The Ethics of Fanart Consumption and Personal Taste

[Tengu_temp]

Well, why you're not a hypocrite I answered before already. Also, in general there's nothing wrong in enjoying stories and art with very problematic elements, as long as you acknowledge those elements exist there instead of getting defensive when someone points them out.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Well thats something else. Thats somebody raiding your house, stealing your cash and buying you a tacky lawn ornament with that money. Thats not censorship. Thats being peddled something you don't want against your will.

Its not my lawn, its a communal space and its not my money, its money I've paid the council/government so I can live here. Its not stealing any more than toll roads are banditry1. I'm sure if I had to pay a toll for path upkeep every time I went to the shops I'd be begging the state to just tax me properly already.

I don't want to stop people buying porn2, but if I saw it advertised on the side of buses then I'd probably side with the moral guardians.

Thankfully fanart is hard to advertise due to being pseudo-clandestine for other reasons.


1 The government is technically just a protection racket, but that is irrelevant. Next time you run a "clear out the bandits" session of D&D for a low level party including a Paladin, have the party find that the bandits infested mountain pass is the best maintained road in the kingdom and that their victims actually prefer to go through this pass for that reason and that the government official that put out the bounty wastes all the money it should spend on utilities in paying adventurers to perform frivolous quests. Now the Paladin falls no matter what he does .

2 I know that supposedly nobody pays for that stuff, but that's probably even more immoral now that I think of it. Even though the involved 'exploited' people have probably already been paid regardless.

[Terraoblivion]

So let me get this straight, Jayngfet...Corporate profits are sacrosanct and as such anything that can cause a loss of revenue is wrong? Whether moral outrage is justified or not depends on what it's outrage over. And beyond that, the customer always has the right not to use your product or service if it doesn't suit their needs, tastes or desires. Being responsive to that is simply a good business practice, though of course you will also need to weigh your own values against it and whether you're willing to produce something that goes against them simply to maintain your customer base.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Well, why you're not a hypocrite I answered before already. Also, in general there's nothing wrong in enjoying stories and art with very problematic elements, as long as you acknowledge those elements exist there instead of getting defensive when someone points them out.

That's just it. I don't get defensive. I get ashamed.

[Terraoblivion]

That's just it. I don't get defensive. I get ashamed.

There's nothing to be ashamed of. You're aware of what you're doing, why it is fantasy and not reality and don't try to apply it to real people. So, really, you're fine, don't worry.

[Jayngfet]

So let me get this straight, Jayngfet...Corporate profits are sacrosanct and as such anything that can cause a loss of revenue is wrong?

No, Corporate revenue is the most important part of the company, because otherwise I don't get paid. I very much like my home and utilities and wouldn't like to live in a cardboard box.

[Terraoblivion]

And rather than take responsibility for that yourself or blaming the superiors making bad decisions driving customers away, you're blaming the consumers for exercising their freedom of choice on the market. Do you not realize how insane that sounds? Following your logic, someone could demand that you start eating natto and hagis because it would put the employees at natto and haggis companies out of work if you didn't.

Also, why are you more deserving of having job security and pay than others? Consumers don't have infinite money and are just withholding it from whoever you're working for out of peevishness, they only have so much money so anything that goes to whoever you work for, doesn't go to someone else who will be out of a job.

[Dragonus45]

Just to toss this out, does anyone remember the Chrono Trigger fanfiction fan sequel that got a cease and desist. Where do people feel that falls along the can works spectrum.

1 The government is technically just a protection racket, but that is irrelevant. Next time you run a "clear out the bandits" session of D&D for a low level party including a Paladin, have the party find that the bandits infested mountain pass is the best maintained road in the kingdom and that their victims actually prefer to go through this pass for that reason and that the government official that put out the bounty wastes all the money it should spend on utilities in paying adventurers to perform frivolous quests. Now the Paladin falls no matter what he does

The Paladin does the right thing and doesn't fall, because paladins don't fall that easily.

[RPGuru1331]

No, Corporate revenue is the most important part of the company, because otherwise I don't get paid. I very much like my home and utilities and wouldn't like to live in a cardboard box.

If revenue is so important, you should probably act to preserve it. For instance, by not angering your customer base by being ridiculously offensive to it. Don't they teach you this stuff in training?

