# Koh's 'helpful' guide for browsing FA!



## Koh (Dec 29, 2005)

Welcome to Koh's helpful guide for FA for furs!
Here I have provided useful information that is destined to be ignored and will only be implemented in "LoL, Yeah Right" Land. (copyright.)

To get started, here are some things for furs to keep in mind while using FA:

1.) If you have created...anything, somewhere, someone on the internet will hate it. Most of those people are here, haha.

2.) The time you spend refreshing your browser over and over in wait of watches and comments could be time used to make art. It could also be used to bonk yourself on the head while repeating this rule to yourself.  That would be a little crazy though.

3.) Don't expect comments, but do give them out. Give them out with tongue.

4.) As a rule, leave 5 comments per 1 fap session.  That ratio will make for wonderful community communication, and a good quantity of sticky palms, which I highly endorse.

5.) Posting about how drama is bad IS drama. Also, posting a reply to this is drama too....and that's bad.  ....shit.

6.) They admins are working on it (whatever site problems your having.) 
Might I suggest laughing at things on ytmnd.com while you wait.  It is the ultimate short attention-span website. And feed your pets, they are getting hungry.

7.) The key to getting laid is complete indifference. That has nothing to do with browsing FA, but I suspect many of you could use to get some.

8.) When you upload art, especially art that you are particularly proud of, please see numbers 2 + 3. If you happen to start bonking your head and repeating this line, you will create a tear in space time because of the optional retroactive bonking from number 2. (but only if you do it right.)

9.) 'lol' is not constructive criticism.

10.) There is a person behind each fur. (There is not however, a ravenous tentacle slime monster behind each 9 cocked lion-fox taur.)

11.) In regards to number 4: If you are a female, and feel excluded because you find it difficult to fap for whatever reason, you have two options.  A.) Install a device on yourself with which to fap. B.) Dissipate into nothingness, knowing that science has proved that there are actually no women on the internet.

12.) I did not actually mean that.  There is no reason to post that I have disrespected our lovely female counterparts, whom have denied me sex for decades.

14. ) There is no 13.

15.) If you put enough furs in a room, they will develop an exponential number of fetishes, that spike into infinity when represented on a TI-85 graphing calculator.  It would be best if we could all tolerate this. (Except poop eating. no luv 4 u freaks)

16.) I did not actually mean that. There is no reason to post that I have disrespected our lovely poop eating counterparts, whom have denied me sex for decades.

17.) If you have listed your species as human on FA, bully for you!  However, if each of your comments here roughly reflect the phrase "lol...furry"  you may be an imbecile, based on your net location. Check with your doctor.

18.) Porn mathematically fetches more watches than other expressive art. This does not mean switch to porn, nor does it mean switch to other expressive art.  It means that if you wake with your genitals in unfriendly contact with a kitchen appliance, you have lost your battle with alcohol.

19.) There are many insanely talented artists here.  The best way to prove your allegiance to their every whim is to post one of the following comments to them.
        A.) God you're great! I suck compared to you.  DAMN I suck.  I mean, I suck so hard I could get a bowling ball through a garden hose.  I love you marry me omg.
        B.) omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg.
        C.) OMG O_O (bbq)
        D.) I want am to sex you irl for your art good.
        E.) I will cut myself emo style, lest you draw my avatar's visage.
        F.) *fap* <---emoted for 'realistic cinematic effect'
        G.) Whoa, the dude from A.) sounds like he sucks a good hose.
        H.) wtf, G.)? Are you saying A.) can't be a girl??
        G.) Please see number 11 of Koh's 'helpful' guide for browsing FA 

20.) Please see number 12 of Koh's 'helpful' guide for browsing FA 

21.) Inuyasha is not a good show.

13.) There is a 13.  It just saw something about Sonic porn, and moved down a few lines.

22.) Sonic porn is officially legal, but not really.  Go ahead and do it anyway? Whatever. 

23.) There are currently 5 users that read the poetry on FA. They have been captured and sent to Berkeley for further study.

24.) The realm of fur includes what is known as 'fuzzy physics' which allows phenomena to include insane anatomical proportion, easily wielded mallet hammers, and very spiky hair.

25.) The Mayan calendar predicts the world will end on December 21st, 2012.........and that it will be FA's fault.  Hope you're happy.
-------------------------------------

We do hope this guide has helped with your enjoyment of FA. We also hope it has not, which we just find as odd.

