArt most of the stuff I submit are favorited by one to three people within minutes, even seconds, after I submit them. But it doesn't matter whether it's fan-art or not, so there's no motivation to make fan-art there. Just don't sell it. Do not sell it. Do not sell my stuff! Now that kind of, sort of makes me want to sell fan-art. I mean, I won't do it; I never did, and I won't start now. I am just pointing out how strongly I feel about this stuff. It makes me angry. I think people should be able to sell fan-art and fan fiction. The laws that give content creators the power to deter people from doing it are pointless and should be abolished. |
|
|
|
Post by fuzzyone on Jul 16, 2014 17:48:06 GMT
Out of curiosity, Why do you feel Tom is not entitled to exert creative control of his characters? Why should other people get paid for art of his characters? Why do these people have the right to ask money for artwork of characters they do not own? Because they put in the time to make the piece? It's kind of a dick move to see a Content Creator say, "I don't want people selling artwork of my characters," and react with, "That makes me want to sell artwork of his characters."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jul 16, 2014 18:15:23 GMT
One would hope that Tom would receive at least a 75% cut of the proceeds of such a sale considering he's the one who put in the time creating the characters, creating the story, creating the original artwork, and building up the fanbase that would allow a fan-artist to swoop in and take advantage of the demand from that fanbase for more GKC content in order to generate some quick profit.
|
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 16, 2014 18:34:33 GMT
Because they put in the time to make the piece? It's kind of a dick move to see a Content Creator say, "I don't want people selling artwork of my characters," and react with, "That makes me want to sell artwork of his characters." Well, yeah. When someone makes fan-art, they are (often, even if not always) using as much of their talent and creativity as the original creator, and deserve to be rewarded for it as much as the original creator. If the fan-art isn't original or creative enough, no one will want to pay for it, it is that simple. Also, selling fan-art does not in any way harm the original creator (if you think it does, just watch the Neil Gaiman video I linked before again and again, until you think otherwise). Quite the opposite, in fact, so there's no reason to be against it. It's kind of a dick move to see a Content Creator say, "I don't want people selling artwork of my characters," and react with, "That makes me want to sell artwork of his characters." I call that defending my rights*, if you think that makes me a dick, so be it. I think it is kind of a dick move not to allow people to sell stuff based on your creation, so I guess we're even. Look, as long as people credited me as the original creator, I would absolutely love to see people selling stuff based on my characters, or in the stories I've published. I would feel immensely happy if that happend, and I am simply incapable of comprehending why would anyone not feel happy about it. I seriously, honestly don't understand it, and the more people try to explain it to me, the less I understand. It simply does not make sense to me. --- *The way I see it, it is more or less the same as when the government tells people they shouldn't marry someone of the same gender as them. The only reasonable reaction to this is "you dare not tell me who I can marry or not!". Yes, that is how strongly I feel about this. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jul 16, 2014 18:36:53 GMT
The laws that give content creators the power to deter people from doing it are pointless and should be abolished. I don't know you, but judging by this statement I can guess a couple things. You're young. You're naive. You're not a professional. It's very easy for you to hold that view because you don't have any intellectual property to defend, much less a tenuous livelihood resting on the outcome. If I write a book, it is not "pointless" for there to be a law against copying it word for word or altering a few minor things and reselling it. If I create a comic, it is not "pointless" for there to be a law against drawing my original characters and selling them. If I devise a new device or invention, it is not "pointless" for there to be a patent on the design. Trillions of dollars of wealth and tens of millions of jobs are ensured because of IP laws. Almost every industry you can name relies heavily on intellectual property to even exist. IP rights incentivize entrepreneurs because they promise that they can keep the fruits of their labor. If medicine had no IP rights, where would the money come from to do R&D on new drugs? If art had no IP, what motive would there be to create original work, knowing someone will be able to steal your idea and market it better than you ever could? Why would anyone want to be the person to sink millions into developing a new computer chip if his competitors will have the same thing within days without any of the costs he just incurred? So in summation, you are flat out wrong. If you still disagree, I would encourage you to email Tom and let him know that you think. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jul 16, 2014 18:39:21 GMT
Furthermore, the founding fathers of our nation enshrined intellectual property IN THE CONSTITUTION, so before you get all huffy about rights and government, read the ones you actually have.
