"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[syntheticgerbil]

It's half finished and it's going to suck.

[Problem Machine]

Because your opinion seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that anyone who doesn't create their own IP is less of an artist than someone who does. But that's only true if the rights-holder (who isn't the creator, in the case of DC) doesn't give them permission to? So that splits pretty cleanly along legal grounds which have been aligned to corporate interests rather than ethical grounds based on the moral rights of creation and inspiration.

[syntheticgerbil]

Personally I'm not a fan of anyone who does exclusively fan art, but just about every artist I like has made some fan art at some point in time, including myself. What is not okay is when people profit off of it, which generally is just print sellers anyway. Fan art (to me) is supposed to be a fun thing, not something to pay your bills, both for respect and legal reasons.

 

Why does that have to be only exclusive to corporate interests, though? I can think of many characters in the comic space owned exclusively by one person, including big ones licensed among a multiple pieces of media, many who don't like prints being sold of someone elses drawings of their work. Mike Mignola still owns Hellboy after decades of games, movies, and animation. Steve Purcell, the same. This doesn't happen much in games because they are a team effort so it's a bit different, but even something as huge as Prince of Persia is still owned by Jordan Mechner himself, although I think in that case the rights were coowned by Broderbund, I don't know if they all completely reverted to him or not. If you read his making of book on it he was very adament on having the rights.

 

Probably giving all that kickback profit to Jordan Mechner was more than it's worth and I think that's sort of why Ubisoft Montreal may have turned that planned Prince of Persia game into Assassin's Creed. It's for the best though.

[Problem Machine]

Personally I'm not a fan of anyone who does excluisvely fan art, but just about every artist I like has made some fan art at some point in time, including myself. What is not okay is when people profit off of it, which generally is just print sellers anyway. Fan art (to me) is supposed to be a fun thing, not something to pay your bills.

 

Why does that have to be only exclusive to corporate interests, though? I can think of many characters in the comic space owned exclusively by one person, including big ones licensed among a multiple pieces of media, many who don't like prints being sold of someone else's drawings of their work. Mike Mignola still owns Hellboy decades of games, movies, and animation later. Steve Purcell, the same. This doesn't happen much in games because they are a team effort so it's a bit different, but even something as huge of Prince of Persia is still owned by Jordan Mechner himself, although I think in that case the rights were coowned by Broderbund, I don't know if they all completely reverted to him or not. If you read his making of book on it he was very adament on having the rights.

This gets back to what I was saying earlier about it being important to separate the ethical and economic interest behind our arguments. So, we can agree apparently that creating a fan-work is not an ethical transgression against the original artist. Would this be the case if they explicitly said they didn't like fan-work or want it made? How far should an artist's control extend in this regard? As I said above, I don't think they should have any say at all what other artists do with it as long as it doesn't create confusion over who created the original, but that's a stronger stance than most take I think.

 

But, anyway, that's the ethical side of it. The other side of it is the economic, IE will it do economic harm to the artist if we sell this fan-work? In most of these cases it's extremely hard to make the case that it would, especially if we respected the moral rights of the creator as mentioned above.

 

So, the relevant question here I think is do you think that making fan-work based off the work of an artist who explicitly hates all fan-work is a transgression against them? Or, do you contend that it's an economic transgression to then sell the work despite no demonstrable or even supposed damages?

[syntheticgerbil]

It's an ethical transgression if they charge, why are you always missing like half of the things I say?

 

If they don't want fan art depicting whatever it's also within their right if it's not protected by parody or criticism. That I PERSONALLY might not feel good about but what I think doesn't matter. I just feel like people/companies/whoever ought to not be bad people for exercising their right. There's so many avenues you can take to not bite on copyrighted material that I'll never understand why it's such an outrage when things get taken down.

 

If all this video game streaming stuff should really mean changing or (re)defining copyright law, then I guess you'd better get to work. Maybe Disney already has since they are already making the most money off of streaming games. I'm sure the mouse would love more.