With love,

Koh


----------



## Myle (Dec 29, 2005)

Some of these are really great and a necessity to a good community... 

but most seem to result in self mutilation :O


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 29, 2005)

Koh said:
			
		

> 9.) 'lol' is not constructive criticism.


*lol* _(oops!)_

Excellent! Thanks for those profound thoughts, Koh 

=


			
				Koh said:
			
		

> 18.) Porn mathematically fetches more watches than other expressive art. This does not mean switch to porn, nor does it mean switch to other expressive art.


Ain't that a fact, though? Certainly is tough on those artists who are suffering from lack of positive encouragement/constructive feedback on good, "clean" work when a fairly rough mature sketch is usually going to get a fair stack of views and at least one or two remarks (albeit perhaps rather smutty in nature!).


----------



## Pinkuh (Dec 29, 2005)

That.... is awsome!

wow... just... wow ^_^


----------



## XeNoX (Dec 30, 2005)

very accurate *F5 F5 F5*


----------



## Captain Oz (Dec 30, 2005)

Koh said:
			
		

> D.) I want am to sex you irl for your [edit] post [/edit] good.



Really.



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Koh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No doubt about it.  When you place two options in front of someone and one of them has boobs/tentacles/penises, 9 times out of 10 that someone will go for the boobs/tentacles/penises.  Its a sad fact about life that people just don't appreciate tastefully drawn works of art.  But then again, who can blame them?

Thank you for the porn
No wonder folks may score
The constant mindless sex
The crude special effects
It gets you thru the day
Whether bi or straight or gay
When you wish you were never born
You've got a friend in porn
-Sean Cullen


----------



## Pico (Dec 30, 2005)

Koh said:
			
		

> 9.) 'lol' is not constructive criticism.


Sometimes, bro, there's just nothing else to say !



			
				Koh said:
			
		

> 15.) If you put enough furs in a room, they will develop an exponential number of fetishes, that spike into infinity when represented on a TI-85 graphing calculator.  It would be best if we could all tolerate this. (Except poop eating. no luv 4 u freaks)














			
				Koh said:
			
		

> 18.) Porn mathematically fetches more watches than other expressive art. This does not mean switch to porn, nor does it mean switch to other expressive art.  It means that if you wake with your genitals in unfriendly contact with a kitchen appliance, you have lost your battle with alcohol.


My porn on vcl always gets roughly 5 times as many views as my non-porn :*)



			
				Koh said:
			
		

> 22.) Sonic porn is officially legal, but not really.  Go ahead and do it anyway? Whatever.


lol didn't vcl get sued/almost get sued by warner bros for the fanart porn


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 30, 2005)

Pico said:
			
		

> Koh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Fan-art of copyrighted characters has no legal protection*
Fanart is considered derivative work. Brian Tiemann posted an excellent write-up on lionking.org. I think it's a rather important read for any artist who posts fanart. 

I don't believe VCL was sued, but was sent several Cease and Desist letters which would, if not complied with, have led to a potential lawsuit.


----------



## Pico (Dec 30, 2005)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> *Fan-art of copyrighted characters has no legal protection*
> Fanart is considered derivative work. Brian Tiemann posted an excellent write-up on lionking.org. I think it's a rather important read for any artist who posts fanart.
> 
> I don't believe VCL was sued, but was sent several Cease and Desist letters which would, if not complied with, have led to a potential lawsuit.


I don't know the ins and outs of vcl's situation, but I certainly can't blame him for wanting to avoid something like that.  I know banning fan art twisted a lot of panties, but vcl could have potentially been shut down, with Ch'marr having to pay for all the legal stuff.

Anyway, I read the article you posted, and the section on fanart states that fanart of characters created by Disney, etc. IS illegal, although companies generally don't care about it unless you are selling the art or depicting the characters in obscene situations:



			
				The article that Dragoneer posted said:
			
		

> As long as the characters aren't portrayed in any way that Disney would object to (e.g. pornographic, overly violent, defamatory to Disney, etc.), they don't pursue these kinds of copyright violations.



So, why exactly is FA allowing pornographic fanart, knowing this?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 30, 2005)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Pico said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fan art is derivative work, but I believe you forgot about identity, and trademark infringement, which is what comes to play here. Fanart of most US properties are illegal due to the fact the US companies heavily rely on their trademark identity for cross merchandising purposes. They are a bit lax if people aren't selling it or if it's "out of sight, out of mind"


----------



## Ursus_Amplus (Dec 30, 2005)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Solution : Move the server to afghanistan.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 30, 2005)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Fan art is derivative work, but I believe you forgot about identity, and trademark infringement, which is what comes to play here. Fanart of most US properties are illegal due to the fact the US companies heavily rely on their trademark identity for cross merchandising purposes. They are a bit lax if people aren't selling it or if it's "out of sight, out of mind"


*nods* 

We're going to work on revising those rules and how they apply to FA users.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 30, 2005)

Ursus_Amplus said:
			
		

> Solution : Move the server to afghanistan.