Here is the exact text: “Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
|
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 16, 2014 18:46:59 GMT
One would hope that Tom would receive at least a 75% cut of the proceeds of such a sale considering he's the one who put in the time creating the characters, creating the story, creating the original artwork, and building up the fanbase that would allow a fan-artist to swoop in and take advantage of the demand from that fanbase for more GKC content in order to generate some quick profit. Yes, and the first people to ever draw a circle should be regarded as the person who invented it, and be paid for every circle everyone drew. Because that would make sense. People do not (or, at least, should not) own ideas. I write a story, I own it. That is good, as that allows me to make money from it. If someone else writes a new story that uses the characters I created, it is still an original creation, and they should own it in the same way I onw my story. If such story based on my characters isn't original enough, no one will want to pay for it. It. Is. That. Simple. One can write fan fiction and then just change the names of the characters, and they will be able to seel it. So why not just let them use the original names? Why should people not be allowed to take advantage of an existing fanbase? It will benefit them, it will benefit the fanbase, it will grow the fanbase, and in the end, it will benefit the original creator. Everyone wins. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 16, 2014 18:51:49 GMT
Sorry for the double post. The laws that give content creators the power to deter people from doing it are pointless and should be abolished. It's very easy for you to hold that view because you don't have any intellectual property to defend. I am published author. Thank you very much. Also, I can point to a lot of succesful published authors who hold the same views as I do. Cory Doctorow has exactly the same views. Neil Gaiman holds very similar ones. Watch the video I linked before. If I write a book, it is not "pointless" for there to be a law against copying it word for word or altering a few minor things and reselling it. I actually agree with this part. It must be an original story based on yours, and not just a copy. There is a huge difference. But, If I create a comic, it is not "pointless" for there to be a law against drawing my original characters and selling them. With this I disagree. One can create original artwork based on existing characters. Now let's be clear: I hold this views regarding fiction writing. My views may be (and probably are) highly different regarding other fields. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jul 16, 2014 19:01:37 GMT
Yes, and the first people to ever draw a circle should be regarded as the person who invented it, and be paid for every circle everyone drew. Because that would make sense. People do not (or, at least, should not) own ideas. I write a story, I own it. That is good, as that allows me to make money from it. If someone else writes a new story that uses the characters I created, it is still an original creation, and they should own it in the same way I onw my story. If such story based on my characters isn't original enough, no one will want to pay for it. It. Is. That. Simple. One can write fan fiction and then just change the names of the characters, and they will be able to seel it. So why not just let them use the original names? Why should people not be allowed to take advantage of an existing fanbase? It will benefit them, it will benefit the fanbase, it will grow the fanbase, and in the end, it will benefit the original creator. Everyone wins. But you can't patent a circle, because there are specific rules on what is and is not an original creation, you've just never bothered to read them and decided to make up your own idea about what ought to be. In fact, it doesn't seem like you've done any research on this at all. One cannot just "write fanfiction and change the names". Contrary to what you're imagining in your head, the editing process for 50 Shades of Grey was SLIGHTLY more involved. People shouldn't be allowed to market their own version of the creator's work to his own fanbase, because the creator spent his money and his time setting up and maintaining that fan-base, which is a shitload of work that you are freeloading on. Oh, and by the way, as someone who writes fanfiction frequently, I have to say that I wholeheartedly disagree when you say most fan-work takes just as much if not more effort than the original, and I question how you typed that out with a straight face. At least ninety percent of fan works are complete shit. It's such a common phenomenon it has a name- the 90:10 rule. I am published author. Thank you very much. Then as one published author to another, I want you to know that you mystify me just as much as you claim copyright laws mystify you. Imagine if someone wanted to sell fanfiction of your books and not give you a cut. I would tell them to fuck right off, and I can't honestly believe that you wouldn't either. When I find people putting zips of my book or short story collections on fileshare sites, I call it in and I get a takedown request, and anybody who doesn't is either deluded or has enough money that it's effect is financially insignificant (read: Cory Doctorow and Niel Gaiman). When you're small-time and you have rent to pay every month, every book sale counts. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 16, 2014 19:20:48 GMT