[Problem Machine]

I actually addressed that in my above post, I was dissecting why charging makes a difference.

edit: actually I missed a few words to make what I meant explicit in the last sentence I think

[Deadpan]

It's kind of besides the point because I see exactly why Nintendo would crack down on stuff they feel is competing with their recent release.

 

But the only reason that kind of creative self expression could be seen as competing with their recent release at all is because their latest release is yet another of these capitalist efforts to turn consumers into a product and sell them back to themselves, similar to how Facebook or Twitter profit (well, Twitter actually still struggles on that point) from the intellectual labor of its users, and depend on convincing them that it was so facile, banal or trivial that they do not deserve compensation or recognition. Tell me again how your argument doesn't favor the big corporations then? This is exactly the kind of rhethoric used to justify them laying claim to ever larger parts of our lives and public culture: because it's easy to shrug off the importance of individual contributions on something that was shaped by many hands.

 

 

What is not okay is when people profit off of it

 

I mean, what's the big line in the sand though between work that is derived from other work and work that is merely inspired by other work, the way that all art is to varying degrees. If your answer revolves around prevailing legal norms, I'll have to throw my arms up in exasperation.

[Zeusthecat]

Also, in this case, Nintendo isn't exactly annihilating these things from existence. They are just trying to get them removed from a highly visible space where millions of people can easily stumble upon hacked up versions of their IP (and yes, I realize a lot of these are quite awesome). These things can and will still exist but I don't think Nintendo is necessarily in the wrong for wanting to control the image of their IP on one of the most popular locations on the internet. I mean yeah, it's kind of a bummer for these guys that are getting their videos taken down but that is an inherent risk when your line of work relies on the owners of the various IP's looking the other way.

 

 

I mean, what's the big line in the sand though between work that is derived from other work and work that is merely inspired by other work, the way that all art is to varying degrees. If your answer revolves around prevailing legal norms, I'll have to throw my arms up in exasperation.

 

Well, what's the line in the sand for some of you guys arguing the opposite? Should artists not have any ownership over their IP because at some level it is derived from something else? If you agree that artists should have some level of ownership over their IP and have the right to prevent other people from profiting off of it, then where do you draw the line on what is "derivative enough"?

[syntheticgerbil]

Yes DeadPan, I love big corporations because they are the only ones who own copyrights.

 

Guys, I can't do this anymore, just PM me if you really want to know my personal opinions on everything (why even though?). This is sucking up so much time every time and it's the same thing again. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place but I felt like Twig was goading the original argument back up, because I guess no longer is this thread even related to Youtubers making fat cash (ones involved in Gamergate to boot), but it's about defining copyright law?

[Twig]

Oh I was definitely goading the original argument back up, but I certainly wasn't begging anyone in particular to participate!

[Problem Machine]

If they don't want fan art depicting whatever it's also within their right if it's not protected by parody or criticism. That I PERSONALLY might not feel good about but what I think doesn't matter. I just feel like people/companies/whoever ought to not be bad people for exercising their right. There's so many avenues you can take to not bite on copyrighted material that I'll never understand why it's such an outrage when things get taken down.

Well, first, I don't think they should have that right, and it's actually something of an open question whether they really do, they just benefit from youtube/google not wanting to get caught in that legal crossfire. Second, i don't believe in people being good or bad, I believe in them doing good or bad, and something which hurts everyone for no concrete benefit is something I struggle to view as doing good. You should never exercise 'rights' just because you have them, but to achieve something worthwhile.

If all this video game streaming stuff should really mean changing or (re)defining copyright law, then I guess you'd better get to work. Maybe Disney already has since they are already making the most money off of streaming games. I'm sure the mouse would love more.

Regardless of streaming stuff copyright law needs to be overhauled. There are so many cases of gross overreach that that's basically incontestable at this point. The question is, what should copyright look like, which is where all of this stuff of ethical rights and economic harm comes from.

