# Copyrighted characters and commissions



## Kaluna (Sep 13, 2011)

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's illegal to sell/make a profit off of anything to do with a character that someone else has copyrighted unless you have permission. Like Pokemon for example.

But people make money off of pokemon, mlp, digiomon, etc. related characters all the time!

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/chibisilverwings/ (sells charms of copyrighted characters)
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/shalie/ (sells plushies of copyrighted characters)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5234111/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5317640/

All it takes is a quick search for "pokemon commission" or "mlp commission" to see how many people are doing this.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but this is illegal, even if credit is given for the creator of the character because it's not like they got permission from gamefreak to produce pokemon plushies (for example).


Why is this so common? Is there anything that can be done about it?


----------



## Charrio (Sep 13, 2011)

This site doesn't enforce the law on such things, tho you would think it would considering how many artists here would FLIP OUT if their own art was stolen and used by someone else to make a profit. 

I really don't see how this flies with the owners but unless they are sued or threatened they wont budge, even tho they are taking money for Ads featuring people selling stolen characters.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm really upset about this. DA doesn't let that shit fly, or at least they try to cut it down when they see it.

It's downright trashy imo.


----------



## Charrio (Sep 13, 2011)

Kaluna said:


> I'm really upset about this. DA doesn't let that shit fly, or at least they try to cut it down when they see it.
> 
> It's downright trashy imo.


Well the owner's fursona is a Stolen Digimon Idea, so i don't see them every taking a proactive move in stopping the sale of fanart.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 13, 2011)

Charrio said:


> Well the owner's fursona is a Stolen Digimon Idea, so i don't see them every taking a proactive move in stopping the sale of fanart.


I agree, I think nothing will happen.
Nothing at all.


----------



## Zenia (Sep 13, 2011)

I think that big companies only really care when you are mass producing something for sale. Like, if you do one commission of a character for someone for $20, they don't really care. If you make 500 prints and sell them, THEN they care.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 13, 2011)

Zenia said:


> I think that big companies only really care when you are mass producing something for sale. Like, if you do one commission of a character for someone for $20, they don't really care. If you make 500 prints and sell them, THEN they care.


 Actually it depends on the company, the designer behind TokiDoki is very protective of his characters. Besides, it's not a matter of whether or not a company cares that makes it legal or illegal. It's still illegal even if they don't think it's worth their time to take it to court. It shows poor class on FA's side that they do nothing to combat it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 13, 2011)

Kaluna said:


> Actually it depends on the company, the designer behind TokiDoki is very protective of his characters. Besides, it's not a matter of whether or not a company cares that makes it legal or illegal. It's still illegal even if they don't think it's worth their time to take it to court. It shows poor class on FA's side that they do nothing to combat it.


tis actually hard for FA to do this over DA over a site that is often incompetent over a site thats actually have a dedicated team who is competent.
still its down to the company that owns the character to do something really, they are very happy to appear on someone who is making a mass profit and claiming its theirs over someone who is doing small and still crediting it to them.


----------



## BRN (Sep 13, 2011)

Taking Pokemon as an example, the copyright claims that all of these are neccessary before a copyright claim is considered. 





> â€¢A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed; â€¢Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works; â€¢Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, and that is to be removed, or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit PokÃ©mon to locate the material; â€¢Information reasonably sufficient to permit PokÃ©mon to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address where the complaining party may be contacted; â€¢A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and,â€¢A statement that the information in the notification is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)].


 Essentially it's saying that in legal terms, The Pokemon Company needs a) the person breaching the copyright to infringe the signature of someone who has an exclusive right, b) to very obviously be breaching the faith of The Pokemon Company, and c) the party who is complaining to be acting on behalf of the party who has the exclusive right. Or even more simply, if you make damn sure to claim that The Pokemon Company own the copyrights, and keep to common sense, The Pokemon Company don't really care. [ED: Also what the fuck why are there no line breaks in this post]


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 13, 2011)

Most companies don't want to go after fans because those are the people they want to like their stuff in the first place. Also in the case of commissions you can make a defence using the difference between making art of copyrighted characters to sell and selling art which is commissioned to be of a copyrighted character. One is buying a copyrighted character and the other is buying a person's skills.


----------



## Pinkuh (Sep 13, 2011)

First things first.

Characters can not be copyright.

They can however be trademarked.

Case in point is Pikachu, who is a registered Trademark. In order to be able to register something as a trademark you have to prove that it represents a brand. In this case Pikachu is a licenced representation Pokemon... who's image is also a trademark of Nintendo. 

Now that being said the only way to violate a trademark is to use a trademarked representation to advertise something under false pretenses. Aka saying that Pikachu/Pokemon/Nintendo endorses you and/or your product as official... when in fact it is not.

Copyright applies only to individual works. You can copyright a film, a musical, a play, a picture. But you can not "Copyright" anything within it. A copyright ONLY applies to the work itself, not the nuances. You can not copyright characters.

Past that, there is another wonderful little piece of actual law that folks can use to get around any trademark violations and that is the "Fair use" law.

Specifically Fair use encompasses worked based off of copyright and trademarked Material. (see MAD magazine)

that being said, if someone Commissions someone for a character that already exists, they are legally able to do it, becuase they are not charging FOR the character, they are charging for the work they put into the piece.

And as a Bonus... the artist that creates the work, can get a copyright on it. Even if it has original characters in it (see mad magazine), as long as they don't have a contract stating the rights belong to someone else.