One cannot just "write fanfiction and change the names". Contrary to what you're imagining in your head, the editing process for 50 Shades of Grey was SLIGHTLY more involved. Okay. Let's imagine E.L. James kept the characters with their original names. Should she then be forbidden to sell 50 Shades of Grey? I don't think so. I have to say that I wholeheartedly disagree when you say most fan-work takes just as much if not more effort than the original, and I question how you typed that out with a straight face. Okay, let me rephrase that. It can take as much effort. It can be as creative as the original. If it is, I don't see why not treat it the same as the original. At least ninety percent of fan works are complete shit. It's such a common phenomenon it has a name- the 90:10 rule. At least 90% of all original works are complete shit. Heck, at least 90% of all published original works are complete shit. People are allowed to sell them anyway. Then as one published author to another, I want you to know that you mystify me just as much as you claim copyright laws mystify you. When I find people putting zips of my book or short story collections on fileshare sites, I call it in and I get a takedown request, and anybody who doesn't is either deluded or has enough money that it's effect is financially insignificant (read: Cory Doctorow and Niel Gaiman). When you have rent to pay every month, every book sale counts. Now, how do you know you would be losing sales if you let people do that? Neil Gaiman says he probably sells so much because of people downloading his books for free, and I am inclined not to think he is deluded. Paulo Coelho puts his books up for free download on purpose so he can sell more. And apparently it works. Weird, isn't it? But, seriously, I am done. (Oh, I edited my last post. You might have not seen it.) |
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Jul 16, 2014 19:26:51 GMT
Okay, let me rephrase that. It can take as much effort. It can be as creative as the original. If it is, I don't see why not treat it the same as the original. Because it isn't completely original. If it were original, the author could have thought up his own characters and situations. Riding someone else's coattails to make money is tacky, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jul 16, 2014 19:28:17 GMT
When someone makes fan-art, they are (often, even if not always) using as much of their talent and creativity as the original creator Creates original setting. Creates original characters. Creates original story. Builds fanbase from nothing. Fan ArtistUses someone else's setting. Uses someone else's characters. Builds on someone else's story. Uses pre-existing fanbase. I'm a big proponent of fanart and fanfiction and the like, but fan artists are not in any way using just as much talent and creativity as the original creator. They are still using talent and creativity in their particular interpretations and in the actual construction of the piece, sure, but taking and using already existing intellectual property is not at all as talented or creative as building a new intellectual property. And that is your right as the creator. You can and should be allowed to do what you wish with your original works, including allowing others to profit from their own derivative versions of those works. Other creators feel differently. They feel that if others didn't put in the full amount of work that was required to get the original work to the status it has achieved, those others should not be making profit from it. Just because you don't understand that a person might want to exercise creative control of something they created or why they feel that way doesn't make their viewpoint less valid. Extremely false analogy. If we want to take it in such a hyperbolic and tangential direction, it would be more like someone was making slightly altered clones of your daughter and then marrying them off to people for cash then getting all "you dare not tell me who I can clone and sell to other people for marriage!" when the government rules that this is slavery and theft of genetic copyright. Yes, and the first people to ever draw a circle should be regarded as the person who invented it, and be paid for every circle everyone drew. Because that would make sense. Given that you feel so strongly about how copyright law works, one would think you at least knew how copyright law actually worked. Your