Not if they're part of the Berne Convention!


----------



## Ursus_Amplus (Dec 30, 2005)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Ursus_Amplus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pwnd. Damn.


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 30, 2005)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Fanart of most US properties are illegal due to the fact the US companies heavily rely on their trademark identity for cross merchandising purposes. They are a bit lax if people aren't selling it or if it's "out of sight, out of mind"


Agreed, too.
_Or perhaps_ "They are a bit lax if people aren't selling it *and it is* "out of sight, out of mind"?

From what I've seen, pretty much any high profile/high volume site gets a nudge from the more zealous owners, sooner-or-later.
Can see their point... (Similarly, is very easy to empathise with a non-commerical G-rated artist in the community suddenly finding R-rated "fanart" pop up elsewhere on the community, without permission! Just because the owners of the characters in other fanart are commercial companies doesn't automatically give carte-blanche "freedom to exploit", IMHO).

Will have to live with that; pre-empting such issues and/or working around as required.


----------



## Captain Oz (Dec 30, 2005)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Ursus_Amplus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Afghanistan isn't part of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.  Here's a complete list of all the countries in it.

So now the question is: Anyone have connections in Afghanistan?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 30, 2005)

Well I've been talking about trademarks and copyrights for a while. I posted it on my DA journal because I'm just mainly tired of people screaming about their "copyrights" when they don't even understand them in the first place.

A character is *not* copyright.


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 30, 2005)

Oznor said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*chuckles*

Perhaps the Principality of Sealand would be a better idea, if we chose to go down that route?
Officially recognised at last and they've got hosting, too! 

_(Meanwhile back in the real world... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)._


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 30, 2005)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Principality of Sealand would be a better idea, if we chose to go down that route?
> Officially recognised at last and they're got hosting, too! [/i]


"Servers include 256Kbps of bandwidth and 5 IP addresses..." at $500 a month.

Uh HUH.


----------



## Ursus_Amplus (Dec 30, 2005)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> "Servers include 256Kbps of bandwidth and 5 IP addresses..." at $500 a month.



Well, its almost 512k aint it!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 30, 2005)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> (Similarly, is very easy to empathise with a non-commerical G-rated artist in the community suddenly finding R-rated "fanart" pop up elsewhere on the community, without permission! Just because the owners of the characters in other fanart are commercial companies doesn't automatically give carte-blanche "freedom to exploit", IMHO).
> 
> Will have to live with that; pre-empting such issues and/or working around as required.



Yes, that would an opinion on the matter, not a legality.

You *can't* copyright a character, and a character is not an automatic trademark, even if unregistered. Characters, have to serve an identity, rather a commercial purpose, at least to enforce this.

Same goes for "species, races" etc. You have to prove that it's 1. Being infringed upon, and 2. what damage it would do to the original identity, that would confuse the consumer market.

If you're interested in getting a registered trademark, unlike copyright (which costs you $30 bucks) a minimum for Trademark is $245 dollars, and you need to make sure and do research no one has done it before you.

Saying that, is it "ethical" in artists eyes to use other artists's character and disobey those situations, probably.


----------



## Ursus_Amplus (Dec 30, 2005)

Dont mess with her! She'll hit you with that copywright book she's got!


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 30, 2005)

Ursus_Amplus said:
			
		

> Dont mess with her! She'll hit you with that copywright book she's got!


*nod* Most companies try to Trademark a character as a sort of a "registered character" as a part of a package. "Disney's Alladin" becomes a part of the whole package, the characters in the become protected as a part of the whole.

An individual character though... no.


----------



## RailRide (Dec 30, 2005)

It's buried somewhere in the documentation, but yes, VCL got a C&D. In order to never get another one, fanart of trademarked characters was forbidden.

One exception was an artist who actually got written permission from Capcom to post fanart of its anthropomorphic (or anthropomorphized versions of--I don't remember which) characters.

Other places such as The JAB Archives, try to call it's trademark violations "parody". Personally, I tend to think one of the qualifications of parody is that it be "funny", and that XXX-rated depictions of characters that aren't supposed to "know" anything about sex, don't rate as such.