It's a tricky road... but honestly, anyone who does commissions are able to do so of trademarked characters.

The only way to violate a copyright is to mass produce and sell someone else's Image/movie/play/ect.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 13, 2011)

http://www.conceptart.org/copyright This is a Powerpoint Presentation, and compiled by lawyers in the business.

A lot of conventions "turn a blind eye" to selling commissions of copyright characters. They ask you do not mention the name in the pieces and there is a limit at anime/comic conventions at the amount of prints. But you see fan art selling all the time.


----------



## jcfynx (Sep 13, 2011)

I recall Nintendo of America sending a Cease and Desist order to popular sexy children's character website Alt.Games.Nintendo.Pokemon.Hentai (not safe for work) for reasons I should not have to explain.

I assume it is possible for this to happen with FurAffinity, as well.

Contrary to popular belief, many major entertainment companies do care about large collections of images of their properties being used in this way, and not necessarily because of money involved. It has an effect on the perception of their brand. I just did a Google image search for "tails sonic" and there's a big fat dick right there, even with the Safesearch feature turned on.

A website like FurAffinity is particularly vulnerable in the size and scale of its operation. Nintendo may ignore a single person, but less likely a site with hundreds of thousands of illicit images.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 13, 2011)

Pretty much everything has been said already, if nintendo or such finds out Fa exists then we're screwed cause of how many people sell commissions of trademarked characters.


----------



## BRN (Sep 13, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Pretty much everything has been said already, if nintendo or such finds out Fa exists then we're screwed cause of how many people sell commissions of trademarked characters.



what

the exact opposite has been said, repeatedly


----------



## Armaetus (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm pretty sure this crap goes on over at Sofurry and Inkbunny as well.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 13, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> I recall Nintendo of America sending a Cease and Desist order to popular sexy children's character website Alt.Games.Nintendo.Pokemon.Hentai (not safe for work) for reasons I should not have to explain.
> 
> I assume it is possible for this to happen with FurAffinity, as well.
> 
> ...


you forgot one thing
thats nintendo
you know the very same folks who tell folks who want to do movies on their characters to "FUCK OFF"
But no, Nintendo really dont have that much of a problem as long you dont claim it was sponsored by nintendo or claim to own the char.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 13, 2011)

Any decent artist, I think, would not take commissions for the use of intellectual property without proper consent.
According to international laws, you /can/ copyright a character.

And it's not only major companies. What about Adventure Time? The artist/writer of that show started it as an online short and I would think he would be upset that people are profiting from his hard work and ideas without asking him about it. What about the way these characters are being portrayed too? As it's been mentioned it's not only a matter of profit but also of distorting the image of a character.

The way I see it it this: at the root of it, this is plagiarism. The fact that FA does not even pretend to disallow it is a very poor and unprofessional choice, but not surprising in the least.

I'm personally pissed about this, and more so that I didn't notice it sooner. I first noticed when I saw an ad for someone taking all kinds of commssions (chibi, speedpaint, porn, MLP????) and thought to myself, "Wait wait, My Little Pony commissions? Isn't that illegal." It only take a minute or two to go from there to realizing that there's a lot of the fandom participating in and endorsing plagiarism.

You know what I'm gonna do, since it seems FA's not gonna do shit (oh wow!), I'm gonna get a huge list of submissions that flatly say they are commissions of copyright material and a list of users who's pages flatly say that they accept such commissions and send these links in multiple emails to multiple addresses from each company involved. Let's let them decide.

Yeah, I'm gonna be a bitch and take it that far because furries cross all sorts of lines when it comes to being shitty artists, but this is a new low.


----------



## Charrio (Sep 13, 2011)

Kaluna said:


> Any decent artist, I think, would not take commissions for the use of intellectual property without proper consent.
> According to international laws, you /can/ copyright a character.
> 
> And it's not only major companies. What about Adventure Time? The artist/writer of that show started it as an online short and I would think he would be upset that people are profiting from his hard work and ideas without asking him about it. What about the way these characters are being portrayed too? As it's been mentioned it's not only a matter of profit but also of distorting the image of a character.
> ...



Don't forget Inkbunny and SoFurry too, I would think companies would love seeing their Underage Characters being sexually violated in images for cash, don[t just hit one hit them all


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't have the time to compile lists from those sites as well, I'm already taking my own personal time to invest in this.
But I will explain the situation and link them to those sites, thanks for the suggestion.


Quick question for anyone here: What cartoons/characters do you see commissions of most often. Here's the one's I'm gonna start with, but the smaller the company, the more receptive I think they'll be.


Adventure Time
Pokemon
Digimon
MLP
Anime/Manga Characters (these don't really count since most mangaka give open permission to use their character in fanart/doushinji, like InuYasha)

And I can't think of anymore off the top of my head right now.


----------



## Charrio (Sep 13, 2011)

Kaluna said:


> I don't have the time to compile lists from those sites as well, I'm already taking my own personal time to invest in this.
> But I will explain the situation and link them to those sites, thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> 
> ...



