# Your Opinion On Closed Species Culture



## ShinyFloof (Jul 22, 2017)

So there's this thing that is taking DA by storm ( even some on FA too) called closed species. What's the problem with these you may ask? You can't make one for yourself without paying for some slot. Some are decent, like 10 dollars ( paying to draw yourself something is still BS though) while popular ones like Jolleraptors and Sushi Dogs are like literally 400 dollars per slot.

Now my issue with this is why isn't someone allowed to make their own character of your species for PERSONAL use? If no money is being made from it, what's the problem? Closed species seem like a big f you to anybody who isn't in a financially good situation. People don't realize that 10 dollars IS a lot to some people, and no not everybody is in the same boat.

"Oh you like my species and want one but can't pay me for an MYO? Too bad! All you can do is look at this detailed ref sheet of my species and read the lore!" 

That has to be one of the worst feelings possible for anyone who likes making their own character for any reason.

Like I said with the Pokemon example. Nobody is stopping you from making your own Sylveon character. They will not put your name on a public "thief"/blacklist should you make your own and no money is being made from it.

Really who's stopping you from drawing a species? UNLESS they trademarked the name officially (not this "CS names are automatically trademarked!" BS) you can literally make as many of that species you want. All they can do is hate you. They'll get over it. 

I did make my own of a generic as f••• animal hybrid and got hate for it once. There's this one I'm gonna make one of but call it a different name to avoid drama and post to a different site.

I say if there's anything you want to draw, do it. You can literally think up anything and pay any number of commission artists to draw it for you. You are only limited by your imagination. Why should you have to pay to draw what you want?


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 22, 2017)

The very notion of a "closed species" is moronic. I find the very idea idiotic.

You can't own an IDEA, the same way you can't own a fictional species. Believing you can profit off of a "closed species" makes me want to call a professional and have him/her check your head for narcissism.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 22, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> The very notion of a "closed species" is moronic. I find the very idea idiotic.
> 
> You can't own an IDEA, the same way you can't own a fictional species. Believing you can profit off of a "closed species" makes me want to call a professional and have him/her check your head for narcissism.



I agree, like your literally telling someone they can't draw something for themselves for their own personal use? How greedy do people have to try and copyright and price tag everyone else's creative expression? And people saying off brands are disrespectful to CS artists. OK that's your opinion and your entitled to it but I don't see how that's hurting anyone. There's off brands of everything.


----------



## Dongding (Jul 22, 2017)

It's legally unjustified and the concept itself is oppressive. I feel like drawing all their crap out of spite and messing up their lore but it would be a petty waste of my time.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 22, 2017)

ShinyFloof said:


> I agree, like your literally telling someone they can't draw something for themselves for their own personal use? How greedy do people have to try and copyright and price tag everyone else's creative expression? And people saying off brands are disrespectful to CS artists. OK that's your opinion and your entitled to it but I don't see how that's hurting anyone. There's off brands of everything.


Unless they actually buy a PATENT for it from the patent office(kek, good luck with buying the sole rights to an IDEA), I will draw and/or commission whatever the fuck I want.

That said: Some of the species is a little cute, but that's it. 



Dongding said:


> It's legally unjustified and the concept itself is oppressive. I feel like drawing all their crap out of spite and messing up their lore but it would be a petty waste of my time.


Exactly, mate. It's tempted to commission someone to draw a closed species just to fuck with their notion and their idea of "owning" an idea. But meh, not worth it.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 22, 2017)

In a way, I'm open to a concept of closed species (no pun intended). If, say, you're going to create a meta-setting with particular species, with each character from said species having particular alignment and place in your story, it's comfortable to create some form to register said characters and control them in space of your setting, which would make for a clear and understandable setting. Species like sergals or nevreans would potentially benefit from it, considering they're highly specialized, yet people who make sergal/nevrean OCs usually screw MICKs initial continuity up by treating it like crap (making additional "adjustments" to make chars more sexy, change their setting-established behavior, etc). In case of, say, Dutch Angel Dragons (not my favorite species, but just a good example), it creates a good separation - people who want to be a part of the setting register the chars, people who just want a cool-looking fluffy dragon guy don't, and everybody's happy. It's a perfect compromise of letting the species be clean and follow creator's plan without restricting anybody's creativity.

When it comes to "paid" closed species, it's not really as bad too, as long as design of said species is well-developed and too specific to be blindly replicated by someone else. For example, Russian artist Alisenokmouse created an interesting species of bat-like birds that live in fantasy world, have specific behavior, sleeping pattern, role (delivering snail mail around particular proximity), strengths and weaknesses, etc. It's an example of good closed species - well-developed, original design that's defined too clearly to restrict any one from drawing anything similar-yet-not-the-same-thing. It's fair, really - you clearly have to try out of your way to create a "bat-like-inch-sized-crow-that-sends-mails-and-lives-through-magical-power" and pass that as coincidence, and nobody's restricting you from creating "bat-like-inch-sized-crows-that-DON'T-send-mails-and-live-physically" anyway.

The real offenders (the ones everybody's complaining about) are lazy designs that are made to "hoard" vague ideas and scam the money out of people, with abysmal degrees of success. All the sushidogs, firehuskies, icefoxes, and all that stuff. The way people try to faux-"copyright" widely used concepts is just amusing.

_*TL;DR:* Setting a registration process to clean out your species is healthy if you're making a long-term story. Creating "closed" characters to sell them is fine as long as you actually develop an unique and irreplicable design that won't restrict people from making similar chars unrelated to your species. "Creating" and selling vague ideas is, well, just kill yourself in fire or something, lol._


----------



## Dongding (Jul 22, 2017)

Good you mentioned some positives about it but the fundamentals are flawed from the start.

It's nice to have nice things kept the nice way you like it, but unless it's against the law, there's really nothing somebody can do to control a concept and expect to get any sort of result. (Especially online.) Nice has nothing to do with it. To me it's a fairly black and white discussion where it's tough to draw a grey line.

The unjustified profit from something that technically doesn't belong to someone is obviously the main problem. I'd state which info should be considered cannon to the lore of my CS if I was trying to reign in any sort of control over my idea. That's really all you can reasonably do without being a total asshat.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> It's nice to have nice things kept the nice way you like it, but unless it's against the law, there's really nothing somebody can do to control a concept and expect to get any sort of result. (Especially online.)
> 
> The unjustified profit from something that technically doesn't belong to someone is obviously the main problem. I'd state which info should be considered cannon to the lore of my CS if I was trying to reign in any sort of control over my idea. That's really all you can reasonably do without being a total asshat.