 

These things can and will still exist but I don't think Nintendo is necessarily in the wrong for wanting to control the image of their IP on one of the most popular locations on the internet.

 Yeah sure they can want to all they like, but how much power to we really want to give massive corporations to 'control their image'?

 

 

Well, what's the line in the sand for some of you guys arguing the opposite? Should artists not have any ownership over their IP because at some level it is derived from something else? If you agree that artists should have some level of ownership over their IP and have the right to prevent other people from profiting off of it, then where do you draw the line on what is "derivative enough"?

Well conveniently enough I outlined my stance a page ago.

[Zeusthecat]

Okay, so either way, everything is heavily weighted in the favor of big corporations. I don't see this alternate scenario of people not having the right to control their IP necessarily being better for the small guys. Because in that scenario, big corporation gets to come in and profit off of the small guys' IPs and the small guy would actually have no legal recourse to stop it. I think it is better to have these protections in place because it actually does more to protect the small guys than a situation where big companies can freely use any IP they want and throw all of their millions of dollars at it, possibly devaluing the work of the original artist.

[Problem Machine]

That's a shit place to start an ethics debate from. No matter what legal system is in place, it will be corrupted and weaponized by massive corps because that is what they do. Our entire culture is being monetized and sold back to us. Trying to pretend that we can have a reasonable conversation about this when massive entities that are legally equivalent to human beings will twist whatever we come up with is counterproductive. This is part of what I meant about the entire basis on which we were debating being poisoned by capitalistic assumptions.

 

In other, perhaps less alarmist words: If the problem is exploitation by giant fucking corporations, we should be addressing that specific problem rather than why some specific exploitation is justifiable or not based on laws and ethics that were made to apply to human fucking beings.

 

So, again, are we talking about ethics or economics? Because what needs to be said varies wildly based on which we focus on.

[Zeusthecat]

That's a shit place to start an ethics debate from. No matter what legal system is in place, it will be corrupted and weaponized by massive corps because that is what they do. Our entire culture is being monetized and sold back to us. Trying to pretend that we can have a reasonable conversation about this when massive entities that are legally equivalent to human beings will twist whatever we come up with is counterproductive. This is part of what I meant about the entire basis on which we were debating being poisoned by capitalistic assumptions.

 

In other, perhaps less alarmist words: If the problem is exploitation by giant fucking corporations, we should be addressing that specific problem rather than why some specific exploitation is justifiable or not based on laws and ethics that were made to apply to human fucking beings.

 

So, again, are we talking about ethics or economics? Because what needs to be said varies wildly based on which we focus on.

 

Dude, your last post literally said:

 

 

 Yeah sure they can want to all they like, but how much power to we really want to give massive corporations to 'control their image'?

 

So I don't get how you can say that that's a shit place to start an ethics debate from when a big crux of your argument is how bad things are now because of how it favors big corporations and screws over the small guy. If you're now saying that this whole conversation is pointless, then sure, I agree with that. 

[Problem Machine]

I'm not saying this conversation is pointless, I'm saying it's actually two conversations: One about how artists should ethically treat each other, and one about how corporations should be allowed to treat artists.

[Zeusthecat]

I'm not saying this conversation is pointless, I'm saying it's actually two conversations: One about how artists should ethically treat each other, and one about how corporations should be allowed to treat artists.

 

If there was an easy way to make the distinction between an artist and a corporation, then maybe it would be easier to navigate this conversation. Yeah, you would think the distinction would be simple but I'm not sure that it is. Clearly, a single artist is pretty distinguishable from a corporation but let's say an artist creates a successful IP and then they start hiring a bunch of people to build on that IP further. Is that when they've become a corporation and must ethically treat other artists differently than when they were just an 'artist'? 

[Problem Machine]

In this case the differentiation is primarily one of economic power. In other words, using economic might to strongarm your competition into doing what you want is a dick move, but the system as it is now is set up to favor these dick moves since the people who are capable of making them tend to also influence the laws. I use corporation primarily to express that power difference, because it's overwhelmingly the corporations that change the laws, even if artists then use them to fuck each other over later on.