Minerva Mink, Krystal, Brandy and Mr Whiskers, Robin hood, Pretty much any Disney and Warner cartoons lol


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 13, 2011)

Charrio said:


> Minerva Mink, Krystal, Brandy and Mr Whiskers, Robin hood, Pretty much any Disney and Warner cartoons lol


Good good, thanks! I can't believe I forgot Disney lol
I've already gone and sent a list to the artist behind Adventure Time/Regular Show
I'll notify his producers too when I have more time.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 13, 2011)

good luck, I wish to see the outcome of all this. I wish to see if my believed outcome holds true or I should keep on researching.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Sep 13, 2011)

What's your deal with going after people. You have been told like 3 times its not money for the character but for the work. 

Companies like FAN ART even if people commission for it because it is free advertisement. Also pokemon people arn't going to sell individual artwork.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm curious. Are you counting OC my little ponies? As in, people use the style, or just draw a horse and stick a picture on its butt. 
The reason I ask this is because you seemed pissed that neer stole a digimon idea, but I was unaware that it was an original digimon, just something with the same concept...which would be impossible to deal with...


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Sep 13, 2011)

I also think cultures have differences in how this sort of thing is viewed and even handled. Japan for example has much more blind-eye to fans doing fan-made stuff than a similar studio in America. If we were to apply this whole 'trademark/copyright' to the letter, then you better not go a con in cosplay. Especially if you bought it from a clothing designer, dressmaker, or some other skilled seamstress. 

I think it's flattering actually. To add your own skills, works, and even interpretations to the fandom for particular shows, games, movies, etc.

As been said already, I would also only have a real issue if it was some mass-produced thing that made the sellers a fortune. A person doing one $15 line art with a Digimon character isn't an issue far as I'm concerned. Also as DD has already stated, you're paying for the skill, not the characters.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 13, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> I also think cultures have differences in how this sort of thing is viewed and even handled. Japan for example has much more blind-eye to fans doing fan-made stuff than a similar studio in America. If we were to apply this whole 'trademark/copyright' to the letter, then you better not go a con in cosplay. Especially if you bought it from a clothing designer, dressmaker, or some other skilled seamstress.
> 
> I think it's flattering actually. To add your own skills, works, and even interpretations to the fandom for particular shows, games, movies, etc.
> 
> As been said already, I would also only have a real issue if it was some mass-produced thing that made the sellers a fortune. A person doing one $15 line art with a Digimon character isn't an issue far as I'm concerned. Also as DD has already stated, you're paying for the skill, not the characters.



I'd like to add onto this that a lot of companies don't want to go the route of attempting to sue people for this kind of thing. Regardless of if they can or can't it crosses a line where they really stand to lose a money in the long run because they piss off their fan base. Extreme desire to control every aspect of everything is what is partially killing some aspects of the music industry. The recording labels dictate strictly when and where music can be played to ridiculous levels and due to that they end up losing fans, and their attitude encourages piracy due to the ire of the fan base.

If companies started trying to prevent people from doing small time commissions like this they will lose a lot of fans and it will hurt the company and the original artist/creators badly in the long run. It's something to think about.


----------



## Charrio (Sep 13, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'd like to add onto this that a lot of companies don't want to go the route of attempting to sue people for this kind of thing. Regardless of if they can or can't it crosses a line where they really stand to lose a money in the long run because they piss off their fan base. Extreme desire to control every aspect of everything is what is partially killing some aspects of the music industry. The recording labels dictate strictly when and where music can be played to ridiculous levels and due to that they end up losing fans, and their attitude encourages piracy due to the ire of the fan base.
> 
> If companies started trying to prevent people from doing small time commissions like this they will lose a lot of fans and it will hurt the company and the original artist/creators badly in the long run. It's something to think about.



OK, might be a stupid question but your post made me curious. 

If this is looked at with such a blind eye, why do artists here flip their nut when they have been copied or posted elsewhere?
Isn't that the same thing? 

Or is it something different, I see quite a few artists go into a rage when copied by some fan or admirer


----------



## Fay V (Sep 14, 2011)

Charrio said:


> OK, might be a stupid question but your post made me curious.
> 
> If this is looked at with such a blind eye, why do artists here flip their nut when they have been copied or posted elsewhere?
> Isn't that the same thing?
> ...



Usually because it does more harm to a small time artist. For a company fanart is more advertisment. People buy more of their stuff, to be honest I didn't know about MLP until the meme stuff hit. It is also easily recognizable as their work. 

On the other hand, for a small time artist this isn't the case. If someone takes a picture and reposts it they rarely give credit, so rather than have people come to the artist. it's pulling people away and can do a lot of harm to their own reputation. Not only that but a lot of the time being "copied" means just that. It wasn't the idea that was taken, it was a picture that is directly copied. Which is stealing, versus the fanart that is an original composition with a borrowed idea. 

Usually when you see furries whining that their character was stolen people laugh at them. As in "baaw they drew another blue fox"


----------



## Xenke (Sep 14, 2011)

On things like this where I'm generally uneducated about the relevant laws that could come into play, I look at bigger sites to see whether or not it's actually a problem.

So let's take dA. Hmmm... nope, I don't really think they're concerned about this at all. They even have a section for fan art (which by definition almost exclusively consists of trademarked characters), so... I'm not too worried about this.

It's worth looking into (if I recall, VCL for whatever reason doesn't allow copyrighted/trademarked characters), but I don't think it's particularly threatening.