Well, they kinda can, and in a rather positive way. You see, clever "closed species" creators don't just, like, "Here's my crapdog, give me money and screw off" - they create particular lore and community around their species that's fun to participate in. You can use your char to roleplay with other buyers, on creator's own ground, you can get your char used by creator in story, you can even unwillingly get occasional gifts (I still get my batto thingie drawn by said artist from time to time), etc. Theoretically, you can just make your own without permission, but you'll miss on all the benefits of aforementioned community and acknowledgement from original creator, and the char you made for free will never be a true part of the setting. In other words, you pay for being a part of your favorite artist's lore and participating in said lore, not just for having a cool poopdog or something.

And again, while it's hard (though possible) to copyright the closed species, I just think creators who come up with genuinely interesting and elaborate designs should get rewarded, and I'm not against buying a char from them if they did a good work. Also, it's possible to unknowingly create similar designs, but in general, if artist is skilled and creative enough, there's no way anybody will come up with _exacty_ the same thing - it's like if two people create same song with same notes and same lyrics, all without knowing about each other (i.e. practically impossible). That's why I separate them from not-so-good examples of closed species, where people just combine some random stuff and expect to get money by yelling at people for "stealing" their stuff. In their case, it's like trying to copyright a chord sequence.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 22, 2017)

You got a point pip, I hate the idea of closed species with a passion. However the concept you mentioned regarding the artist with a specialized, innately unique, and their own species is a good one. What posses me off more are the crybabies that make a generic hybrid and whine when others make something similar having no knowledge of the original thing. It happens a beck of a lot :/ Not to mention someone made a thread on the concept not too long ago


I STILL find closed species and generally adopts to be silly anyways. If I wanted THAT character, I'd find out what I like about it's design, aesthetics, species...and use only the traits I like and borrow it on my own creation while still creating something new. Call it stealing if you want to whine about it, but people don't own horns or wings or whatever. They can't sue me over that. I'm not making any money over that craps anyways


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 22, 2017)

While on the subject, I find most adoptables an annoying trend. "I slapped colors on a lineart and made a random design, give me money!"

Why do people pay for flat characters with no established personality? Just an image on a screen?

Some people might establish an incredibly basic likes/dislikes or bio to give some semblance of a personality but it's really just an unused, useless image.


And these things fly all over DA and FA with artists complaining "Please buy, it's my only source of income!"

Maybe you should get a new source of income, just saying


----------



## Dongding (Jul 22, 2017)

Well fleshed out fantasy worlds that are officially copyrighted and have ascended past the point of being simply a doodle or idea only ever got that way by being given a chance.

I get what you're saying. I'm sure you get what I'm saying as well. I've always considered myself an idealist though. I get great satisfaction from things working out precisely the way they're supposed to. (Might be mild OCD or something.) Fortunately for everyone I interact with, that generally means I'll be reasonable and considerate and try to stick to the facts and intelligently back up my opinion. Unfortunately it generally makes it tough for me to take a stance on certain grey areas. Right now I only see right and "too bad". (not necessarily wrong.)


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 22, 2017)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> I STILL find closed species and generally adopts to be silly anyways. If I wanted THAT character, I'd find out what I like about it's design, aesthetics, species...and use only the traits I like and borrow it on my own creation while still creating something new. Call it stealing if you want to whine about it, but people don't own horns or wings or whatever. They can't sue me over that. I'm not making any money over that craps anyways


I'll say you that at least among the closed species artists I know, they generally see "creating by inspiration" as a good thing - you spread around what they consider a good taste in character design, and nothing is better for craft-loving artist than getting his tastes shared by someone. Though doing that out of spite is a bit silly too - I mean, if you really like artist a lot, what makes it wrong to buy a character or two from him/her? You'll show some support the original creator, and in return, you'll get a personally-crafted design from a very talented person that you could use anywhere, anytime, and with endorsement of said original creator. It's a win-win situation - fan helps the artist, and artist helps the fan.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Well fleshed out fantasy worlds that are officially copyrighted and have ascended past the point of being simply a doodle or idea only ever got that way by being given a chance.
> 
> I get what you're saying. I'm sure you get what I'm saying as well. I've always considered myself an idealist though. I get great satisfaction from things working out precisely the way they're supposed to. (Might be mild OCD or something.) Fortunately for everyone I interact with, that generally means I'll be reasonable and considerate and try to stick to the facts and intelligently back up my opinion. Unfortunately it generally makes it tough for me to take a stance on certain grey areas. Right now I only see right and "too bad". (not necessarily wrong.)


Well, we can always agree to disagree c:


----------



## Dongding (Jul 22, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> Well, we can always agree to disagree c:


Some people don't know that lol.

EDIT: To weigh in on adoptables, I would never buy one, but a person has made something, put it on display to be sold, and a customer wants the product/service enough to either buy it or not. I think they're dumb too but they're in no way any different than any sort of other type of commision; Just far less personal. It's like going to a store that sells pants instead of the tailor.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Jul 22, 2017)

I find it stupid that people would pay anything for it

But I have respect for people who do it and make money off of it


----------



## Taterbunny (Jul 22, 2017)

Closed species are genius for people who have a fan base and want easy cash. Do I like the concept? No, not at all.
There is nothing stopping someone from creating a similar character (other than white knights who will come in droves to bully). After all, anything we create is taken in pieces from other things. Think like a blend of animal parts. I think the idea that your personal mix of animal parts is exclusive behind a paywall is ridiculous.
Though if you have your own mosh of animals and it's not an "officially open species" people will assume it's some closed species, which is a bit annoying. I've had people ask me f I plan to open my sona's species, and I'm just here like... it's not a closed thing, it's basically a bunny-gecko-thing. Make one, go nuts, give it wings, horns, whatever you want. But then people are understandably afraid people will think they copied someone's sona unless they're an "open species". The whole thing's a headache, and people should be allowed to draw whatever creatures they want regardless if someone else has a similar one. Just make the design itself unique and go for it.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Some people don't know that lol.
> 
> EDIT: To weigh in on adoptables, I would never buy one, but a person has made something, put it on display to be sold, and a customer wants the product/service enough to either buy it or not. I think they're dumb too but they're in no way any different than any sort of other type of commision; Just far less personal. It's like going to a store that sells pants instead of the tailor.


Again, speaking on "far less personal", it highly depends on the artist. Some just resell colored dogs, and I just avoid them. Others actually come up with smart, themed designs and write elaborate, cohesive backstories to back their characters up, often putting the same amount of love they do when making their own chars (common reason for selling them in the first place is "I don't have enough time to use him/her, so I might as well give the design away in good hands"). Surely, it's not very personal for a customer, but definitely a legitimate chunk of love from creator.

In general, after reading the thread, I think both closed species and adoptables are widely misunderstood as "uncreative scams", and it shows here. But at least I had the chance to explain the process behind both concepts in a more realistic manner, so somebody will read this and think about it for a minute or two .u.


