| Wed 22 Oct 2014, 4:00 am|
I'm new here, just registered now,
be gentle <,<'
I'm having difficulty of navigating the forums to see where exactly I could find my answers, since the forum that describes what this institute considers art theift doens't allow posts in it.
It's pretty clear that we're obviously not allowed to take and sell eachothers art without permission, but what confuses me are all the people doing it to official trademark material, like pokemon, etc etc.
-Are these artists from companies not considered people because they don't join these forums and speak up?
-Did these artists officially announce somewhere that they have given permission for anyone to make their own version of their copyrighted characters, sell, and keep all the profits to themselves?
Is this a taboo subject? Because I'm trying to open a sponsorship program on imvu to help artists submit their original work into the catalog to help start a new trend of buying properly owned unstollen art, but alot of people like to draw unoriginal work pieces... which makes me nervous.
| Wed 22 Oct 2014, 4:09 am|
| Wed 22 Oct 2014, 8:18 am|
~paws at thread~ Don't die on me baby!
| Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:22 pm|
This has crossed my mind a few times as well. But I wouldn't go as far to say that its art theft. I've seen plenty of people buy various fan arts/art inspired by famous characters. As long as the buyer is aware of where that character is from, it shouldn't really matter as much. At the end of the day, if the artist drew it by themselves (no tracing, no copying someone elses fan art and calling it their idea) then I don't think it is considered art theft.
Its more of advertising for where the original character came from and I've even seen companies post fan art on their facebook pages. Art that is available to buy as posters and such. So yeah. I don't see anything wrong with fan art being sold.
| Thu 23 Oct 2014, 2:25 am|
| |Click Me
Read the very last part (in the Concerning OC references / fanart section)
A lot of artists are fine with it, some are not so much since they're not exactly an "original" idea. To me fan art is cool for inspiration, but not so much when it's just recreating an already established famous character.
Also, there was a point in time not too long ago where they were deciding whether or not to prosecute websites that were using copyrighted images, I forgot what that act was called but it didn't go through. It meant that places like IMVU that have products with such things as images or logos, IMVU would of been pretty much shut down. I think that's what that act was heading for.
| Thu 23 Oct 2014, 4:09 am|
When I think about fanart I always go back to the rules of plagiarism. Common knowledge isn't plagarism, so well known characters aren't plagarism either ? Because everyone knows you didn't come up with that idea but you are using it to create a new concept.
| Thu 23 Oct 2014, 5:20 am|
I was linked to this
article a while back by someone on here and it's pretty neat and sums up pretty much what I learned in school. It's an iffy subject that works on a case by case basis. It's a long read and some of the sections can be a little daunting but if you want a concrete answer not based in opinion and not too mucked up with super fancy words for no reason that (in my opinion maybe someone has a better one) is one of my favorites.
| Thu 23 Oct 2014, 6:48 am|
Well that's what we got here. What Knife pointed out. Fan arts are like everywhere. All over the world. It's perfectly fine... or is it not? And of course, when it comes to selling... This is a great question, but you are not the first one to ask about this for sure.
Let's take this article, for example: http://chrisoatley.com/fan-art/
Or this one: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/05/13/the-messy-world-of-fan-art-and-copyright/
This also raises the question, again... should we still allow fan art on GASR? deviantART does not allow to sell prints of fan arts, for example. According to all these things we basically should quit allowing this, but I doubt some people will like this and understand this. Not to mention IMVU is full of this as you also said. There's always someone like.... "But I did this myself, so what if I copied this or that? It's my work anyway!" Even some people who blatantly trace images put this up as their defense and refuse to understand why it is wrong.
Anymoose... I think if everyone follows the tips in those articles, they should be fine. And isn't it better to be known for your own original work than doing fan art?
_________________________ PM for Moosey Assistance.
| Thu 23 Oct 2014, 9:44 am|
It is a tough subject with no easy answers.
As far as GASR is concerned you are allowed to sell fanart of bigger copyrighted characters (pokemon, animes, etc) without receiving a warning for art theft.
Now creating a fanart of a member's OC would be considered art theft unless you ask the person and they say it's okay.
If you are at all afraid of getting in trouble then you can always choose not to sell fanart.
There are plenty of people online who sell prints of copyrighted characters like zelda, mario, etc etc with no legal repercussions.
I remember vin told me how the creator of homestuck felt that it was okay to sell homestuck related things because you were selling your interpretation of the character and not the character themselves.
| Mon 27 Oct 2014, 10:49 am|
If someone wanted to create and sell their interpretation of a famous character -> no legal risk of being sued.
