Forum - View topicNEWS: Otakon Enforces Copyright at Artists' Alley
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
hikaru004
 Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||
Your point is taken. Unfortunately, you've used my statements out of context so I am replying. Fanart and amvs are similar in that another person's intellectual property is being used without permission. My statement which was taken out of context refers that their situations are similar in that they were allowed to exist until the thought of legal action puts them in jeopardy. Both exist on shaky ground as copyright infringement unless the US law is changed. The difference between the 2 is that fanart is done for profit at cons. The copyright holders don't see any profit from these activities and lose control over their franchise. Is there really any reliable evidence to suggest that fanart benefits an existing anime franchise?
I wasn't dismissing fanart out of hand. However, derivative works now also needs to have permission. This is alluded to on Region 1 DVD release packages. "WARNING: This disc is licensed for private home use only. Any other use including copying, reproduction or performance in public, in whole or in part, is expressly prohibited by applicable laws." Last edited by hikaru004 on Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
So you're telling me that some girl drawing Inuyasha in a slightly different pose is a "unique" and "new thing"? That it's OK for her to charge $10 for something that's basically slightly modified from the original work? Permit me to be frank here - I don't see any creativity whatsoever in the hundreds of fan booths I've encountered at cons over the years where it's just some kid drawing Naruto and Kenshin in poses that are not-quite-like the official art and then selling them for $10. I mean, sure, they might not be doing this on purpose - to them, fanart is simply drawing the characters they like - but there isn't any creativity there. It's just aping something you like and then making a profit from it. There are booths that sell unique stuff, to be sure - I've seen people selling stained glass renditions of anime characters and people selling stuff that's obviously parody doujinshi - but the popular booths are the ones that sell basic portraits of popular characters that are only slightly stylized and really no different from the original work. It takes absolutely zero creativity to draw InuYasha and then sell it for $10. The people selling Fullmetal Alchemist hats are producing merchandise for a show they have absolutely nothing to do with, and turning a profit on it. That isn't right, not by any legal or moral standard I've ever heard of. I really like Lord of the Rings - would it be just fine and dandy if I started making replica Gandalf hats and selling them for $25 a pop on the street corner? No, actually, it isn't. If I want to see such a thing made I should contact the licensee who would be in charge of making it. It's their right to make money on that property by merchandising it, not mine. They paid the license fee, not me. My "being a fan" does not entitle me to break the law, it doesn't give me the right to profit from these characters. It entitles me to enjoying the movie, and that's it. As much as I agree with Carl Horn about fanart being a key expression of fandom, I think there's a little too much idealism in that statement. That may have been 100 percent true years ago, but I believe things have changed, and I've seen this change first-hand. The people who are actually making money on this are the ones who are closely aping the original style and selling portraits or cast shots and what amounts to bootleg merchandise - handmade hats, shirts, buttons, keychains. There isn't any 'creativity' involved in making these things; they're designed to sell well at Artist's Alley. They don't own the license, and being 'fans' does not bestow upon them the right to profit from these characters, period, no matter how 'noble' it apparently is to like a Japanese cartoon. Also, I find it ironic that people are trotting out the whole "well copyright isn't designed to protect art, it's designed to encourage new art!" as though someone who isn't Rumiko Takahashi drawing InuYasha is 'new art'. I don't think I have to explain the poor logic used in this argument. If all fanart were completely free, put on display a'la an art gallery at conventions and sale was prohibited, I'd have absolutely no problem with it. Expressing your love of someone else's work should not include you profiting from the popularity of that person's work. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
cjovalle
Posts: 31 |
|
|||||
This is often a source of confusion. Copyright does protect exact expression- a work must be "fixed" to get protection. However, copyright protects more than that instantiation alone. Here's where to start to look, on that website. Go to "copyright law" and check out Section 103, on the subject matter and scope of copyright as it is involved in derivative works and compilations. The definition of a derivative work is from section 101: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. The Chilling Effects website has a very good discussion of fan works specifically: http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/ |
||||||
|
||||||
|
cjovalle
Posts: 31 |
|
|||||
The warning is not entirely accurate. It is an attempt to make people think that this is licensing rather than copyright law. The warning does not actually automatically invalidate any exemptions to copyright law, including fair use, educational exemptions, libraries and archives exemptions, and so on. A person can make a derivative work if the work meets one of the exemptions, no matter what the copyright holder would like to occur, unless an actual contract or license is involved. It gets more complicated once you get to that point. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
redbeangirl
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||