----------



## Dongding (Jul 22, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> Again, speaking on "far less personal"



I meant specifically the artists pooping out adoptables with no specific person in mind. The transaction itself is much less personal than if a customer were to commission a piece with their own personal tastes in mind from an artist, obviously. You mentioned that already though. :3


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 22, 2017)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> You got a point pip, I hate the idea of closed species with a passion. However the concept you mentioned regarding the artist with a specialized, innately unique, and their own species is a good one. What posses me off more are the crybabies that make a generic hybrid and whine when others make something similar having no knowledge of the original thing. It happens a beck of a lot :/ Not to mention someone made a thread on the concept not too long ago
> 
> 
> I STILL find closed species and generally adopts to be silly anyways. If I wanted THAT character, I'd find out what I like about it's design, aesthetics, species...and use only the traits I like and borrow it on my own creation while still creating something new. Call it stealing if you want to whine about it, but people don't own horns or wings or whatever. They can't sue me over that. I'm not making any money over that craps anyways



I believe I made the thread about hybrid closed species and that incident is what fueled my hatred for closed species. I can and will draw whatever I want, as a few others on this thread have stated. Unless you somehow got a patent on an idea, I'll continue doing as I please.


----------



## Filter (Jul 22, 2017)

The idea of closed species seems uncreative to me, and maybe symptomatic of another problem. Why copy others so closely that they have to "close" anything? I mean, I get that some people like making fan art, but that's what it is. Fan art. Like drawing pictures of Pokemon rather than your own OCs.


----------



## Dongding (Jul 22, 2017)

Except if Nintendo (I think? Do they own Pokémon?) wanted to sue you for misusing the property that they actually do own, they could. That to me is the most important difference. I don't even mean it in a sense of right or wrong because it legally falls on one side or another, either. I don't think anything that you can get away with legally is necessarily right. There's plenty of examples of people getting away with atrocious things because of loopholes in the law so laws to me don't necessarily mean a thing. Laws are arbitrary and can be changed at anytime while right and wrong is always the same. In this case though, I feel justice does happen to be in touch with the laws on copyrighting. The entire purpose of a copyright is specifically to protect an idea, and if you don't do that, then you have no reason to complain that your idea is being taken advantage of.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 22, 2017)

Filter said:


> The idea of closed species seems uncreative to me, and maybe symptomatic of another problem. Why copy others so closely that they have to "close" anything? I mean, I get that some people like making fan art, but that's what it is. Fan art. Like drawing pictures of Pokemon rather than your own OCs.



Exactly. I do wanna make a feral dessert wolf with a bell collar but the only thing stopping me is idk if I'd actually use the OC, though I have a name for it and everything.


----------



## Xaroin (Jul 22, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> In a way, I'm open to a concept of closed species (no pun intended). If, say, you're going to create a meta-setting with particular species, with each character from said species having particular alignment and place in your story, it's comfortable to create some form to register said characters and control them in space of your setting, which would make for a clear and understandable setting. Species like sergals or nevreans would potentially benefit from it, considering they're highly specialized, yet people who make sergal/nevrean OCs usually screw MICKs initial continuity up by treating it like crap (making additional "adjustments" to make chars more sexy, change their setting-established behavior, etc). In case of, say, Dutch Angel Dragons (not my favorite species, but just a good example), it creates a good separation - people who want to be a part of the setting register the chars, people who just want a cool-looking fluffy dragon guy don't, and everybody's happy. It's a perfect compromise of letting the species be clean and follow creator's plan without restricting anybody's creativity.
> 
> When it comes to "paid" closed species, it's not really as bad too, as long as design of said species is well-developed and too specific to be blindly replicated by someone else. For example, Russian artist Alisenokmouse created an interesting species of bat-like birds that live in fantasy world, have specific behavior, sleeping pattern, role (delivering snail mail around particular proximity), strengths and weaknesses, etc. It's an example of good closed species - well-developed, original design that's defined too clearly to restrict any one from drawing anything similar-yet-not-the-same-thing. It's fair, really - you clearly have to try out of your way to create a "bat-like-inch-sized-crow-that-sends-mails-and-lives-through-magical-power" and pass that as coincidence, and nobody's restricting you from creating "bat-like-inch-sized-crows-that-DON'T-send-mails-and-live-physically" anyway.
> 
> ...


*trade marks "React"*


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 22, 2017)

Xaroin said:


> *trade marks "React"*



Reminds me of when Candy Crush tried to trademark the word "candy". They never did because they realized how asinine it would be to trademark such a common word. Pipistriel has a good point though, closed species with original anatomy don't bug me as much as the food dog stuff, but the idea of "closing" something is just eh. Thats just my opinion though.

My biggest problem is that well a lot of the species are cute but generic and the creators say "oh you can't draw this without paying for it because yadda yadda yadda". When in reality you can just take the aspects you like about it and make your own character with those traits, but that's what makes people whine and say you're "stealing"


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jul 23, 2017)

ShinyFloof said:


> Reminds me of when Candy Crush tried to trademark the word "candy". They never did because they realized how asinine it would be to trademark such a common word.


Similarly, Games Workshop tried to trademark the term "Space Marine". Fortunately they came to their senses after a court battle, and instead opted to go with as much pseudo-Latin naming conventions as they could for their Space Marine ("Adeptus Astartes"), Imperial Guard ("Astra Militarum") and Stormtrooper ("Militarum Tempestus") army lines. They also applied that wisdom to their WFB setting following their Age of Sigmar reboot (especially and most extreme with their Lizardmen line, which got renamed "Seraphon" - still the Aztec dinosaurs we knew and loved, now with more magical ancient astronaut mixed in.)


----------



## Junkerfox (Jul 23, 2017)

Flip them off and draw it anyway. I bet half those nuts ain't got a goddamn lawyer.
Let me ask you this: is there species copyrighted?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 23, 2017)

It's retarded, and should be put out of our misery.


----------



## lyar (Jul 23, 2017)

ShinyFloof said:


> When in reality you can just take the aspects you like about it and make your own character with those traits, but that's what makes people whine and say you're "stealing"


When will people learn that there are no _completely _original ideas especially in this day and age. I am absolutely tired of people with their own heads up their asses, people think they are special snowflakes and it frustrates me to no end.

@ShinyFloof I truely feel for you. I don't know what I would do in your shoes but I know what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't let anyone stop me from continuing my art, no matter what it looks like. If they are bothered they can hold that L


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 23, 2017)

@lyar 

This is probably my favorite comment so far. Never in any of my years of drawing did I think somebody could tell I wasn't allowed to draw animal hybrids because I didn't come up with the idea of mashing together a rabbit and whatever the other one was.