If someone wanted to create and sell their interpretation of a non famous character, like for example, their version of another small time artist's work piece, then that artist has the legitamate grounds to DMCA it. That's what confuses me. Sounds like if you get popular enough and famous, than people are legally allowed to copy your work o,O That doesn't sound right.
If pokemon came out with a new character called "Latioh", and other people started creating and selling their interpretations of it, then that's legal.
And if I, myself, create a new character called "Vondess", and other people started creating and selling their interpretations of it, then that is not legal?
I know most famous companies are not going to bother DMCA'ing another artist for selling their interpretations of their artwork, but that doens't nessesarily make it legal to continue.
I know on imvu (and probably everywhere aswell) that if you take another artist's artpiece and sell it in your catalog without their permission and concent, then it is still illegal and they can DMCA you for it, even if you mark down that they were the one who made the artpiece. This is where selling fanart confuses me. I can understand just making fan art is allowed, and sharring it aswell... but when you're selling it and making profits off it that are not being distributed to the people who have participated... I think that's where things get sticky.
I mean, even on tv, you're not legally allowed to sing "happy birthday" without paying royalties to the people who own it's copyright, but you're allowed to change it up instead. In that case, how different would an artpiece have to be from it's original character to deem legal to sell without paying royalties to the original creator? Because I've seen some fan art that look identical to the original piece, and they don't pay royalties to the original creator or share their profits with them when they sell it.
I've seen some artist complain about other people ripping off their artwork and selling them without sharring the profits or giving credit to the original artist, so the program I wanted to set up was to promote and encourage more real artists selling their own work... but if they're ripping off other peoples work, then I see some problems in how I'm supose to help them.
| Mon 27 Oct 2014, 12:06 pm|
honestly though, these big companies only really care if you're as big as they are?
like you said, if you sing copyrighted songs and you or your organization matter, then they can sue you
there are too many people producing fanarts of copyrighted work and selling them for profits. you see this in conventions all the time, and there are soo many people doing it that these companies, even if they want to sue each and every one, they can't?
i had a discussion about this to my friends once cause it's just so confusing, where does it become not okay. and it isn't okay, but there's nothing THEY can do.
also in a way, there's this idea as well that what those big company created and distributed, they *kind of* becomes "public property"?? idk how to phrase it well
it's like when someone takes a picture of you, then using the picture for commercial purposes WITHOUT you knowing, then you can sue them
but when they take pictures of celebrities and using their pictures everywhere, these celebs can't do anything cause they chose to be a public figure so i feel like the same concept kind of applies?
i learned something about this concept in my designing careers class LOL, but i don't remember what the legal term of it is.
also, i think the reason why many people sell fanarts is cause those are the ones that got people's attention first. and then they can branch off with their own artwork? it's kind of a selfish business haha.
i think most of the time these companies only care if you work for them, is part of the creative concept team, and then you bring your designs outside of the company to either show or sell - then that's not ok cause most of the time you signed a contract in which you can't use whatever artwork you do for them anywhere else cause they own it
anyway, like i said in the end it's just how it benefits you. selling and producing fanarts as starters helps boost you in the community cause they're familiar with the things and they like it
it's not okay, and if you're unlucky you will get sued, i mean i know someone who actually got sued and a lot of people in my school are now wary of selling fanarts
BUT at the same time it's funny cause a lot of the artists involved in the creative process, they don't seem to mind when they see you produce fanarts of projects they worked on and sell them? cause a lot of the time these artists go to the same conventions where fanarts of their work is being sold yet you don't really see fights happening between booths over this
people know it's wrong but they do it anyway, and since there's no direct consequences yet, then they'll keep doing it
| Mon 27 Oct 2014, 12:48 pm|
^ that and I mean, a lot of people don't really care as long as you aren't taking credit for the idea.
like, nobody goes around drawing pokemon fanart while saying "pikachu is my property", y'know?
or drawing something from a smaller scale like WTNV. They don't care as long as you aren't going
around saying anything you draw regarding wtnv is copyrighted to you and not.. y'know, wtnv.
Idk if that makes sense.
| Mon 27 Oct 2014, 12:58 pm|
Like I said common knowledge can't be plagiarized. Like you cannot say you came up with the idea that fish swim because all people can go find that out? Just like people know Mickey Mouse belongs to Disney.
HOWEVER. "Art" has very delicate boundaries. For example: There's this huge gas station chain and its mascot is a beaver. This little no name chain's mascot is a beaver... The big chain was not pleased even though the beavers were not the same and decided to sue the gas station.
So. Things can easily cross. It just really depends on the company. I would just check to make sure
| Mon 27 Oct 2014, 1:24 pm|
It's kind of like that candy crush game company trying to copyright the word candy.
| Mon 27 Oct 2014, 1:27 pm|
Didn't they copyright crush?