(example: depicting Sonic as constantly sliding out of control and plowing into immovable objects is parody, depicting him screwing Amy (or Tails :shock: ) is....really stretching the definition of parody)

---PCJ


----------



## nobuyuki (Dec 30, 2005)

arshes is right about characters falling under trademark law, and I for one would like to see that the furry community starts making the distinction clearer so that people don't get confused on the issue.  As for parody, there's really two ways to go about it.  Remember that satire is NOT parody, and there is a fine line for what is parody and what isn't.  If you're going to be brazen, parody is a very narrow pathway to shoot for.  

The alternative to this is the "doujinshi defense" -- that is to say, you can set yourself up in such a way that blatant trademark infringement is not going to get you in big legal trouble, due to the fact that the company cannot prove that your fanart is causing non-negligable brand dilution.  No company wants to test this defense, in part because if you were to prove that "everybody's doing it" and you have been unfairly singled out, then chances are, your case would be thrown out and the company would have no further legal recourse.  The community's embrace of this tactic seems to be a kind of double standard, considering how prevailant fanart is, while at the same time most fan art (save for actual japanese doujinshi, again proving a double standard) is typically barred from sites like furbid.  

Nothing says you have to choose one or the other when dealing with fanart, however, typically in terms of trademarks owned by individuals instead of big companies, you have a better chance of getting let off the hook if you do a parody, rather than the latter, simply because of how subjective the law is.  The opposite is true of big corporations who own the trademark, but big doujin dealers typically censor trademarked names anyway, since it adds an extra obsfucation layer to determining if the works are meant to be derivatives.  Essentially:  Blatantly flaunting trademark infringement only works if you're not the only one doing it (and everyone's doing it), as a burden of proof must be met to show the courts that your infringement causes meaningful damage to the economic welfare of the holder -- or, if you're doing a parody.  



P.S.  I'm not going to get too deep into the ethics half of fanart and trademark infringement, and I encourage none of you guys to try and touch the issue, either, because of how obvious a double standard exists here.


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 30, 2005)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was meaning that from the p.o.v. that people can more readily understand the repercussions when they deliberately use someone else's character in "fanart" when that individual is known to be unhappy about such usage. (If that happened to them personally in a context they didn't like, they'd be more than happy to speak their mind on the matter, I'm sure!).

When it comes to using a commercial company's characters in "fanart", this is more often perceived as a "victimless crime" since the character isn't somehow being "taken" from an individual. Thus, is perhaps more difficult to empathise with, personally...

Not a particular good defense, IMHO!
(And it's the companies that tend to have better access to lawyers; and willingness to use those, too...)


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 30, 2005)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> The alternative to this is the "doujinshi defense" -- that is to say, you can set yourself up in such a way that blatant trademark infringement is not going to get you in big legal trouble, due to the fact that the company cannot prove that your fanart is causing non-negligable brand dilution.


Thanks for the analysis.

So, the interests (and those of the lawyers) are more on a _commercial_ basis? Would make sense, since argument on moral grounds are no longer fashionable, perhaps!

Would be somewhat difficult to "prove" that using a company's well-known G-rated character in R-rated "fanart" actually causes a noteworthy negative impact on it's value, then?
If so, would it be true to say that the threat of the "big stick" from the lawyers is actually of more impact than the possibility that they will actually use that? Since very few (if any) art communities could afford to mount a defense on such a basis as you describe...



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> P.S. I'm not going to get too deep into the ethics half of fanart and trademark infringement, and I encourage none of you guys to try and touch the issue, either, because of how obvious a double standard exists here.


Just seeing that much-abused word "ethics" in there is enough to get me ducking for cover, Nobu.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 30, 2005)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Was meaning that from the p.o.v. that people can more readily understand the repercussions when they deliberately use someone else's character in "fanart" when that individual is known to be unhappy about such usage. (If that happened to them personally in a context they didn't like, they'd be more than happy to speak their mind on the matter, I'm sure!).
> 
> When it comes to using a commercial company's characters in "fanart", this is more often perceived as a "victimless crime" since the character isn't somehow being "taken" from an individual. Thus, is perhaps more difficult to empathise with, personally...
> 
> ...



I see your point, and it's nice and sharp 

But I understand where you are coming from


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 30, 2005)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Ursus_Amplus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Correct, just think maybe you should set aside some documentation for that issue, since a lot of drama goes on, as well as incorrect reports of harrassment and policy violations.


----------