I guess to answer your point, I do think that someone in a position of entrenched power has different ethical obligations than one who is not, yes.

[Zeusthecat]

That's fair. But I'm sure you realize that finding a way to legally make that distinction between the starving artist and the person in a position of entrenched power and then enact a system that works differently for people under each category would be a very difficult thing to do.

[Problem Machine]

well it would basically require dismantling capitalism so

[Twig]

well it would basically require dismantling capitalism so

Probably a good idea

[Zeusthecat]

Yeah, that's a whole other argument. I'll stick with my stance that given the capitalist system we live in, there is little we could change that would be an across the board improvement for everyone. It will always work out in the corporations' favor. Maybe we can shorten the duration of copyrights and make other minor tweaks that would sway the balance of power a little further away from big entities. But at a fundamental level, I think our copyright system does about as much as it could do to protect the small people in a capitalistic society like ours.

[Problem Machine]

I think there's a strong case to be made against copyright as it is now but that's an in-depth legal and economic argument which would take a ton of time to get into and require me to do a shitload of research. As things stand, I'll reiterate my earlier point that whether or not companies have a right to do this shit, and whether or not they should have a right to do this shit, have no bearing on whether they should actually do this shit. I think that taking down LPs and related videos serves no one's interests and works against at least one and quite possibly both parties. Regardless of the specific legalities and ethics, there's just no good reason to go there, and the same is true of most derivative and fan work.

[feelthedarkness]

i wonder if there is a first amendment case to be made somewhere in the LPs, specifically using hacked ROMs? 

 

i personally am not familiar with any of the youtubers, but i'm imagining a glitched/hacked thing as potentially being an "original work" the way some sample base music or collage can be considered original work. 

 

i wonder if somebody takes this to court if they wouldn't reach some sample like arrangement? 

[Cordeos]

i wonder if there is a first amendment case to be made somewhere in the LPs, specifically using hacked ROMs? 

 

i personally am not familiar with any of the youtubers, but i'm imagining a glitched/hacked thing as potentially being an "original work" the way some sample base music or collage can be considered original work. 

 

i wonder if somebody takes this to court if they wouldn't reach some sample like arrangement? 

 

There are issues with how ownership works for software. There are also problems with profiting from mods of that software. Music has different rules and a different culture about fair use. I know the Skywind mod (remaking Morrowind in Skyrim) had to negotiate with Bethesda and have the mod verify an install of Morrowind so they could avoid legal issues. I always got the sense that Japanese game devs don't really support modding. Not saying any of this stuff would stand up in court.

 

EDIT: While digging into the legality of modding I ran into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Star_v._FormGen_Inc.

Essentially FromGen successfully sued Mirco Star for selling a CD of Duke Nukem 3D mods. 

[Deadpan]

Yes DeadPan, I love big corporations because they are the only ones who own copyrights.

 

I think the sarcasm would work better if this wasn't a fairly accurate description of the state of things, especially opposite games, where about the only time developers really end up with the rights to their creation is when they also happen to own the studio.

 

I mean, I get that you don't want to have a bad faith argument about all this, but the way you're acting in this conversation is immensely frustrating. It's not like we're dragging you back in here by your feet to squeeze you for more hot takes on Let's Play culture, you just keep coming back on your own to tell us that the situation is complicated and we should therefore have complete trust in the current legal situation since it's about as close to a fair and just system as we're ever going to get. Once challenged on any of the weird assumptions you rely on, you imply we're being so disrespectful for not agreeing with you and make disingenuous claims about how much time we've "forced" you to spend on this or how this is about us desperately wanting to talk to you. And then you leave and return a little bit later to make the same couple of declarations.

 

You don't need an excuse not to talk about this at all or not to talk to me specifically if you don't want to, but please don't put on this weird show to justify your decision.