# Opinions on Copyrighted Species



## Corvyn (May 23, 2016)

Just curious to see what you all think of having a fursona of a copyrighted fictional species, like Pokèmon or creatures from Monster Hunter. I've seen a number of Pokèmon furs make journals and submissions regarding being looked down upon for it because they're "just recolors", but I've never encountered it as it was happening.


----------



## Samandriel Morningstar (May 23, 2016)

Not my thing,but as long as it makes them happy that's all that matters.


----------



## Katriel (May 23, 2016)

Recolored art is pretty different from fanart 'sonas; the first modifies copyrighted art, the second transforms a trademarked character. I personally adore Pokemon and fanart, enjoy using Pokemon representations of me and my friends at times, so on.

One possible issue is not being able to use art of your 'sona commercially ... Generally most people are making or buying fursona art for personal use rather than commercial, though, and not confusing the brand, so no one cares. (Commercial use fan works can be fair use, or ignored as beneficial; many classical works like the Aeneid would be reasonable examples of fair use fan writing, and 50 Shades of Gray for a sillier modern example )


----------



## Wither (May 23, 2016)

I think they're fine so long as they don't expect people to look at them as unique.

I have a pokemon character and a few pokemon friends. It's just a Pikachu with a personality slapped onto it. Nothing wrong with that.

As for the outsiders looking in, I don't understand the people who think you have to be unique. You're a fucking dog with neon blue fur. That's still a recolor :v

As an fyi, though: being a lucario is fucking lame and you should feel just as bad as the foxes do.


----------



## Katriel (May 23, 2016)

Wither said:


> As an fyi, though: being a lucario is fucking lame and you should feel just as bad as the foxes do.



IE not at all.


----------



## Wither (May 23, 2016)

Katriel said:


> IE not at all.


_Feel bad. _
I actually like foxes though.


----------



## Katriel (May 23, 2016)

Wither said:


> _Feel bad. _
> I actually like foxes though.


 (I'm not a fox)


----------



## Wither (May 23, 2016)

Katriel said:


> (I'm not a fox)


No, but it wasn't for being a fox, it's defending them


----------



## Maximus B. Panda (May 24, 2016)

Corvyn said:


> Just curious to see what you all think of having a fursona of a copyrighted fictional species, like Pokèmon or creatures from Monster Hunter. I've seen a number of Pokèmon furs make journals and submissions regarding being looked down upon for it because they're "just recolors", but I've never encountered it as it was happening.


I think they are stupid BS. Fun to mess with the copyrighted crap just to piss of the scum.


----------



## RinkuTheRuffian (May 24, 2016)

Do it like they don't own it, who cares?
But personally, I do tend to pay more attention to people that stick to canon design (With minor adjustments) and let their personality do most of the talking.  When I see a purple Renamon, I automatically nope the fuck out because that person obviously didn't watch any Digimon.


----------



## Nemnth (May 24, 2016)

Have fun with it I guess, I mean, nothing bad really would happen, I don't think
I've never heard of someone getting sued for making a character with a copyrighted species, so really I don't think it matters too much. Personally, I'd rather create my own character design than use a copyrighted species, but opinions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Caraid (May 24, 2016)

So long as you don't monetize them, who cares. It's not like the 1000th dog or cat with different colors slapped on is any more original.


----------



## AsheSkyler (May 24, 2016)

I wish I could draw copyrighted species more freely without worrying about ticking off it's owners. I love D&D dragons.


----------



## modfox (May 24, 2016)

Wither said:


> As an fyi, though: being a lucario is fucking lame and you should feel just as bad as the foxes do.



i am a fox and i dont feel bad


----------



## Gator (May 25, 2016)

same as what most everyone else is saying: i don't really have an issue with it, even so it's definitely not my thing.


----------



## Katriel (May 25, 2016)

AsheSkyler said:


> I wish I could draw copyrighted species more freely without worrying about ticking off it's owners. I love D&D dragons.



For D&D specifically, some of the monsters _might be _Open Game Content, I believe, including the basic dragons. At least judging by those dragons showing up on the free online SRD under that license, where mindflayers and such do not (also perhaps places where Pathfinder monsters and D&D monsters overlap). You'd have to have the derivative monster work under the same license to use them in game content, but if you're into publishing derivative works and OGL monsters, terms could be worth looking into.


----------



## AsheSkyler (May 27, 2016)

Katriel said:


> For D&D specifically, some of the monsters _might be _Open Game Content, I believe, including the basic dragons. At least judging by those dragons showing up on the free online SRD under that license, where mindflayers and such do not (also perhaps places where Pathfinder monsters and D&D monsters overlap). You'd have to have the derivative monster work under the same license to use them in game content, but if you're into publishing derivative works and OGL monsters, terms could be worth looking into.


I was thinking more of selling art I made of their specific dragons, like a few I know that somehow manages to sell artwork of Lord of the Rings and custom WoW characters. Goblins at least have such a universal look to them there wouldn't be any worry there, along with a few other common species like the trolls, dwarves, elves, giants, dire critters, and other things that can be found throughout folklore history. I'll likely never do more than a few sketches here and there since it's such a grey and whimsical area. =P


----------



## Katriel (May 27, 2016)

AsheSkyler said:


> I was thinking more of selling art I made of their specific dragons, like a few I know that somehow manages to sell artwork of Lord of the Rings and custom WoW characters. Goblins at least have such a universal look to them there wouldn't be any worry there, along with a few other common species like the trolls, dwarves, elves, giants, dire critters, and other things that can be found throughout folklore history. I'll likely never do more than a few sketches here and there since it's such a grey and whimsical area. =P



I presume it could fall under the same license for metallic and chromatic dragons, or any others published as Open Game Content. Not sure how practical it is to include the license with every print, though, that's a bit sillier than putting the license into a gamebook or web page where it just takes up 1 of many pages. (Also you'd have to welcome derivative content yourself, but that's kind of fair.)


----------



## Azrion/Zhalo (May 27, 2016)

If I happen to be a Rathalos, would people hate me?


----------



## Nemnth (May 27, 2016)

Azrion/Zhalo said:


> If I happen to be a Rathalos, would people hate me?


I wouldn't, nor do I think any other people would hate you for it either, hate is kinda a strong word too in regards to this topic too


----------



## Wither (May 27, 2016)

Azrion/Zhalo said:


> If I happen to be a Rathalos, would people hate me?


Rathalos' are easy. No hate. 
Fucking Rajang on the other hand...


----------

