Forum - View topic

NEWS: Otakon Posts Artist Alley Rules

Yep, pretty much what I figured it would be. I dunno why people got so crazy over this issue.

Otakon's Artists Alley will be actively disallowing the sale of unlicensed copyrighted materials. If you own it, you can sell it. If you have license to it, you can sell it. But if it has material (images, sounds, etc.), in whole or in part, to which you DO NOT have permission to sell, then that material will not be allowed in the Artists Alley. Anyone found in violation of this rule loses their retail space in Artists Alley for the remainder of the convention. (The above statement will be officially/legally worded and posted on the site during February, after our lawyer and Otakorp President have approved it.)

5b. Policy for the DISPLAY of unlicensed copyrighted material - provided it is NOT FOR SALE - is currently under review.


Works of parody, for which the U.S. legal code permits fair use exemptions to copyright, may be permitted. These will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

The philosophy behind these terms seems reasonable enough; that is, that the exhibitor or attendee must accept responsibility for their actions while at the con. Many conventions have this as a general disclaimer for membership.

I have observed that Otakon in fact does have perhaps the largest artists' alley (a term which is itself telling about the U.S.; in Japan they are the equivalent of artists' towns or artists' cities) of any U.S. convention. But even a few hundred tables does not make it "just like Comiket;" this would be like a U.S. anime con where a few hundred people show up proclaiming that they are "just like Otakon." It isn't Otakon's fault that the fan art scene here is so small; indeed, the irony of this controversy is that they've always done a great deal to encourage it at their own convention.

If I may say so, however, I believe the background to this policy describes the state of fan art as it relates to anime and manga in Japan (which is where anime and manga come from, after all) in a strangely vague and timid fashion. It gives little respect to the prominence of fan art in Japan (which, again, is where the anime and manga are coming from). It's not a "so what's your point" observation; the same cultural environment in Japan that creates the anime and manga industry we love also gives rise to—not merely tolerates—the fan art scene which is so strong over there.

The policy's discussion of fan art would be like a convention saying "We hear that some people in Japan publish manga, and also, there are some anime shows on TV over there." The policy gives only the sense that fan art exists on sufferance. That is technically true in Japan as well, but to leave it at that is a classic illustration of the difference between de jure and de facto—that is, what the law states versus the reality of the situation.

In fact Comiket is only the largest fan art event of hundreds of national and local ones held each year in Japan. There are two Comiket events each year. And either one separately is larger than every single "official" or "professional" anime or manga con in the U.S., all year, put together. You would hardly guess from the tone of the policy that there are brick-and-mortar chain stores devoted to selling fan art in Japan, or that it played an important part in reshaping the character of an entire neighborhood in Tokyo.

I can understand some reasons why these facts might not be mentioned or alluded to. Because the environment (not necessairly the laws) is different in the U.S., to talk about the prominence, the un-marginality of fan art in Japan may seem pointless here, or perhaps even bringing exposure to liability.

And yet, I feel it is an omission, because in all fairness, what did our legal environment ever do to promote the creation of anime and manga in the first place? U.S. capital and the development of distribution here is a definite factor now in the business considerations of anime and manga studios. They know they can sell a certain number of units here. Yet I argue it continues to play a marginal role in guiding the direction of their creative output; what has happened is that Japan now has a better sense that more Americans like their original styles, not necessarily that they have changed their styles to better appeal to Americans.

In other words, while it is proper and necessary to acknowledge that the U.S. copyright environment poses certain problems for fan art at a U.S. event, it is also true that this environment can claim little credit for creating the original anime and manga industry and its works. Without the different, Japanese environment, there would be nothing for us to license and watch under our application of the rules, an application that we proudly exclaim has the purpose of "encouraging creativity."

It is true that there are reasons why fan art is weak here compared to Japan, but I think these are by no means unrelated to the reasons why animation and comics in general are weak here compared to Japan. A U.S. anime and manga con must express some de jure reservations about fan art. But I believe it can, and also should, express the de facto pride for the Japanese philosophy of fan art that it deserves.

Carl Horn
Manga Editor
Dark Horse Comics

Otakon originally wrote:

Otakon's Artists Alley will be actively disallowing the sale of unlicensed copyrighted materials. If you own it, you can sell it. If you have license to it, you can sell it. But if it has material (images, sounds, etc.), in whole or in part, to which you DO NOT have permission to sell, then that material will not be allowed in the Artists Alley. Anyone found in violation of this rule loses their retail space in Artists Alley for the remainder of the convention. (The above statement will be officially/legally worded and posted on the site during February, after our lawyer and Otakorp President have approved it.) 5b. Policy for the DISPLAY of unlicensed copyrighted material - provided it is NOT FOR SALE - is currently under review. Works of parody, for which the U.S. legal code permits fair use exemptions to copyright, may be permitted. These will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Actually, I think that this and the final version are quite similar in concept. It's only been worded more legally. It also goes one step further and puts responsiblility for legal ramifications solely onto the artist participant via the waiver.

Still, the final version is a pretty reasonable document imo.

So they went with the ol' eBay defense, "We aren't selling the illegal product, we're just a venue".

Of course eBay can hide behind the DCMA, while I doubt a piece of paper with a signature will do much to counter a lawsuit should an IP holder press the issue. In the end, they are still relying on the IP holders not to push the issue while telling the seller to keep the infringement to a dull roar. Can't say I blame them, shoehorning the operation into lily white legal territory is beyond their means. Though, it is kind of interesting to watch someone talk out of both side of their mouth - one side says that they care about IP rights and the other says they intend to stick their collective head as far into the ground as legally possible and hope any complaints just go away

I think that's an unfair characterization of the policy.

The easy route would have been to say "no unlicensed art, period".

We *do* care about the IP rights
.
.
.
Just ask yourself: Would a reasonable creator object to your use of his creation, or would he feel you were ripping him off? If so, then you shouldn't do it.