Now, seriously, I promise that I don't mean this in any kind of a rude or sarcastic way -- but, are you an artist? Because this sounds like the perspective of an "outsider" to me. Again, I don't think it's that simple. Being a fanartist myself, I know perfectly well that there are many, MANY people out there who draw barely-modified copies of InuYasha pinups. However, though I would agree that this is hardly a "unique and beautiful snowflake" as far as fanart goes, assuming they didn't actually trace the thing they still put hours of time and effort into that artwork and rightly ask to be compensated for that time, and for the cost of materials involved. (That $10 print probably cost her $7-$9 at kinkos.) Everyone has to start somewhere, and many young artists start a little close to the mark. But even if you disagree that that hypothetical girl is doing anything remotely worthwhile, I don't think that the existence of lackluster fanart is justification for getting rid of ALL fanart. For every InuYasha clone there's a gorgeous portrait of Kakashi as an old man, a touching drawing of Sirius Black holding Harry as a baby...if you want, I'll start throwing up links to show you what I mean. People really do pour tremendous ammounts of love and effort into their work, other fans want to be able to take that work home with them. Given that, I don't think that it should be expected that artists should give away their work for free -- asking $2 for a doujinshi that took you six weeks to draw and cost $1.75 to print hardly seems unreasonable. As for your statement that "someone who isn't Rumiko Takahashi drawing InuYasha" isn't new art....well, is someone drawing a portrait of an actual person not creating new art? Or all those artists who've illustrated countless editions of "Alice in Wonderland?" Or the artists who worked on Neil Gaiman's "Sandman," all drawing from material that came before them? The difference, really, is that those examples are explicitly protected by current laws, and your InuYasha fanartist is not. (which doesn't make her WRONG, either - it just means that the law is still fiercely debated) Again, I can't empasize enough how much I have the best of intentions with all of this. I don't mean any insult to you or anyone else -- I'm just trying my best to contribute to the conversation ^_^; |
||||||
|
||||||
|
hikaru004
Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||
Well people are always resistant to change. There is no fansubs at ACEN and ACEN is thriving. Otakon has to do what's in their best interest and anime fans will just have to adjust. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Insane E
Posts: 87 Location: Sweden |
|
|||||
|
happens a lot during a few hours...
I will take that as a yes. One might wonder what publisher is willing to demonize themselves over a bit of fanart sold at Otakon. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
hikaru004
Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||
T'is true. That warning is a paraphrase of the complete DVD warning that includes US copyright law info which was paraphased for space which was why I loosely used the term "alluded". I apologize for the inaccuracy. Last edited by hikaru004 on Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
kimonostereo
Posts: 6 |
|
|||||
|
Hmm. So should NewType and other anime publications stop accepting fan art?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
cjovalle
Posts: 31 |
|
|||||
|
I agree with most of your post, with a few slight differences I'll comment on.
True- being a fan does not entitle you to break the law. Anyone, however, can do more than simply enjoy the movie. They can create a parody, for example. They can show the movie in an educational setting. They can offer the movie for checkout at the local (public) library. Stuff like that. Of course, that's not what you're concerned with here. 
I'm okay with people bringing that point up, because it's a point that people tend to miss. Copyright is not designed to protect the artist, it is designed to encourage creativity by offering the artist a financial incentive to create art. Of course, the question is: does that apply here? It is possible that someone's expression of Inu Yasha is used in a way to comment or criticize or in a way that is fair, or to use the character in a way that Takahashi didn't intend that is fair, or to use the work in private, or even for fan activities that would fit the criteria of fair use. I don't think that's what you're talking about, though, and I certainly haven't seen it too much of it in practice, which is why I tend to agree with most of your message.
That's an obvious ethical line, though, not a legal one. Commercial does not immediately mean illegal (although it's more likely to be illegal then noncommercial use). You can legally profit from someone else's initial work- although I don't believe what you're describing would qualify for that. I do think that profiting in the manner you describe crosses a legal and ethical line, however. If you are a fan, then you don't want to hurt the artist whose work you admire. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
erinfinnegan
ANN Columnist
 Posts: 598 |
|
|||||
If anything I thought there was MORE fan art in the Feb. issue of New Type USA. It was spread across maybe 3 pages in the letters section. Most of the fan art they publish, as far as I can tell, is not copied from existing drawings. |
||||||
|
||||||
prime_pm
 Posts: 2337 Location: Your Mother's Bedroom |
|
|||||
|
I'm not saying that drawing fan art makes one a lesser man or anything. ALl I'm saying is that if a person is inspired by someone else's work to draw a similar piece of theirs, then they should feel free to do so. And if you would like to sell a few of your materials to similarly devoted fans for an appropriate price, then by all means, do so. What I'm saying is that regardless of copyright and restrictions, fan art is mainly a hobby, and should solely serve as a hobby.