----------



## Charrio (Sep 14, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Usually because it does more harm to a small time artist. For a company fanart is more advertisment. People buy more of their stuff, to be honest I didn't know about MLP until the meme stuff hit. It is also easily recognizable as their work.
> 
> On the other hand, for a small time artist this isn't the case. If someone takes a picture and reposts it they rarely give credit, so rather than have people come to the artist. it's pulling people away and can do a lot of harm to their own reputation. Not only that but a lot of the time being "copied" means just that. It wasn't the idea that was taken, it was a picture that is directly copied. Which is stealing, versus the fanart that is an original composition with a borrowed idea.
> 
> Usually when you see furries whining that their character was stolen people laugh at them. As in "baaw they drew another blue fox"



That makes more sense, and I myself have found and find my art on other sites now and then.
I just smile and feel kinda happy, being an artist who is kinda unknown it makes me happy knowing i was worth taking. 

I don't make any money usually so for me it's not a huge loss. I also do a lot of Fan art myself but never for Pay, usually just cause i admired the show or Character and wanted to try drawing that style. 
It does bother me tho when someone makes a career of selling just fanart since they are basically just riding the Fame of another, that gets irksome. Personal tastes i guess, to me it's very lazy and kinda Parasitic.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 14, 2011)

Charrio said:


> OK, might be a stupid question but your post made me curious.
> 
> If this is looked at with such a blind eye, why do artists here flip their nut when they have been copied or posted elsewhere?
> Isn't that the same thing?
> ...



The best answer I have is that people do not always do unto others what they want done to themselves. However it appears to go deeper than that. Lets be clear first not all artists engage in taking mainstream characters and accept commissions of them. There are for example a lot of artists and costume makers who refuse to do trade-marked characters. Of course there are further intense implications with copyright characters turned costume but that's a different topic for another time.

There is something about furry art that is somewhat unique. Character creation in the furry fandom is tied very closely to persona/alter ego/avatar(known to furries as fursonas) creation. People often in the furry world strongly attach themselves to their characters. These characters end up strongly tied to their person as a reflection of their real self, or their desired self. These characters often go through a long period of adjustment and change often as their owners evolve as individual identities. This is very different than simply creating a well crafted character for a movie, or a cartoon, or a book. Some people do pour themselves into specific characters (often resulting in mary sues/gary stues) however it doesn't happen to level we see here in the furry fandom.

As such when someone takes something that literally is your "self" in another form or your ideal self, steals it without your permission, then abuses/capitalizes off of it you end up feeling very violated. It feels wrong. This is you and they just took you and used you for profit and pleasure. So it goes to a level of wrong that instigates much hostility, anger, and drama. You want to have control over yourself if that makes sense. So when it gets used without your permission it's a bit like if someone was watching you, took video of you, and then made money off of it or made you look stupid or something. It's almost like identity theft. It sounds perhaps absurd but there is reality in this. Furries get strongly attached to their alternate persons that they create in the form of furry characters.

Of course on the other side of the coin a lot of furries don't really take into account the feelings of the artists of mainstream creations. Honestly we are not alone. There are a lot of anime fans and gamer fans who are in the same boat. They make all sorts of very diverse fan made works without stopping to think how it may impact the franchise or how the original creator might feel about it. It's not like you can easily go up and ask them "Hey how do you feel about me doing this with X character you created?". Perhaps too there is less of a worry about capitalizing off of these people because they already make a lot of money from the deals they make with others.

If you are taking in a few commission a month doing fan work and the person who made it is living rich...do you honestly feel bad about it? Perhaps this is also something that enters the mind of people who do fan works. To them they arn't hurting much when the original maker is living large. It may seem or feel different if you take in commissions as a side of different characters to make a little extra to supplement your income and someone comes along and takes your characters and profits without your permission or posts it elsewhere without credit. You are not big, you don't make a lot of money and it would be nice if people didn't abuse your stuff, profit off of your stuff, and also post it without credit or permission. That too probably goes through the minds of artists.

I'm not saying what stance I take in that line of thought but it is something I have seen reflected from artists as observation. People often don't care about capitalizing off of the rich...but it bothers them when it is done to them when they are not rich, or when it is done to the poor.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 14, 2011)

I too am curious.

I'm very firm in my principals for the most part, and this is something that bothers me morally. It's not because of money, it's not because I think they're "selling the character", it's because I think it's wrong to not get permission to make a profit off of an idea that is not yours, ANY PROFIT. A character is an idea, it's intellectual property.

@DD: I'm not going after people. Like I said, and many others, over and over, no one is going to get sued for this /realistically/, but I do hope FA gets warned and learns to take it seriously and at least not have ADS ON THE FRONT PAGE of people blatantly doing this.
@FayV: No, no fan characters that deviate significantly from a characters design. No style rip-offs either. That's just fanart. I didn't say anything much about dragoneer besides that I think it's ironic and unimaginative. I honestly don't know enough about digimon to be able to say if his character is unique or exactly like a digimon species.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 14, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'd like to add onto this that a lot of companies don't want to go the route of attempting to sue people for this kind of thing. Regardless of if they can or can't it crosses a line where they really stand to lose a money in the long run because they piss off their fan base. Extreme desire to control every aspect of everything is what is partially killing some aspects of the music industry. The recording labels dictate strictly when and where music can be played to ridiculous levels and due to that they end up losing fans, and their attitude encourages piracy due to the ire of the fan base.
> 
> If companies started trying to prevent people from doing small time commissions like this they will lose a lot of fans and it will hurt the company and the original artist/creators badly in the long run. It's something to think about.