slippery slope argument here seems to prove otherwise. As GK Sierra said, there are rules as to what does and does not constitute an intellectual property, and those rules are pretty well defined. Attempts at making copyright claims such as the one you have just posited have, in fact, been made and slapped down, as well they should be. Is copyright law perfect? Not by any means. There is some ridiculous stuff in there. But it's not nearly as ridiculous as you are trying to make it out to be here. And yet you want people who make money off of fanworks based on your original works to credit you as the original author. If you don't own the idea, why should they? It would also be theirs to do with as they please and wouldn't have to pay you even lip service if they didn't want to. You have a very strange idea just what people will and won't pay for. I assure you, there are plenty of people out there perfectly willing to pay for the most unoriginal, derivative, and copyright-breaking tripe out there. Your statement to this effect completely misses the point. It isn't about whether or not people will actually buy it, it is about the fact that you are trying to sell a derivative work for profit in the first place. The amount of profit after the fact is completely beside the point. As GK said (second time for that, 'cause he's on point with this stuff), it's a great deal more complicated than that. But even if it wasn't, why make fanworks at all then? Why not just tweak the story to be fully original and sell that instead? Setting aside for the moment the fact that this can in fact steal revenue from the original creator (despite your protestation to the contrary; fans are not made of infinite money that they can equally share out amongst both the original creator and all of his/her fanartists-for-profit), fanworks can do this without having to be for profit, too. Making it for profit doesn't make the situation better for anyone except the fanartist making the money. Now, how do you know you would be losing sales if you let people do that? Neil Gaiman says he probably sells so much because of people downloading his books for free, and I am inclined not to think he is deluded. Paulo Coelho puts his books up for free download on purpose so he can sell more. And apparently it works. Weird, isn't it? Weird that allowing the download for free of the original work is completely and utterly different from allowing others to sell derivative works for profit, thus making this part completely irrelevant to the topic of this conversation, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jul 16, 2014 19:40:50 GMT
Y'know, looking back on it, I think the most important point may be getting buried under the talk of intellectual properties and copyright law. Despite whether or not you think people should own ideas, I believe everyone can agree that Tom is not just the creator of Gunnerkrigg Court but also a fellow human being worth of some basic respect. He would prefer it if people did not sell fanworks of GKC. So it would seem to me that, all issues of legality, creativity, and morality of the act in and of itself aside, selling fanwork of GKC anyway while knowing that would be disrespecting Tom's wishes and thus - directly or indirectly - disrespecting Tom himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Jul 16, 2014 19:42:22 GMT
Y'know, looking back on it, I think the most important point may be getting buried under the talk of intellectual properties and copyright law. Despite whether or not you think people should own ideas, I believe everyone can agree that Tom is not just the creator of Gunnerkrigg Court but also a fellow human being worth of some basic respect. He would prefer it if people did not sell fanworks of GKC. So it would seem to me that, all issues of legality, creativity, and morality of the act in and of itself aside, selling fanwork of GKC anyway while knowing that would be disrespecting Tom's wishes and thus - directly or indirectly - disrespecting Tom himself. As far as I can tell, at first Quote Pilgrim was trying to get Tom to change his rules. Now he's defending that attempt. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jul 16, 2014 19:47:05 GMT
As far as I can tell, at first Quote Pilgrim was trying to get Tom to change his rules. In a "boy, that sure is a nice webcomic you've got there . . . be a shame if something were to happen to it" sort of way, perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jul 16, 2014 19:59:57 GMT
>Okay. Let's imagine E.L. James kept the characters with their original names. Should she then be forbidden to sell 50 Shades of Grey? I don't think so.
She would have run into a lot of trouble. If she kept their original names, a failing first year law student could probably convince a jury that it was copyright infringement.
>Okay, let me rephrase that. It can take as much effort. It can be as creative as the original. If it is, I don't see why not treat it the same as the original.
