Art Commissions: piggybacking off of others works

[~Scootaloo 440]

I was going to put this in the "Art" area of the forum however it is not really about art it is more so about artists making money off of something that does not belong to them. This rant may or may not apply to you, because not everyone is in the same position... Here are two versions of my rant:

 

Calm and Collected version:

 

I'm not pointing any fingers however I have seen many users selling works that clearly have ponies with their cutie marks and all. The ponies themselves, their names, their cutie marks, and really anything you can think of are all protected by law. Before I continue I do think artists deserve credit (or even compensation) for their works however when they are piggybacking off of others works that's where I get a bit annoyed. The artist made art based off of it not from scratch so they really should not be trying to make a profit in my opinion.

 

Hot and Spicy version:

 

I know some of you after reading the first two paragraphs are probably thinking something along the lines of "fuck off". For those of you who simply have no respect and think you should be able to make money off of something that you have no legal right(s) to I truly hope Hasbro sues you for everything you piggybacking mongrels have. Just because Hasbro makes money off of something does not make it ok for you to do so too.

Edited March 15, 2013 by ~Scootaloo

[Planty 1,053]

I can see what your saying, but where would I be able to buy art to such a high standard if people (like people form the fandom) did not make it and then sell it?

 

Where it's just painting a picture of something from the show i don't really see whats wrong with it. Hasbro won't loose anything form this (maybe even gain from increased interest in the show, I know art form the show has brought people to the fandom).

 

Regarding artist making money of off something that does not belong to them, does that mean if I paint a picture of Big Ben (a London monument) I'm not allowed to paint it because I do not own big ben and I didn't pay for it to be build ect?

 

In short I would personally like to see Hasbro more actively taking a role in getting royalties and giving people licenses for some bigger things that do infringe like Fighting is Magic, but we will just have to see.

[~Scootaloo 440]

I can see what your saying, but where would I be able to buy art to such a high standard if people (like people form the fandom) did not make it and then sell it?

 

Where it's just painting a picture of something from the show i don't really see whats wrong with it. Hasbro won't loose anything form this (maybe even gain from increased interest in the show, I know art form the show has brought people to the fandom).

 

Regarding artist making money of off something that does not belong to them, does that mean if I paint a picture of Big Ben (a London monument) I'm not allowed to paint it because I do not own big ben and I didn't pay for it to be build ect?

 

In short I would personally like to see Hasbro more actively taking a role in getting royalties and giving people licenses for some bigger things that do infringe like Fighting is Magic, but we will just have to see.

That's just it. If you live in the USA (I'm only using my country as example) and you draw a picture of Fluttershy then go on deviant art  and try to sell it technically speaking you're violating law.

 

I think if you are going to make Fan Art (for profit) you should have permission from Hasbro and like you said maybe they should collect a royalty.

[Gone for good 1,593]

Honestly yeah it does break the law, but I really don't think it should be against the law. Even when its things I don't care about like Harry Potter fanfiction getting taken down I always let out a sigh. Copyrighted or not its still art.

[Crispy 5,563]

Before I continue I do think artists deserve credit (or even compensation) for their works however when they are piggybacking off of others works that's where I get a bit annoyed. The artist made art based off of it not from scratch so they really should not be trying to make a profit in my opinion.

 

So you disagree with Andy Warhol and the majority of the Pop Art era, then?  Much of the popular art then was made from brands under copyright.

[~Scootaloo 440]

Honestly yeah it does break the law, but I really don't think it should be against the law. Even when its things I don't care about like Harry Potter fanfiction getting taken down I always let out a sigh. Copyrighted or not its still art.

 

-snip-

I disagree with leeches who try to piggyback off of others. Whether you like it or not we have laws that should be followed and I hate it when people like think that they are so high and mighty think the law doesn't apply to them for some reason.

Edited March 15, 2013 by ~Scootaloo

[Jinx 2,292]

 

I disagree with leeches who try to piggyback off of others. Whether you like it or not we have laws that should be followed and I hate it when people like think that they are so high and mighty think the law doesn't apply to them for some reason.

 

Sure there are people out there who think like that, but there are a lot of people who do it because they enjoy it. The monetary gain is optional, but people put a lot of time and effort into their artwork. They should be free to do with it as they wish.

[~Scootaloo 440]

Sure there are people out there who think like that, but there are a lot of people who do it because they enjoy it. The monetary gain is optional, but people put a lot of time and effort into their artwork. They should be free to do with it as they wish.

Well I don't want to give the impression that I hate fan art or anything like that. I truly enjoy it - hell even my avatar is a work of a fan.

 

Let me rephrase: I don't like artists who are primarily in it for the money. Like this one which was making an excess of ten grand or something along those lines. People who are making a few bucks off of *some* fan art are not really hurting much.

[Crispy 5,563]

I disagree with leeches who try to piggyback off of others. Whether you like it or not we have laws that should be followed and I hate it when people like think that they are so high and mighty think the law doesn't apply to them for some reason.

 

Best call the cops on half of Tumblr and every user that's made a banner or background for this place.  Can't have bottom feeding criminals on this family friendly website.

 

Edit:  Yeah, the stained glass took it a bit far, but it's not like Hasbro is covering the stained glass market.  Or the plushies.  People are just paying for quality that Hasbro isn't producing.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Crispy

[~Scootaloo 440]

Best call the cops on half of Tumblr and every user that's made a banner or background for this place.  Can't have bottom feeding criminals on this family friendly website.

I'm taking about people making significant profits off of it. Like I said I'm not against it all together just hose who are trying to make money wrongfully.

[Gone for good 1,593]

Im on my phone and yadda yadda yadda can't quote but as far as leeching off of others, I will agree it sucks. Infact, if you want to go as far and say it should be illegal fine. That being said, crap or not it should still be allowed.

 

There was a famous artist who once said something like "a good artist doesn't create; he steals."

[Freewave 1,145]

I'm really not too concerned. If Hasbro wants to enforce their copyright law on people breaking the law they can and they should but there's also rights for parodies and those create fan works from them. Almost everything on ILoveFine is liscenced out and Hasbro rcvs a cut. Comissions are single payments for a service and getting that service. It's really not that big a deal and i don't see why someone should get riled up that people are making a small income off of art or collectibles. It's not really your problem.