I am afraid to draw off brands or just flat out draw a species.  I seen the type of hate that gets thrown around if you do. Some go as far as to publicly add your name to a blacklist that has utterly no weight or consequences outside their little moral code. ( Which isn't so moral sometimes, there was a case on DA where someone made their own Sushi Dogs and the way the group admin handled it was borderline libel) I just don't want my reputation damaged all because I wanted to draw something I thought was nice looking, or anyone I interact with to change their opinion of me.


----------



## Xaroin (Jul 23, 2017)

ShinyFloof said:


> Reminds me of when Candy Crush tried to trademark the word "candy". They never did because they realized how asinine it would be to trademark such a common word. Pipistriel has a good point though, closed species with original anatomy don't bug me as much as the food dog stuff, but the idea of "closing" something is just eh. Thats just my opinion though.
> 
> My biggest problem is that well a lot of the species are cute but generic and the creators say "oh you can't draw this without paying for it because yadda yadda yadda". When in reality you can just take the aspects you like about it and make your own character with those traits, but that's what makes people whine and say you're "stealing"


what exactly is this food dog stuff


----------



## Dongding (Jul 23, 2017)

Justlikeitsounds. Real creative.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 23, 2017)

Xaroin said:


> what exactly is this food dog stuff



Stuff like Sushi Dogs, Cinnadogs, etc. Basically a dog with food on it but is a closed species for some reason


----------



## Kezi Avdiivka (Jul 23, 2017)

This has me questioning how people can actually get away with this, how the fuck do you close a species for your own use?


----------



## Dongding (Jul 23, 2017)

You can't lol. Not unless you copyright it legally, which is the specific purpose of a copyright, which they refuse to do for some reason.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 23, 2017)

Kezi Avdiivka said:


> This has me questioning how people can actually get away with this, how the fuck do you close a species for your own use?



Simply put, you can't. But closed species groups on DA seem to think they can tell people "oh you can't draw this without giving me money"! Its ridiculous, most are just dogs or foxes with food on them or fans on their butts. To quote this closed species rant I found on DA:

"On every ref sheet, doodle, and drawing you write "Closed species you can't make your own!" it holds no weight over whether or no people can or will make their own. If they want to, their going to and that's the bottom line. Your essentially relying on the morals of the person viewing your species to keep them safe. You have utterly no legal standing to persecute them should they make their own."

Then it went on to talk about how you can't copyright a species and all that jazz.


----------



## Kezi Avdiivka (Jul 23, 2017)

ShinyFloof said:


> Simply put, you can't. But closed species white knights seem to think they can tell people "oh you can't draw this without giving me money"! Its ridiculous, most are just dogs or foxes with food on them or fans on their butts. To quote this closed species rant I found on DA:
> 
> "On every ref sheet, doodle, and drawing you write "Closed species you can't make your own!" it holds no weight over whether or no people can or will make their own. If they want to, their going to and that's the bottom line. Your essentially relying on the morals of the person viewing your species to keep them safe. You have utterly no legal standing to persecute them should they make their own."
> 
> Then it went on to talk about how you can't copyright a species and all that jazz.



What was the response to it?


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 23, 2017)

Kezi Avdiivka said:


> What was the response to it?



I don't believe the journal had any comments or responses, but I can link it to you if you wanna read it in full


----------



## Kezi Avdiivka (Jul 23, 2017)

ShinyFloof said:


> I don't believe the journal had any comments or responses, but I can link it to you if you wanna read it in full



yesplz


----------



## Dongding (Jul 23, 2017)

It's like a patent for inventors. It would be similar to Thomas Edison showing everybody his blueprints and technical notes for the lightbulb, not patenting it, then getting angry someone made one.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 23, 2017)

Dongding said:


> It's like a patent for inventors. It would be similar to Thomas Edison showing everybody his blueprints and technical notes for the lightbulb, not patenting it, then getting angry someone made one.


^ Basically this.

Shows everyone the details, the blueprints, everything. Then throws a hissyfit and starts talking shit behind people's back, and stir up pointless drama.

You can get a patent on an idea the same way you can get a patent for a plot on the sun for building that villa you've always wanted.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 23, 2017)

Kezi Avdiivka said:


> yesplz



coffeeholicmutt.deviantart.com: A seething closed species rant 

That's the one.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jul 24, 2017)

Dongding said:


> You can't lol. Not unless you copyright it legally, which is the specific purpose of a copyright, which they refuse to do for some reason.


Usually because they only see what copyright can offer them and assume that those privileges are universal. Few realize that there's two tiers of copyright - copyright and registered copyright - and, while they want the privileges associated with the latter (which is pay-to-play with a paperwork trail to back it up), they're limited to the benefits afforded by the former (which is free and universal).

Trademarking is another pay-to-play feature, with the caveat of whatever is being trademarked needing to be used frequently by the trademark owner(s), else it loses its trademark status.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 24, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Usually because they only see what copyright can offer them and assume that those privileges are universal. Few realize that there's two tiers of copyright - copyright and registered copyright - and, while they want the privileges associated with the latter (which is pay-to-play with a paperwork trail to back it up), they're limited to the benefits afforded by the former (which is free and universal).
> 
> Trademarking is another pay-to-play feature, with the caveat of whatever is being trademarked needing to be used frequently by the trademark owner(s), else it loses its trademark status.



Thank you for bringing this up. This is why you cannot "steal" a species. The only things copyrighted are the art and designs. The concept of the species itself cannot be copyrighted. As long as your not stealing preexisting designs, it is legal to draw your own thing really. I believe its called off branding.


----------



## modfox (Jul 24, 2017)

I think that "closed species" Is  a load of absolute bull shit. and these artists are greedy fucks who just want money. sorry if I offended anyone but if I see a creature I like I will go and make a character of that species if I damn want to. and I would like to see them try and sue me. as soon as the judge sees "furry" he/she would say "Next case". that pretty much sums up my opinion.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 24, 2017)

On a related note, it kinda amuses me that three days passed, and it's still mostly the same 3-5 people who keep complaining about closed species, referring to the same two points ("YOU CAN COPYRIGHT THIS" and "THOSE PEOPLE ARE GREEDY MEANIES, NOTHING STOPPING ME FROM STEALING THEIR DESIGNS ANYWAY") again and again. I think folks in this thread are overreacting quite a bit, especially considering that it's unlikely anyone of those 3-5 people got into problems over similar designs as of now, and one of them doesn't even make his own drawings in the first place. Not to protect the concept (I already mentioned its upsides and downsides, so it's not without the nasty parts), but you're just being silly on that point.