If you make several copies of your work and have someone from a retail store sell them for you within the commercial district *cough*Pandora's Cube *cough* then the hobby loses its sense of fandom and whatever made it art in the first place, and thus renders to a piece of market. There are people out there that would exploit this hobby for their own commercial benefits. There are people like that. The problem is applyng copyright to this particular problem. You lose some rights in order to gain others, so to speak. What I'm trying to say is: Art is art because it represents the author of the work, and fan art is fan art because it represents the appreciation of the original author's work, and if a fan had any real respect for their favorite author, they wouldn't need to make money off of someone else's work. Personally, I think the art world went straight to hell once a can of soup was declared art (I might have just pissed off a number of Warhol fans with this quote). |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
No, I'm not an artist, but my father and many of my friends are. Their stance on this issue is the same as mine - if you want to make money being creative, then be creative - don't just lift someone else's work and then claim you're being creative. Period. That means coming up with your own characters. Again, I make the point that if you're seriously making fanart because you're a fan - and ONLY because you're a fan, not because you feel like you deserve to make money - then you wouldn't need compensation for your time and effort. When I say fanart should be free, I meant in a display sense. Don't distribute it, just display it. I would argue that you do not deserve compensation for spending 4 hours and a few bucks at Kinko's on a drawing you made of a character that does not belong to you. If you just wanted to display the piece for the enjoyment of fans, great, more power to you. Selling it? No. Not justified. That someone "wants it" does not justify the act - if you follow that logic, dealing drugs is justified, selling bootleg DVDs is justified. Not that fanart is a crime like these, but you get my point. That isn't a valid defense. Someone drawing a portrait of someone IS new art. Illustrating Alice in Wonderland for a new version of the text IS new art. It's reinterpretation and it's done with the express consent of the license holder. Those works aren't just expressly consented by the law, they're expressly consented by the person who either created the original work - in this case, Gaiman, whose publishing company pays the artist for their sanctioned work. It's a COMPLETELY different scenario and prohibiting the sale of unauthorized fanart is in no way some kind of slippery slope. The arguments you made are specious and unreasonable. Nobody I know would equate a sanctioned professional artist hired by Neil Gaiman to illustrate Sandman with Suzie Q. DeviantArt selling unauthorized sketches of Edward Elric. C'mon now. Nobody's arguing that all fanart should be banned. What they're arguing are the ethical and legal implications behind the sale and profit of unauthorized fanart. Obviously, fanart can be a fun and often beautiful expression of someone's love for a work - but that rationale ceases when the person starts selling the work. These are not their characters to profit from, hands down. Also, I'd like to make a point here - being a fan and loving some anime show or manga and expressing that love "creatively" is a great thing, but it is not inherently a noble act. It's indulgent and the results are often enjoyable for others, but you aren't doing anything noble or brave or wonderful or even really adding anything to the creative world. It's fine to be a fan, and it's wonderful to sho your enthusiasm, but to carry around the attitude that you're entitled to heightened respect, that you're above copyright law, that you deserve to make money on a series you love but have no connection to - that's wrongheaded and self-serving to an extreme I didn't think I'd ever really see come out of anime fandom. You're a fan - that means you really like a show or a comic book or a movie or whatever. It doesn't mean anything else and entitles you to nothing beyond your laws and rights as outlined by our legal system. Not that you, redbeangirl, specifically are carrying around this attitude, but I've seen variations of this perspective defended on all manner of message boards across the internet and it's worrying me. |
||||||
|
||||||
Abarenbo Shogun
 Posts: 1573 |
|
|||||
Used to is the operative word with Animerica. Shonen Jump still does on an occasional basis. NewtypeUSA had it up untill I believe December of last year. Zac is the authoritive answer with Anime Insider on that matter. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
hikaru004
Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||
Funny you should mention it, but I found the fanart today after I did that original post and said that someone should verify this. It's in the forum section of the magazine and is interspersed with letters and articles. ( I think that its definitely less than years ago. Sorry for missing it.) A prime example of how original license holders can get upset is a shonen-ai version of Naruto. I think that some suspects for copying may be there. Now I only need someone to explain to me how is Harry Potter considered anime? 
|
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group