 I think it should be the responsibility of the art site to uphold good artistic principals and not make the people affected by this HAVE to take it to court because they really don't want to, who would? But it's not only mainstream artists, many of these characters are from much smaller artists. I know of many furs that REFUSE to sell anything to do with copyrighted characters. FlurryCat made two pokemon fursuits recently and explicitly stated that they were GIFTS and that they will not take commissions for pokemon fursuits. I think FA should uphold this and moderators should warn/ban users that engage in plagiarism. Heck, I'd even volunteer to be a moderator and help if they're really so low on staff!

EDIT: Just read your last post, I somehow didn't see it, but yeah....you made some of the same points I did in better words..... >.>;;


----------



## Fay V (Sep 14, 2011)

Charrio said:


> That makes more sense, and I myself have found and find my art on other sites now and then.
> I just smile and feel kinda happy, being an artist who is kinda unknown it makes me happy knowing i was worth taking.
> 
> I don't make any money usually so for me it's not a huge loss. I also do a lot of Fan art myself but never for Pay, usually just cause i admired the show or Character and wanted to try drawing that style.
> It does bother me tho when someone makes a career of selling just fanart since they are basically just riding the Fame of another, that gets irksome. Personal tastes i guess, to me it's very lazy and kinda Parasitic.


I agree with that. It bothers me when people do only fan art. I don't think it shows a lot of creativity. I also don't think an artist should be vilified for doing fanart either. There are those that draw the occasional pokemon in their own style, and I see that as similar to drawing an animal in that case.

How the art might harm the artist seems to me the biggest problem. I've seen some of my art pop up elsewhere. I actually had a piece end up on a TF website, which I found rather interesting. I also had someone that used some of my free line art to make commissions to sell.
On the one hand it didn't effect me much, it's not like I would have made money on it anyway, but it started drama for my watchers as commissioners viewed some of the other line art creations as stealing. I don't want people taking part in my games to feel like they did something wrong.

Kaluna- it's already shown that the action is not illegal. FA has also shown that if an artist draws the character of another person the artist has the rights, not the person. In other words unless it is harassment that picture stays if the artist wants. 
(Note: if you actually copy or trace a picture that's breaking actual copyright.)
Should artists do this? no. it's a dick move. 
Should FA be the ethics police getting rid of things that are just crass...honestly that's up to the admins. It seems mostly they go the way of just allowing it unless it's against the law or actively hurting the site.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 14, 2011)

Kaluna said:


> I too am curious.
> 
> I'm very firm in my principals for the most part, and this is something that bothers me morally. It's not because of money, it's not because I think they're "selling the character", it's because I think it's wrong to not get permission to make a profit off of an idea that is not yours, ANY PROFIT. A character is an idea, it's intellectual property.
> 
> ...



I'll have to say I share a somewhat similar mindset. Personally I take up a rather hostile view towards people who take characters that do not belong to them and use them how they like. This mindset goes beyond just the idea of commissioning these characters that belong to others. It extends to pure non profit type works including fan fiction. It displeases me when I see people make erotica with characters they don't own. It just seems to be rather disrespectful. Often people decide depending upon their orientation what they character's orientation is. So it becomes more about carnal pleasure and less about the character.

I don't mind fan work and fanfiction when done in good taste and keeps the intended theme of the character. But when you deviate so far that you completely ignore all canon, and all aspects of personality and history it's just...wrong to me. Or at least very bad writing. It tells me your real focus isn't the "Fan" aspect at all. In fact you are not really a fan at all. Certainly if all that interests you in FF games is being able to rip off characters that hate each other and make smutty fanfiction of it then you are not a real fan at all. I feel this way in drawn art too. This is something many groups out there fail at taking seriously. As a whole a lot of gamers, furries, anime fans, science fiction fans, and fantasy enthusiasts have absolutely no real respect for the creators of the stuff they are fans off. Hence why they water the internet down and many host places with garbage.

However you should take the time to look at an earlier post by Pinkuh and by Arshes Nei. They understand the implications of everything far better than I do. Personally I'd like to see a trend catch of being a fan and not just a hormone driven perv looking to make porn of anything you can trap in your minds eye long enough to put down on paper or tablet.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 14, 2011)

@Trpdwarf: I agree with your view on characters in general. It is something I find very unappealing about any fandom in general. In fact, a picture of Balto and Steel having anal sex that I found on DA when I was, say....TEN....was what I associated "furry" with until less than a year ago when I got a better view of the fandom. And let me tell you, I stayed the hell away from anything "furry" until very recently (despite my interests aligning so closely with the fandom). I just can't even begin to stomach the idea of perverting others characters in any way. But I digress.

I don't claim to be an expert on these laws, I just know what plagiarism is and this sure seem to be a case of that. I'm just going to go ahead and make a nice clean list, maybe including a few other sites, maybe even etsy and DA and send it off to the people that actually own those characters. In fact, I have an excuse now to do so because I've just decided that this may be the topic for my informative speech for comm class. Mind you, I'm not even going to being to mention anything about "furries" and I'm going to approach it as question of copyright laws for fan-based work.


----------



## Taralack (Sep 14, 2011)

Recently there was a case in the Dragon Age online community where someone made a male character pinup calendar that managed to sell so many that the creator made over $20k. Even some of the original artists who worked on the game bought her calendar. But once EA heard she'd made over 20k with it, they sent her a C&D even though she was (allegedly) donating most of that to several charities. 