The thing that genuinely unsettles me, though, is the aforementioned attitude of "just stealing designs". I mean, there is an extreme of claiming everything and asking money for it, which is bad, but there's also an _another_ extreme of stealing characters and not even as much as saying thank you, and people in this thread are for the most part, like, "Those artists making characters and stuff? Well, *f#ck them*, they can't copyright shit, so I'll just blatantly copy from them and flip the bird in return, because _they're _greedy meanies, and _I am_ a completely cool and creative person!". And frankly, both kinds of behavior are kind of disgusting to me. Your disdain for first type of people is understandable, but judging by this thread, you aren't heroes either, sorry.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 24, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> On a related note, it kinda amuses me that three days passed, and it's still mostly the same 3-5 people who keep complaining about closed species, referring to the same two points ("YOU CAN COPYRIGHT THIS" and "THOSE PEOPLE ARE GREEDY MEANIES, NOTHING STOPPING ME FROM STEALING THEIR DESIGNS ANYWAY") again and again. I think folks in this thread are overreacting quite a bit, especially considering that it's unlikely anyone of those 3-5 people got into problems over similar designs as of now, and one of them doesn't even make his own drawings in the first place. Not to protect the concept (I already mentioned its upsides and downsides, so it's not without the nasty parts), but you're just being silly on that point.
> 
> The thing that genuinely unsettles me, though, is the aforementioned attitude of "just stealing designs". I mean, there is an extreme of claiming everything and asking money for it, which is bad, but there's also an _another_ extreme of stealing characters and not even as much as saying thank you, and people in this thread are for the most part, like, "Those artists making characters and stuff? Well, *f#ck them*, they can't copyright shit, so I'll just blatantly copy from them and flip the bird in return, because _they're _greedy meanies, and _I am_ a completely cool and creative person!". And frankly, both kinds of behavior are kind of disgusting to me. Your disdain for first type of people is understandable, but judging by this thread, you aren't heroes either, sorry.


Overall, IMO the idea of a closed species is stupid.

But like you've said previously in the thread, if you manage to make it work, for instance create this wide, unique and interesting universe where that species is used, I'd be a lot more inclined towards making myself a character and joining that species' community. Because it looks fun and interesting.

The problem comes when you have people who want to basically own all rights to a species, and any sort of interaction, art, stories, etc, related to that species is completely off limit. Because they said so. Sorry, hun. You don't own a species let alone an idea. Unless you get an actual patent for it, which I doubt any of these people actually have, they are simply going to have to deal with it.

Though if you create art just to spite the ones who act all high and mighty with their species, you're no better than them.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 24, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Overall, IMO the idea of a closed species is stupid.
> 
> But like you've said previously in the thread, if you manage to make it work, for instance create this wide, unique and interesting universe where that species is used, I'd be a lot more inclined towards making myself a character and joining that species' community. Because it looks fun and interesting.
> 
> ...


But that's a big exaggeration of things, coming from, again, people who don't buy CS characters, don't deal with CS creators, and have relatively lacking understanding of topic, yet lurk for a reason to rant a bit (and we have 3 pages of same misguided complaints from the same people as a result). Closed species aren't really about "Look, I claim this idea, so pay me cash, m'kay?", but more about "Look at cool setting/design I created! If you like what I did, you can part of it too if you support me a bit". There isn't even that much "claiming" going on - when it comes to creating CS chars without permission, artists are usually just like, "Well, ok then, I just don't include it in my canon and move on". It's also why I consider it silly to center so many arguments around copyrights, since, well, majority of CS artists don't care that much about their species being "improperly used", they just treat it as versatile variation of adaptables and/or try to keep the species catetorized for future purposes

What we have here, though, is labeling the whole subset of medium and creating the excuse to disrespect character designers, good or bad - like " Some artists are bad and greedy => All of them should be bad and greedy too => Since all of them are bad and greedy, we can abuse and screw everybody". It's genuinely disappointing, i thought FAF is usually better than that.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 24, 2017)

The point of this thread was to show the bad side of CS communities, and how the idea of "closing" a concept doesn't really work, and the type of hate and witch hunting that goes on if you should draw something that even remotely looks like a closed species.

Most people who off brand don't do it to steal money from the creators, its more of a "I drew your species now what?" thing.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Jul 24, 2017)

Thing is, the second a closed species goes public there will always be a altercation over the use of it. Unless it's for bragging rights, it seems a little pointless. Even popufurs like Telephone tried the same thing with his Dutch Angle-Dragon and had a bitch-fit over other people making versions of it. It's a lot different if it's your fursona, something that specifically represents you, that people know you by. It's a lot harder to rip off but not something you can patent either.


----------



## Dongding (Jul 24, 2017)

You understand how flawed it is, and I agree not giving credit to the creator of the species is very rude if you did draw inspiration heavily from their design. It's a nice courtesy to do so and nothing else. I don't think any of us are headhunting artists though. Your flow chart is a little presumptuous. Not to mention just because the person might be doing a CS with as much class as possible, doesn't mean they have any sort of immunity to the situation they decided to put themselves in by making their species closed to other people. It's just in _poorer_ taste to draw someone's species specifically out of spite when they aren't being dicks about it; It's borderline malicious. Anyone with an excited post is only posting that way because they're passionate about how fundamentally pointless the concept of trying to control what another person with free will does over the internet within the confines of the law. (and you're right about the civility on some of the posts being a little lacking but they're lacking for the right reasons.) I mentioned it'd be a petty waste of time but I assume you must have grouped me in with the "disappointing" people so I hope that's not the case.

As for lurking on the most active topic in this section... would you describe what you're doing to be something different? Seeing a post and replying to it?

The thread has definitely run it's course though. The last 3 pages _do_ look similar.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 24, 2017)

Dongding said:


> You understand how flawed it is, and I agree not giving credit to the creator of the species is very rude if you did draw inspiration heavily from their design. It's a nice courtesy to do so and nothing else. I don't think any of us are headhunting artists though. Your flow chart is a little presumptuous. Not to mention just because the person might be doing a CS with as much class as possible, doesn't mean they have any sort of immunity to the situation they decided to put themselves in by making their species closed to other people. It's just in _poorer_ taste to draw someone's species specifically out of spite when they aren't being dicks about it; It's borderline malicious. Anyone with an excited post is only posting that way because they're passionate about how fundamentally pointless the concept of trying to control what another person with free will does over the internet within the confines of the law. (and you're right about the civility on some of the posts being a little lacking but they're lacking for the right reasons.) I mentioned it'd be a petty waste of time but I assume you must have grouped me in with the "disappointing" people so I hope that's not the case.
> 
> As for lurking on the most active topic in this section... would you describe what you're doing to be something different? Seeing a post and replying to it?
> 
> The thread has definitely run it's course though. The last 3 pages _do_ look similar.