Also doesn't this mean you have a moral obligation to support all fiction you don't agree with, financially? Or for that matter, all of everything? I'm not clear how you plan to pay for rent or utilities when you finish buying every consumer product in history, especially when you consider deals between consumers. Are you like, Richie Rich? Then again, I don't think he pays rent...

[Poison_Fish]

That's just it. I don't get defensive. I get ashamed.

What do you think it would take for you not to be ashamed when it is just yourself who is the only person judging?

No, Corporate revenue is the most important part of the company, because otherwise I don't get paid. I very much like my home and utilities and wouldn't like to live in a cardboard box..

If you think an ideological discussion that's been forming for years is more of a threat to your job security then standard business practices of most companies, you have so much more to learn about the gaming industry. A trip to the trenches may help you.

[Terraoblivion]

Just to toss this out, does anyone remember the Chrono Trigger fanfiction fan sequel that got a cease and desist. Where do people feel that falls along the can works spectrum.

Did they ask for money for it? Did they try to claim copyright? Did they claim that it was in some way official? These are all pretty important people.

[Dragonus45]

Did they ask for money for it? Did they try to claim copyright? Did they claim that it was in some way official? These are all pretty important people.

No, but they did use romhacking tools to hack the game itself to make them.

[RPGuru1331]

Just to toss this out, does anyone remember the Chrono Trigger fanfiction fan sequel that got a cease and desist. Where do people feel that falls along the can works spectrum.

If they were making money off of it, that's really unfortunate, and potentially weird, but I think doujins basically can't make money and only charge the literal cost of production (without factoring people's time into it). But it's at least nominally fair.

If they weren't making money off of it in any substantive way, it was wrong. It's just Chrono Trigger fanworks. I mean, I'm kind of amused that nerds still need one after Cross, but hey, it's their time.

[Dragonus45]

If they were making money off of it, that's really unfortunate, and potentially weird, but I think doujins basically can't make money and only charge the literal cost of production (without factoring people's time into it). But it's at least nominally fair.

If they weren't making money off of it in any substantive way, it was wrong. It's just Chrono Trigger fanworks. I mean, I'm kind of amused that nerds still need one after Cross, but hey, it's their time.

Cross is the reason we needed one...

Also I should not I don't have an opinion on the issue either way. I can see the arguments for both sides, but I wanted to toss out Crimson Echoes as a discussion point since it has a lot of relevance here.

[Terraoblivion]

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of Chrono Cross, which I don't have any first hand experience with, I believe the cease and desist to be both immoral and misguided. It's one thing to prevent people from profiting off your work, but preventing them from enjoying it in ways different from you intended or to show devotion to it to the degree of making a sequel? That's a good way to paint yourself as a villain and kill your brand.

[RPGuru1331]

Cross is the reason we needed one...

A kind of unhappy game got an unhappy sequel, where the "wait this is kind of a paradox, on every level" thing got looked at? Be still my heart. Nonetheless, if they weren't making money, that's still really silly, somewhat surprising, and makes me sad.

[Mystic Muse]

As long as you're not intending to harm anyone, and don't harm anyone, I fail to see any issue. Enjoy what you enjoy. Don't let anyone shame you for enjoying something that harms no-one and gives you joy.

To clarify: I'm of the belief that art and creativity should never be censored (though neither should anyone be immune to critique).

I think my stance on this depends. Does not censoring it mean I have to view material I know I'm uncomfortable with?

[Jayngfet]

If revenue is so important, you should probably act to preserve it. For instance, by not angering your customer base by being ridiculously offensive to it. Don't they teach you this stuff in training?

Right, but that's the difference between Moral Guardianship and an actual consumer revolt. Moral Guardians don't actually speak for the majority, even if they claim they do. Fredric Wertham was never voted into office by comic book consumers and neither was Will Hays, and neither are most figures of the type.

There's a difference between claiming to speak for the majority and actually speaking for the majority. Or in this case the target demographic.

If you think an ideological discussion that's been forming for years is more of a threat to your job security then standard business practices of most companies, you have so much more to learn about the gaming industry. A trip to the trenches may help you.

It's obviously a distant second. But it's an easily rectified second by comparison, since you don't have to call as many lawyers and deal with as many accountants.