I'm not sure what my point of that story was. coolstorybro.jpg


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 14, 2011)

Toraneko said:


> Recently there was a case in the Dragon Age online community where someone made a male character pinup calendar that managed to sell so many that the creator made over $20k. Even some of the original artists who worked on the game bought her calendar. But once EA heard she'd made over 20k with it, they sent her a C&D even though she was (allegedly) donating most of that to several charities.
> 
> I'm not sure what my point of that story was. coolstorybro.jpg


Really? That /is/ interesting /and/ pertinent. I may be able to find a source on it and use it in my speech.
Tell more cool stories so I don't have to do my research by myself. X3


----------



## Fay V (Sep 14, 2011)

A daycare in florida painted the walls with disney characters without asking company permission. Disney actually sent them a C&D. 

The preschool removed the paintings but the community was pissed. Warner Bros ended up donating official painters to decorate the preschool for free.


----------



## BRN (Sep 14, 2011)

Essentially it comes down the fact that the companies are in business because they look after themselves. Sticking rigidly to a policy of "sue everything that moves" is not a way to do so; they have to respect their fans, and give leeway to people even if they're making small profits from the intellectual property they own. 

That a company has the _right_ to sue for use of copyrighted material is ineffable, but that they would _want_ to is extremely unlikely. You don't sue your fans. You don't sue at all, until it becomes the _better_ option.


----------



## Taralack (Sep 14, 2011)

Kaluna said:


> Really? That /is/ interesting /and/ pertinent. I may be able to find a source on it and use it in my speech.
> Tell more cool stories so I don't have to do my research by myself. X3



The artist is jakface, if you're interested. Beyond that you'd have to do your own research. Most of the shenanigans took place on Tumblr and Livejournal.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 14, 2011)

jcfynx said:
			
		

> I recall Nintendo of America sending a Cease and Desist order to popular sexy children's character website Alt.Games.Nintendo.Pokemon.Hentai (not safe for work) for reasons I should not have to explain.



Since when? I was on there for years and there was never anything said about that. There were always rumours that Nintendo knew about it and didn't care or that AGNPH was actually run by Nintendo and all that sort of stuff but I don't recall any such order being made. The site's still running, which wouldn't have happened if Nintendo wanted it down and there's no mention of a cease and disist in the Wikifur article.


----------



## jcfynx (Sep 14, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> What's your deal with going after people. You have been told like 3 times its not money for the character but for the work.
> 
> Companies like FAN ART even if people commission for it because it is free advertisement. Also pokemon people arn't going to sell individual artwork.



Sex workers use this argument when pressed about the legal nature of their work.

"I'm not charging for the sex, but for my time."

This has not ever held up in any court, ever.

The presence of a legal transaction, being _labor_ in either case, does not excuse the potentially illegal transaction being made in tandem, that being _currency for intercourse_ in one case or or _currency for items containing properties to which you do not have the rights_ in the other.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Since when? I was on there for years and there was never anything said about that. There were always rumours that Nintendo knew about it and didn't care or that AGNPH was actually run by Nintendo and all that sort of stuff but I don't recall any such order being made. The site's still running, which wouldn't have happened if Nintendo wanted it down and there's no mention of a cease and disist in the Wikifur article.



So what you're saying is, you love to watch children's characters mack it.

That's cool.

The cease and desist letter was released three or four years ago if I recall correctly. The site is still running because they complied with the demands Nintendo of America had made. I don't recall the nature of them.

All I was told was it was a stressful time for everyone involved.


----------



## BRN (Sep 14, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> Sex workers use this argument when pressed about the legal nature of their work."I'm not charging for the sex, but for my time."This has not ever held up in any court, ever.


 That's because they're not charging for time, they're charging for the use of their skills - just like artistic expression. Difference here is that it's that very skill that's illegal in the case of prostituion, whereas drawing - even to specification - isn't an illegal pastime. Escorts can use that very argument, because escorting isn't illegal, and sex if any is technically coincidental by law.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 14, 2011)

Companies have already registered for copyright, which grants them different routes when it comes to litigation vs the small time artist who didn't register.

The advantage companies have over a smaller artist is that they have the money for a lawyer. Lawyers will not take copyright cases for free and usually ask for the money up front. You can get the lawyer's fees back as part of the damages if you win however.

However, there is some confusion about LEGAL and ETHICAL.

Technically fanart of established characters for sale is infringement. It's illegal. However, ethically speaking companies will look this over for the most part. People have stated examples of people painting murals and companies serving C&Ds. 

I already posted that PPT (powerpoint). You may want to actually go through it.


----------



## jcfynx (Sep 14, 2011)

SIX said:


> That's because they're not charging for time, they're charging for the use of their skills - just like artistic expression. Difference here is that it's that very skill that's illegal in the case of prostituion, whereas drawing - even to specification - isn't an illegal pastime. Escorts can use that very argument, because escorting isn't illegal, and sex if any is technically coincidental by law.



You compare and contrast "drawing" and "prostitution;" one is the act of creating artwork, and one is a particular, proscribed form of intercourse. 

Sex is not an illegal pastime, and neither is drawing. Your argument compares the criminal form of one act with the legal form of another.

There are stipulations as to in which situations both are legal and in which they are not.

The Powerpoint slide provided by Arshes Nei can be helpful as a lay person trying to determine when this is so. To paraphrase, "fair use" is a tin shield which generally covers genuine parody and not derivative works made with the intention of capitalizing on the success of another property.