I happen to agree. If it was 100 percent bad I wouldn't bother, but there are gems out there. The problem is, with the same names and the same setting it is not original. There has to be a line drawn somewhere for the whole model of "people making anything original/creative for money" to work. Sometimes you might not like where that line touches down in reality, but if you want the creators to continue creating, then the fan-made works need to be labors of love and not profit.
>At least 90% of all original works are complete shit. Heck, at least 90% of all published original works are complete shit. People are allowed to sell them anyway.
Again, no arguments there. All you have to do is swing by the book section at Vons to see some real whoppers. The point is, they are original, trite and cliche though they may be.
>Now, how do you know you would be losing sales if you let people do that?
I don't have the charts to prove it, but I spent one week this February where all I did during the day was use Google Alerts and run searches for "mybook .zip" or "mybook free download" and collections of other stuff that had it bundled in with it. I cleared them all out, took a lot of emails and messages left on answering machines at cheap hosting services, but over the past few months my sales have started growing again after a sharp, and then gradual decline following the release.
>Neil Gaiman says he probably sells so much because of people downloading his books for free, and I am inclined not to think he is deluded. Paulo Coelho puts his books up for free download on purpose so he can sell more. And apparently it works. Weird, isn't it?
Because he has a team and people working for him, and publicity from prior work. He has momentum. One person, with one published book to his name does not have the money to ignore IP theft in the hopes that it will boost his fanbase. Because just as often as the altruistic pirate decides to buy the real thing, five more will throw it aside and never participate in the community or give me any kind of recommendation, let alone compensation for consuming my product, whether they enjoyed it or not.
>But, seriously, I am done.
I can tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Per on Jul 16, 2014 20:04:50 GMT
Guys.
1. I don't think you'll resolve this issue here.
2. This is the fan art thread. For posting fan art.
|
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 16, 2014 20:08:02 GMT
When someone makes fan-art, they are (often, even if not always) using as much of their talent and creativity as the original creator Creates original setting. Creates original characters. Creates original story. Builds fanbase from nothing. Fan ArtistUses someone else's setting. Uses someone else's characters. Builds on someone else's story. Uses pre-existing fanbase. I'm a big proponent of fanart and fanfiction and the like, but fan artists are not in any way using just as much talent and creativity as the original creator. They are still using talent and creativity in their particular interpretations and in the actual construction of the piece, sure, but taking and using already existing intellectual property is not at all as talented or creative as building a new intellectual property. And that is your right as the creator. You can and should be allowed to do what you wish with your original works, including allowing others to profit from their own derivative versions of those works. Other creators feel differently. They feel that if others didn't put in the full amount of work that was required to get the original work to the status it has achieved, those others should not be making profit from it. Just because you don't understand that a person might want to exercise creative control of something they created or why they feel that way doesn't make their viewpoint less valid. Extremely false analogy. If we want to take it in such a hyperbolic and tangential direction, it would be more like someone was making slightly altered clones of your daughter and then marrying them off to people for cash then getting all "you dare not tell me who I can clone and sell to other people for marriage!" when the government rules that this is slavery and theft of genetic copyright. Yes, and the first people to ever draw a circle should be regarded as the person who invented it, and be paid for every circle everyone drew. Because that would make sense. Given that you feel so strongly about how copyright law works, one would think you at least knew how copyright law actually worked. Your slippery slope argument here seems to prove otherwise. As GK Sierra said, there are rules as to what does and does not constitute an intellectual property, and those rules are pretty well defined. Attempts at making copyright claims such as the one you have just posited have, in fact, been made and slapped down, as well they should be. Is copyright law perfect? Not by any means. There is some ridiculous stuff in there. But it's not nearly as ridiculous as you are trying to make it out to be here. And yet you want people who make money off of fanworks based on your original works to credit you as the original author. If you don't own the idea, why