I don't see you as someone with malicious intents, so yeah, I didn't mean you by that - it's all the "It's not copyright so I can use it" mentions, as well as brain damage accusations (of all things) that ticked me in the wrong way, since general mood in this thread seems to be pretty malicious. The point I'm trying to make, though, is that there are many different explanations of term "closed species", and the primary one is "species categorized and developed with direct participation of its creator" (in contrast to "open species" - the ones made by creator but have no further creator-related boundaries to them being "canonical" or not). It's not a self-imposed restriction to create and sell - it's more of a way for creator to say "There are criterias to whether character of my species is canonical in continuity I created or not" (i.e. you can create without permission, but author has the right to dismiss your char in his storyline, which is perfectly fair). It doesn't affect anyone else, it doesn't restrict you from drawing and borrowing stuff, it just means that original author can possibly exclude your character from his/her long-term lore (while "open species" act more by principle of "everything fanmade is canonical as long as it fits the lore"). Indeed, there are people that get the concept wrong and try to unsuccessfully abuse it, but in reality, it has barely anything to do with copyrights or content claiming. Surely, you can't control what others do with your designs (and not that many try to), but you can separate and flesh out your species from tons of possible copycats without getting things out of hands by having aforementioned control over what counts as "canon" and what's not, and locking up your species is a good way to do just that.


----------



## Dongding (Jul 24, 2017)

This thread is leaving a bad taste in my mouth lol. I'm glad I'm discussing this with someone civil enough to see both points of view at the very least. I want you to know I respect your position too. You're one of the last people I want to argue with on FAF. I generally agree with all of your posts and you can tell by the care you generally take to compose them that there's a lot of consideration about what other people have actually said and you make a point to show that you're not disregarding their opinion.

If I made something and wanted to protect the creative integrity of what it was but also show it to as many people I could so that it could grow larger and become something recognizable, I would be annoyed people were messing with my stuff as well. I would ignore them though, and that would be the end of it. The frustration comes from maybe the fact that people are being excluded from something they're literally allowed to do.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 24, 2017)

I know you probably weren't replying to me, but you do have a point here with this statement. I have heard about off brands before but never thought about making/buying them because I'm not too into the whole species thing. Pretty much the only reason the first thread exists is because some extremists on DA tried to close a simple animal hybrid and singled me out for merely having something similar. Not once but twice, the second time was just more extreme.

To me it seems that making someone out to be a thief and really trying to frame them for harassment like that without providing solid proof that's what happened is borderline libel, not to mention public call-out journals aren't cool.  I could've reported this user and her fans if I really wanted to, but luckily it didn't escalate that far.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 24, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> But that's a big exaggeration of things, coming from, again, people who don't buy CS characters, don't deal with CS creators, and have relatively lacking understanding of topic, yet lurk for a reason to rant a bit (and we have 3 pages of same misguided complaints from the same people as a result). Closed species aren't really about "Look, I claim this idea, so pay me cash, m'kay?", but more about "Look at cool setting/design I created! If you like what I did, you can part of it too if you support me a bit". There isn't even that much "claiming" going on - when it comes to creating CS chars without permission, artists are usually just like, "Well, ok then, I just don't include it in my canon and move on". It's also why I consider it silly to center so many arguments around copyrights, since, well, majority of CS artists don't care that much about their species being "improperly used", they just treat it as versatile variation of adaptables and/or try to keep the species catetorized for future purposes
> 
> What we have here, though, is labeling the whole subset of medium and creating the excuse to disrespect character designers, good or bad - like " Some artists are bad and greedy => All of them should be bad and greedy too => Since all of them are bad and greedy, we can abuse and screw everybody". It's genuinely disappointing, i thought FAF is usually better than that.


I mean no disrespect for CS creators. I see both the pros and cons of it. Though IMO, the cons outweigh the pros. Though the pros aren't to be neglected or ignored.

I have come across some really good CS universes with an interesting species. I personally am not interested in a closed universe, but the ones who do have my support. 

I have no intention in the case of CS creators to put all of them in the same basket. It would be quite frankly, insulting.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jul 24, 2017)

Dongding said:


> This thread is leaving a bad taste in my mouth lol. I'm glad I'm discussing this with someone civil enough to see both points of view at the very least. I want you to know I respect your position too. You're one of the last people I want to argue with on FAF. I generally agree with all of your posts and you can tell by the care you generally take to compose them that there's a lot of consideration about what other people have actually said and you make a point to show that you're not disregarding their opinion.
> 
> If I made something and wanted to protect the creative integrity of what it was but also show it to as many people I could so that it could grow larger and become something recognizable, I would be annoyed people were messing with my stuff as well. I would ignore them though, and that would be the end of it. The frustration comes from maybe the fact that people are being excluded from something they're literally allowed to do.


I actually like this point of view, to me it's a much better angle to work with. Closed species are indeed a double-edged sword with lots of cons and general lack of compromises, which makes for controversial topic and, as a result, potentially quite interesting conversation. It's just that most of complaints I see in this thread are somewhat misguided, since they're aimed primarly at legal side (which isn't really that important in the first place) or the whole species mining thing (which is an unpleasant side-effect rather than the essence). If there's a real problem with both open and closed species I could name, it's said lack of "golden mean" - it's either creator having most control over the species, or creator having_ no_ control over the species, with no in-between. I think artwork community will figure the whole species thing out sooner or later, it's just that both concepts are rather new as of now.

(also, thank you! Happy to see someone who actually enjoys my grumpy ramblings full of grammatical errors .u. )



ShinyFloof said:


> I know you probably weren't replying to me, but you do have a point here with this statement. I have heard about off brands before but never thought about making/buying them because I'm not too into the whole species thing. Pretty much the only reason the first thread exists is because some extremists on DA tried to close a simple animal hybrid and singled me out for merely having something similar. Not once but twice, the second time was just more extreme.
> 
> To me it seems that making someone out to be a thief and really trying to frame them for harassment like that without providing solid proof that's what happened is borderline libel, not to mention public call-out journals aren't cool.  I could've reported this user and her fans if I really wanted to, but luckily it didn't escalate that far.


I can see where your disdain is coming from, and as I said many times before, such "species mining" behavior disgusts me quite a lot, both as long-time community member and aspiring character designer. It's just that people in this thread seem to be too eager to kick any artist who as much as dares to make closed species, focusing solely on bad examples and completely ignoring good ones, to the point where it sounds pretty much like encouragement to just steal characters from those artists out of spite (which is where I decided to step in and defend the thing again, even if I'm not a huge fan of CS myself).



Yakamaru said:


> I mean no disrespect for CS creators. I see both the pros and cons of it. Though IMO, the cons outweigh the pros. Though the pros aren't to be neglected or ignored.
> 
> I have come across some really good CS universes with an interesting species. I personally am not interested in a closed universe, but the ones who do have my support.
> 
> I have no intention in the case of CS creators to put all of them in the same basket. It would be quite frankly, insulting.