Arshes Nei is also correct in that it is unethical to go against the wishes of the artist or company involved and continue to make profit off of their personal works, regardless as to whether or not lawyers are involved.


----------



## Kaluna (Sep 14, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> Companies have already registered for copyright, which grants them different routes when it comes to litigation vs the small time artist who didn't register.
> 
> The advantage companies have over a smaller artist is that they have the money for a lawyer. Lawyers will not take copyright cases for free and usually ask for the money up front. You can get the lawyer's fees back as part of the damages if you win however.
> 
> ...



Arshes, you consistently provide a plethora of resources. It's awesome. I really always enjoy your art links too. I have the ppt up I just haven't read through the whole thing yet, I'm very busy with other homework this week. But since I've decided to do a speech on this, I now have a reason to look into much more. Which is good, because this topic is very interesting to me.
Again, I don't want anyone to be sued either. No one really wants that. But the issue here for me is that FA is allowing this to happen without eve pretending it's wrong in the least. You can't entirely stop the practice of selling fanart for profit, but perhaps we can make art communities that have high enough moral standards to not allow it.


----------



## Pinkuh (Sep 14, 2011)

So having talked to one of my connections at CN, I can officially say that the dude that does Adventure time... doesn't give a rats ass. I think you may want to bark up another tree rather then his becuase he will laugh, or ignore it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 14, 2011)

Xenke said:


> On things like this where I'm generally uneducated about the relevant laws that could come into play, I look at bigger sites to see whether or not it's actually a problem.
> 
> So let's take dA. Hmmm... nope, I don't really think they're concerned about this at all. They even have a section for fan art (which by definition almost exclusively consists of trademarked characters), so... I'm not too worried about this.



Oh, you're not clearly looking at the issue per say.

From the argument I'm understanding is the SELLING, not the creation of artwork based on licensed characters. 

DA allows fanart, however, if you try to sell prints of licensed characters through their services it's banned. Unless the artist has permission.

I'll give you a good example. 

Emily Warren (FrozenLilacs) actually had an issue with DA with selling prints of my character she was commissioned to do. They had stopped her and I had to contact DA to let them know upon previous agreement she was allowed to sell her work of my commission through their prints service. This is generally the deal I make with artists who do work or commissions of my character so they can make as much money as possible since they spent time on my character when they can work on something else.

I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Barachan hit the same wall.

So even fanart of my character can be stopped (from being sold as prints/merchandise) on DA. 

The argument isn't people shouldn't be infringing and making porn, or whatnot. I think the issue is that people are making money of licensed characters that do not belong to them. 

As I previously stated there is something of a "relationship" that allows people to do this on a small time basis. Otherwise I think Adam Hughes could get hit if he did sketches of X-men girls when he's working for DC at the time  However, it is tenuous. You have to remember and not complain when the company says "no more" it is their right. It's not unusual for industry artists to get commissioned or approached to do porn of licensed characters. I've had comic artists tell me they'll get some fan that will email them and ask how much for Batman fucking Superman. 

As I said, there's legal and ethical. Both sides of this argument need to do their research before saying "Well the company doesn't care at all" The company doesn't care to a degree and will be happy to revoke that when they see fit and in their benefit. At the same time, I wouldn't be speaking on behalf of companies saying "god you guys are awful for drawing my stuff and making some money"


----------



## mapdark (Sep 14, 2011)

Like Arshes says , I don't bloody care if you do porn of Mario sexing up princess Zelda while Starfox watches creepily from a dark corner of the room.
But making money off of someone else's characters is just wrong.

And somehow I think people tend to not care about popular commercial characters , because heh , coorporations don't have feelings. 
But let's not forget that PEOPLE worked on these characters for months if not years and are certainly attached to their work.

And here you come , porning it up and making money off of what THEY worked on and perfected.

Hell , I wouldn't wanna work for lessay Valve or Disney or whatever , and see the characters I designed for months 
for some game project or animation film being used in crappy pay-per-view yaoi.


Most people would freak out if that were done to THEM , so why is the opposite ok?



There's also the question of public image. Like a poster up there said , if your creation is supposed 
to be aimed at young kids and a google search brings up tons of porn of said characters instead of the pg images you expected,
you've got a BIG problem.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 14, 2011)

Can people quit putting words in my mouth. 

I'm merely presenting information on copyright which *both* sides seem to misunderstand. I'm also correcting the fact what the OP had a problem with.


----------



## Daddy Ducky BE (Sep 19, 2011)

Kaluna said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it's illegal to sell/make a profit off of anything to do with a character that someone else has copyrighted unless you have permission. Like Pokemon for example.


Show me the law that makes copyright infringement by means of "character theft" a _crime_. Yes, a *CRIME*! I don't know American law too well, but over here in the EU, you're not gonna find any criminal law like that. The state is not even bound by law to investigate copyright infringement.

What's there is *CIVIL* regulations (of which copyright is one) that allow a copyright holder to *SUE* somebody for copyright infringement, which is not the same as *REPORTING* them. Reporting is the thing to do with something that's actually *ILLEGAL*. By means of the civil suit, the copyright holder is trying to beat money out of the infringer as "compensation" for "lost profits" (after all, we're living under Capitalism where rich people's profits are a holy cow, and that's all that copyright's about, profits for the industry, *NOT* primarily for the content producers). It's *NOT* a criminal trial where the state intends to punish a criminal.