should they? It would also be theirs to do with as they please and wouldn't have to pay you even lip service if they didn't want to. You have a very strange idea just what people will and won't pay for. I assure you, there are plenty of people out there perfectly willing to pay for the most unoriginal, derivative, and copyright-breaking tripe out there. Your statement to this effect completely misses the point. It isn't about whether or not people will actually buy it, it is about the fact that you are trying to sell a derivative work for profit in the first place. The amount of profit after the fact is completely beside the point. As GK said (second time for that, 'cause he's on point with this stuff), it's a great deal more complicated than that. But even if it wasn't, why make fanworks at all then? Why not just tweak the story to be fully original and sell that instead? Setting aside for the moment the fact that this can in fact steal revenue from the original creator (despite your protestation to the contrary; fans are not made of infinite money that they can equally share out amongst both the original creator and all of his/her fanartists-for-profit), fanworks can do this without having to be for profit, too. Making it for profit doesn't make the situation better for anyone except the fanartist making the money. I took a pretty damn long time wirting a reply this, and one "backspace" made me lose everything by going back to the previous page. Crap. Okay, first the daughter cloning thing: the only real problem I see is the slavery part. If they were, say, dolls that look exactly like my daughter instead of clones, I might be okay with it (though I really don't know, as I don't have a daughter), and even if I weren't okay with it, I don't see why it should be illegal. I know I wouldn't care if they were dolls that looked like me. Now the stealing revenue part: show me it steals revenue from the original creator. Show me proof beyond reasonable doubt, please. Show me how the selling of fan works really does harm the original creator, and I'll change my mind. People would prefer to spend money on the original creator before they spent it on fan artists. Also, the selling of fan art would incetivate more fan art, benefiting people who want more fan art. As far as I can tell, at first Quote Pilgrim was trying to get Tom to change his rules. Now he's defending that attempt. Not really. Tom can keep things as they are if he wants. But I do want most copyright laws to be abolished or drastically changed. Tom can do nothing about copyright laws. Anyway, I do think everyone, including Tom, would benefit from the kind of changes I want in copyright laws. Per: I'll probably post some more, eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jul 16, 2014 20:19:39 GMT
As Jim already mentioned, but you apparently skimmed over, fans are not made of infinite money. In fact, they are often not even made of a lot of money. Fan-works for profit compete with their host IPs even more than other IPs because they occupy the same revenue stream. I think you don't really know what changes you want any more than you understand basic economics, just that you have a vague, libertarian notion that people should be allowed to do whatever and you've decided to share that with us. Congratulations, I will sign your change.org petition when the campaign is unveiled. I believe everyone can agree that Tom is not just the creator of Gunnerkrigg Court but also a fellow human being worth of some basic respect. Apparently Mr. Pilgrim finds this idea controversial. It would have been slightly more acceptable if he hadn't kicked off with "Now that kind of, sort of makes me want to sell fan-art." |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 16, 2014 20:33:10 GMT
She would have run into a lot of trouble. If she kept their original names, a failing first year law student could probably convince a jury that it was copyright infringement. Yes. What I'm saying is it shouldn't be. I am sorry but see "do not sell stuff based on my work" as a little disrespectful. I did not skim over anything. As I said, and I'll repeat: People would prefer to spend money on the original creator before they spent it on fan artists. (If they would spend money at all, that is.) Show me it in action. Show me it stealing revenue from original creators. Show me people preferring to buy derivative work rather than the original one. Also, if people really would rather pay for fan works, that would mean the fan creators are doing a better job than the original creator. I won't say it means they deserve money more than the original creator, though. That's for you to decide. Seriously, I will stop now. Let's just agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Jul 16, 2014 22:02:40 GMT
This seems to be a case of "This is the way I feel and how I want things so therefor I believe that all content creators should feel as I do and want things and if they don't, well then they are wrong" argument. Which just shows a staggering lack of empathy and willingness to understand that another human being might hold opposing views and that both views can be valid and worthy of respect.
|
|