You're a cool guy you know that .u.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 24, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I mean no disrespect for CS creators. I see both the pros and cons of it. Though IMO, the cons outweigh the pros. Though the pros aren't to be neglected or ignored.
> 
> I have come across some really good CS universes with an interesting species. I personally am not interested in a closed universe, but the ones who do have my support.
> 
> I have no intention in the case of CS creators to put all of them in the same basket. It would be quite frankly, insulting.



Same here. I see some CS with interesting lore and original anatomy and backstory that I may take part in if I had the funds to do so. Though I'm not really for the idea of closing a species/universe, there are a few I'd like to partake in if I could to afford to do so.

I think the biggest problem people have with paying for CS is your not getting anything tangible out of it. Which I have to admit I'd buy more into it if it was say, more like Webkinz where you buy a stuffed animal and it unlocks an online character version of it or something.


----------



## Xaroin (Jul 26, 2017)

ShinyFloof said:


> Stuff like Sushi Dogs, Cinnadogs, etc. Basically a dog with food on it but is a closed species for some reason


sounds dumb AF and uncopyrightable AF


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 26, 2017)

I could profit from this, but I'd rather keep my dignity.


----------



## W00lies (Jul 26, 2017)

This is kinda sad.  I have no idea when or how that trend got started but I remember, 10 years ago, if anyone drew something inspired or based on your own artwork it was a huge compliment. People would draw each other fanart and trade commissions for fun, regardless of your talent. We would even go as far as sending each other artwork by mail to color it with coloring pencils. Thanks to online galleries I've even met a friend who happened to live 30 minutes away from me. We're still friends to this day and we met 17 years ago or so.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jul 26, 2017)

W00lies said:


> This is kinda sad.  I have no idea when or how that trend got started but I remember, 10 years ago, if anyone drew something inspired or based on your own artwork it was a huge compliment.


I agree. Imitation is the most basic form of flattery, after all. Heck, I even remember a guy who, while he turned out to be a complete troll in the end, had voluntarily churned out great fanart of one of my characters without even asking.





> People would draw each other fanart and trade commissions for fun, regardless of your talent. We would even go as far as sending each other artwork by mail to color it with coloring pencils. Thanks to online galleries I've even met a friend who happened to live 30 minutes away from me. We're still friends to this day and we met 17 years ago or so.


It's uncanny how much of this echoes my own experience with sharing artwork online.


----------



## Amiir (Jul 26, 2017)

You want my opinion huh? Well I have some custom species of my own (I prefer calling 'em that) and I put a lot of thought and work into them, adjusting, improving their design and lore through the years. I am extremely proud and jealous of what I created and would prefer if they weren't used in a way I don't see fit. *Let's be real, you wouldn't want that with your persona either, for anyone to come along and use it like they own it, do you? This isn't any different: my creation, my rules.* It's basically as if my custom species were my toys and honestly I don't want to share, not even for money. Have some pride and don't just lazily copy/steal one's design or, worse, lore (not that I've had anyone do that to me personally), just let me tell you the ''ingredients'' I used, the animals and elements I took inspiration from and make your own combination: that way you can look at what you made and feel the joy of knowing that _you_ came up with it, nobody else. Be creative, don't be a bore with your formula and you might just pique the interest of those who see it. If you think someone ripped off your species there's also the possibility that your ''creation'' just isn't unique enough. In that case the only thing that can make your species unique is to back it with decent lore, otherwise what's even the point of you making a species ''closed'' in the first place?
In the end I say a species can be considered unique through appearance and/or the lore behind it. A good example are the human races of The Elder Scrolls: they look the exact same as here on Earth (nords = scandinavians, redguards = north africans etc.) and yet they all manage to be unique thanks to their story

Thankfully I suppose my species must be esoteric enough for most people to not wanna draw them and I like it that way, exception made for two people. The first just randomly up and drew one of my characters getting creampie'd. Oooooookay then. Maybe warn me next time. The second was a lot more reasonable and he too wished to draw sexy stuff involving my species. His interest was genuine and I even drew him a specimen following a description I had him give me, so that he could have a character to draw the way he desired. It was kinda flattering actually, that he liked my shit so much. Some time later, I don't remember why, I tell him he can use additional characters of mine as well EXCEPT, among others, for my 'sona. Guess what he did? He drew my 'sona buttfucking his. That's it, don't touch my shit ever again



Pipistrele said:


> In a way, I'm open to a concept of closed species (no pun intended). If, say, you're going to create a meta-setting with particular species, with each character from said species having particular alignment and place in your story, it's comfortable to create some form to register said characters and control them in space of your setting, which would make for a clear and understandable setting. Species like sergals or nevreans would potentially benefit from it, considering they're highly specialized, yet people who make sergal/nevrean OCs usually screw MICKs initial continuity up by treating it like crap (making additional "adjustments" to make chars more sexy, change their setting-established behavior, etc). In case of, say, Dutch Angel Dragons (not my favorite species, but just a good example), it creates a good separation - people who want to be a part of the setting register the chars, people who just want a cool-looking fluffy dragon guy don't, and everybody's happy. It's a perfect compromise of letting the species be clean and follow creator's plan without restricting anybody's creativity.



This is quite interesting, I like the idea of having people fill out a form of sorts if they want a character to be in-canon. To those who'd like to use a custom species solely for their looks instead it can simply be treated as any other hybrid, detached from the world the author's created. I'll keep this in mind should many people ask to use my shit which I still hope they don't lmao


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 26, 2017)

W00lies said:


> This is kinda sad.  I have no idea when or how that trend got started but I remember, 10 years ago, if anyone drew something inspired or based on your own artwork it was a huge compliment. People would draw each other fanart and trade commissions for fun, regardless of your talent. We would even go as far as sending each other artwork by mail to color it with coloring pencils. Thanks to online galleries I've even met a friend who happened to live 30 minutes away from me. We're still friends to this day and we met 17 years ago or so.



I kinda agree here. I remember when art trades and fan art were complimentary, so was gift art. I understand why people wouldn't want others profiting off of their species, but the part I find kinda sad is "You may not make one for yourself". That's kinda insulting really. What right would they have to say you can't make a fan character for your own noncommercial use? I just don't get why this is widely accepted on the internet yet doesn't exist outside it. Things like Pokemon, Digimon, MLP ponies, etc aren't closed to non-profit creation by fans


----------



## MAN_BURD (Jul 28, 2017)

I'm willing to fund a "closed species enforcement agency".