The poorer the person the big companies are trying to sue, and *ESPECIALLY* if he never made a living out of it, the more unwilling the courts are to even just accept a suit like that.

I suspect you're another victim of global smear campaigns by institutions such as RIAA and MPAA? They've recently lobbied some governments into making DRM-cracking into a crime, but that's not the same as "character theft".

Another success of their lobbying relevant here is that the copyright holder is now allowed to send you a restrictive order, which basically is a racketeering letter that comes down to, "If you don't send an appeal to your local court by day X (and thus tell on our racketeering), you will be entitled to pay us an amount of Y. If you fail to write that letter by day X, this order works like a signed contract that you have agreed to pay us the amount Y for no apparent reason whatsoever, and your local court will hold you liable for not paying the money you will owe us then."

Of course, they're not mentioning your option of sending an appeal. They'll ram a lot of industry slogans down your throat, such as "THEFT IS A CRIME!!!111oneoneone!", claim you're now "liable to pay them money", and that they're gonna take "legal measures" if you're not gonna pay. What they mean is that your local court will be sanctioning you for not paying a sum that they're only entitled to if you fail to appeal. Once you appeal by a simple letter reading "I hereby appeal the demand by X" in one sentence, not even IP location will help them in cases of filesharing, because people just say that their neighbor has stolen their WLAN to have free internet, and no court can do anything about that defense.

So, all the copyright holders can do after your appeal is hire a private security company who will bully you and even go so far as suggesting they would be some legal force, including dressing up in company uniforms, "investigating you" (which is *ILLEGAL* unlawful assumption of public authority, BTW), in order to get hold of your computer and see if there's a filesharing program installed. Again, copyright infringement is no "crime" that would entitle any government agency to house searches anywhere in the EU, especially if you're not living off it.

All that is usually too expensive for the industry, especially considering how little money they can usually squeeze out of their victims that way. They have a few "busts" staged for the media in order to scare some people, but that's pretty much all they can do. At the end of the day, it's a civil suit matter where the suing party has to prove down to every cent how much money they have lost because of you and you alone. The new regulations only allow them to send you a restrictive order that will only make you liable to pay if you fail to appeal that nonsense.


----------



## lostcat461 (Sep 20, 2011)

I love people who say, "Show me the law." 

EDIT!

And after a little digging. Here ya go, Kentucky state law. Shazam. Just redefine theft a little? But that is for judges to decide, and people to hire lots of lawyers to argue.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/365-00/241.pdf


----------



## Daddy Ducky BE (Sep 20, 2011)

lostcat461 said:


> And after a little digging. Here ya go, Kentucky state law. Shazam. Just redefine theft a little? But that is for judges to decide, and people to hire lots of lawyers to argue.
> 
> http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/365-00/241.pdf



Well, your source defines the act as a _misdemeanor_, not a *CRIME*! That's why the penalty is only a fine, interestingly to be paid not to the state but to the copyright giant. Which again makes it an issue of having to balance a cost-benefit calculation for the company.

In short, the question is: Will Disney risk the costs of suing a member of FA for drawing Mickey Mouse screwing a bowling ball?


----------



## lostcat461 (Sep 20, 2011)

A misdemeanor is a crime. You are thinking of the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.


----------



## Deo (Sep 20, 2011)

It is illegal and wrong to use the intellectual property of others or to take on a commission featuring such. Especially since someone is making money off the recreation of another person's ideas and intellectual properties. The line blurs with fanart, since that is an original creation meant to celebrate and up lift the intellectual property of someone else. (ie: Fanart of _Bewitched_ really is just honoring the show). However I would never take on a commission of a copyrighted character or based off of the intellectual property of someone else.


----------



## Daddy Ducky BE (Sep 20, 2011)

lostcat461 said:


> A misdemeanor is a crime. You are thinking of the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.



Interesting. Your post and a check on Wikipedia has taught me now that the Anglo-American Common Law definition of _crime_ differs from that used in continental Europe.


----------



## lostcat461 (Sep 20, 2011)

The more you know! Cause knowledge is power! 

Also remember that what I posted is just Kentucky state law. Each state has different ideas and such, making it quite a complex issue. (Which is why, say in the music industry, they try to put off actual lawsuits and prosecution if they can. It is a legal nightmare, and cease and desist orders tend to work.)


----------



## teckworks (Sep 20, 2011)

Hmm...this thread's got me thinking that it's time for me to stop charging for PokÃ©mon commissions.   I'd must rather do original works anyhow, charging people for pictures of PokÃ©mon has been feeling a tad strange to me as of late.  Sure I'll still finish the ones I got but, yeah...I think it's time to move on, and just draw PokÃ©mon for fun like I used to.


----------



## Rasly (Oct 6, 2011)

Most of companies would not mind if you use thair characters without promission, as long as you dont mass product them (and by that i mean 100+ products of one and same thing), one of a kind items are totaly safe imho, youre just making a free advertising for them, in other way they would have to pay lots of money to get a quality advertising like this, so they dont lose any money because they not going to do anything for such small money anyway and they get free quality advertising, everybody winns, i think that is the reason why they not running around asking sites to remove those commissions.

even devianart is full of them and nobody think it is bad.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 6, 2011)

I wish people would read the whole thread before feeling so important about putting their 2 cents in. Maybe they have 4 stomachs and are into regurgitation?

Closed so people quit doing this.


----------