Organized teams of zealous edgelords that are willing to defend the sanctity of their Shadow-the-Hedgehog-based donut steels through petty theft as well as murder and terrorism.

Today you can make your shitty Chakat OC, but tomorrow you will pay the price of your insolence.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jul 28, 2017)

MAN_BURD said:


> im willing to fund a "closed species enforcement agency"
> 
> organized teams of zealous edgelords that are willing to defend the sanctity of their shadow-the-hedgehog-based donut steels through petty theft as well as murder and terrorism
> 
> today you can make your shitty chakat oc, but tomorrow you will pay the price of your insolence


Sounds more like they'll make a lot of ineffectual noise and then go skulk in the corner to brood when they fail to make their case.


----------



## MAN_BURD (Jul 28, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Sounds more like they'll make a lot of ineffectual noise and then go skulk in the corner to brood when they fail to make their case.


Today an angry DeviantArt PM, tomorrow the destruction of the West.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jul 28, 2017)

MAN_BURD said:


> today an angry deviantart pm, tomorrow the destruction of the west


Cute. Good luck with that.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 29, 2017)

MAN_BURD said:


> I'm willing to fund a "closed species enforcement agency".
> 
> Organized teams of zealous edgelords that are willing to defend the sanctity of their Shadow-the-Hedgehog-based donut steels through petty theft as well as murder and terrorism.
> 
> Today you can make your shitty Chakat OC, but tomorrow you will pay the price of your insolence.



I love this repsonse, XD

The satire in this is brilliant, especially if you been a member of DA for a while


----------



## Amiir (Jul 29, 2017)

Lmao, jokes aside are DA closed species creators and their fanboys really that zealous? I mustn't have been around enough, although, I do remember a buddy of mine there having had trouble at some point with one such specimen, or a group of 'em


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jul 29, 2017)

Amiir said:


> Lmao, jokes aside are DA closed species creators and their fanboys really that zealous? I mustn't have been around enough, although, I do remember a buddy of mine there having had trouble at some point with one such specimen, or a group of 'em


I'd say it's best to take it with a grain of salt. It's been my experience that the amount of drama these Thomas Edisons make is over-represented in relation to the number of closed species creators on DeviantArt, and the more reasonable creators work more with restricted species instead.


----------



## Saiko (Jul 29, 2017)

How do more substantial franchises handle their species usually? Intellectual property is a thing, but I get the impression that they don't usually bother controlling it so tightly.

Also I wonder how Fair Use interacts with this stuff.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 29, 2017)

Saiko said:


> How do more substantial franchises handle their species usually? Intellectual property is a thing, but I get the impression that they don't usually bother controlling it so tightly.
> 
> Also I wonder how Fair Use interacts with this stuff.



That's what's always confused me too tbh. When closed species creators say "Don't make your own!" I believe making a character for personal use falls under fair use, no money is being made from their creation so what's the harm really


----------



## GreenZone (Jul 29, 2017)

personally for me it falls into "Sonichu" territory cause closed species are always going to be based on something else so you can't really expect people to take it seriously also as ive said before i think furry artists have a lot of weird ideas and rely too much on peoples inner morality i mean if they say "buy this art work" what exactly is going to stop me from saving it then printing it off myself?  particularly if the picture they asking you to buy is uploaded at its full size

its the same thing with Gmod Bronies and furries upload 3d models of their OC's to the workshop but say "here's this model you can look at it but you can't upload any artwork or comics with it" once you upload it then its kind of falling under fair use


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jul 29, 2017)

Saiko said:


> How do more substantial franchises handle their species usually? Intellectual property is a thing, but I get the impression that they don't usually bother controlling it so tightly.


It varies between franchises and circumstances. Some are especially touchy about how their IPs are handled - Anne McCaffrey for instance was especially draconian when it came to anything that explicitly related to her "Dragons of Pern" series (especially the series' genre), and the Tolkien Society essentially prohibits fantasy writers from explicitly using "hobbits" and "ents" in works unaffiliated with _Lord of the Rings_ for commercial use ("halflings" and "treants" are acceptable loopholes to this however, as they aren't trademarked copyrights).


> Also I wonder how Fair Use interacts with this stuff.


Roughly the same as taking an out-of-the-box Lego kit and using the parts to make something that's not shown in the kit's instructions, albeit usually with some acknowledgement of credit to the original.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Jul 29, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> personally for me it falls into "Sonichu" territory cause closed species are always going to be based on something else so you can't really expect people to take it seriously also as ive said before i think furry artists have a lot of weird ideas and rely too much on peoples inner morality i mean if they say "buy this art work" what exactly is going to stop me from saving it then printing it off myself?  particularly if the picture they asking you to buy is uploaded at its full size
> 
> its the same thing with Gmod Bronies and furries upload 3d models of their OC's to the workshop but say "here's this model you can look at it but you can't upload any artwork or comics with it" once you upload it then its kind of falling under fair use



That's always what I thought. Once you upload something to the internet, its kinda fair game now. I don't support taking someone else's art and claiming it as yours, but things like the Gmod models and closed species there's really nothing stopping you from using them except your own personal moral code.


----------



## Lexiand (Aug 2, 2017)

Whats the point of even making a species when you want people paying to use it.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Aug 2, 2017)

SveltColt said:


> Whats the point of even making a species when you want people paying to use it.


Greedy and/or desperate people will tend to do anything to earn a quick buck, no matter how petty they have to stoop to do so.

With that said, the paywall, while not the greatest way to deter thieves regardless, is also pretty common for those who intend on using their custom species in a work they'd like to get published at some point.


----------



## ShinyFloof (Aug 2, 2017)

SveltColt said:


> Whats the point of even making a species when you want people paying to use it.



Idk honestly.  This is why I support open species


----------



## Molly Zepol (Aug 4, 2017)

There's legitimately no point in it at all, people can still draw and "steal" from the species and if it's sold enough it becomes hard to keep track of too begin with. Not to mention most original species aren't all that original. It's a composite of different aesthetics altering a pre-existing creature to a certain extent. That and paying money to draw something is stupid. I pay that same price for a commission, so why should I have to pay someone for some half-assed species?


----------



## ShinyFloof (Aug 4, 2017)

Molly Zepol said:


> There's legitimately no point in it at all, people can still draw and "steal" from the species and if it's sold enough it becomes hard to keep track of too begin with. Not to mention most original species aren't all that original. It's a composite of different aesthetics altering a pre-existing creature to a certain extent. That and paying money to draw something is stupid. I pay that same price for a commission, so why should I have to pay someone for some half-assed species?



Agreed like 1000%. I drew my own Cinnawolf on Instagram without paying for one and nobody said a thing to me about it xD

Not paying 50 dollars for an oversized Cinnabon wolf with a swirly tail. Nope nope nope.


----------