[Dragonus45]

I think my stance on this depends. Does not censoring it mean I have to view material I know I'm uncomfortable with?

Do you know how to close a browser window or change a channel.

[RPGuru1331]

Right, but that's the difference between Moral Guardianship and an actual consumer revolt. Moral Guardians don't actually speak for the majority, even if they claim they do. Fredric Wertham was never voted into office by comic book consumers and neither was Will Hays, and neither are most figures of the type.

There's a difference between claiming to speak for the majority and actually speaking for the majority. Or in this case the target demographic.

...Hays? The man Hollywood hired for the explicit purpose of keeping them in check so they didn't face boycotts or loss of funding from backers? That's a weird casting of him. Also, considering that Hays was hired for the explicit purpose of checking movie producers, and until the MPAA was given teeth, boycotts and budget cuts from backers continued to wrack the industry, he may not have been a one man consumer revolt, but he obviously spoke to a sufficient number of the consumers/backers' concerns that he did, in fact, basically do as you requested, whether or not he was voted in (Which, again, he wasn't, because he was hired by hollywood).

Like, I'm not happy with his rules, but at the end of the day, that's exactly what I said - avoid ticking off your consumers if you enjoy revenue.

Besides, people don't have to claim they speak for a majority of your consumers; only enough that you don't want to take the financial hit.

[Mystic Muse]

Do you know how to close a browser window or change a channel.

Yes, I do.

But if I have to deal with material I'm highly uncomfortable with in order to access the material I like, I'm more likely not to access any of the material at all, which seems like it would defeat the purpose.

Basically, so long as I can cut out the things I don't personally care for, parents can still choose what to show their kids, ETC. I'm fine with a lack of censoring. What annoys me is when I'm looking for something specific, and I get gorn, or other things I find highly unpleasant, or actually outright damaging to my mental health.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

There's nothing to be ashamed of. You're aware of what you're doing, why it is fantasy and not reality and don't try to apply it to real people. So, really, you're fine, don't worry.

I just feel like I'm claiming to be an ally when in reality I'm just phoning it in slactivist-style. I get that I have privilege. I get that I shouldn't make assumptions about what people, especially minorities, go through, because that privilege made things easy for me in ways that it blocks to others. I get that the media I consume was not made specifically for me, and should be accepting and inclusive to all. But that just leaves me with one question.

"Okay, now what?"

How do I make good on these realizations? How do I practice what I preach?

[Jayngfet]

...Hays? The man Hollywood hired for the explicit purpose of keeping them in check so they didn't face boycotts or loss of funding from backers? That's a weird casting of him. Also, considering that Hays was hired for the explicit purpose of checking movie producers, and until the MPAA was given teeth, boycotts and budget cuts from backers continued to wrack the industry, he may not have been a one man consumer revolt, but he obviously spoke to a sufficient number of the consumers/backers' concerns that he did, in fact, basically do as you requested, whether or not he was voted in (Which, again, he wasn't, because he was hired by hollywood).

Like, I'm not happy with his rules, but at the end of the day, that's exactly what I said - avoid ticking off your consumers if you enjoy revenue.

I was using him as the face of a much larger context more than anything else. But still, my mistake and I'll own up to it.

The loss of funding and boycotts could be an issue, but they weren't from the main consumer base, at least to my knowledge(if you have any mention of sales numbers or the like, feel free to hit me up and I'll retract the point again). If the actual consumer base didn't like a certain type of story, they'd stop making money and stop being made.

That's not to say that Hollywood didn't have several major problems in the era, but censoring the films wasn't the proper answer and didn't do all that much besides stick a road block between the creators and their audience, which is never a good thing.

Besides, people don't have to claim they speak for a majority of your consumers; only enough that you don't want to take the financial hit.

Right, but bear in mind not everything is for everyone, and in fact most things aren't. You divide the public into demographics and decide which of those groups you want to go for.

If I'm going after teenaged boys, all the other demographics become of secondary concern unless they spend a bigger percentage, or I have to re evaluate. If teenaged girls don't like my product, they were never my audience to begin with. Neither were middle aged men. Or younger boys. I'm working for a specific set of sensibilities.

Obviously I'm free to try after multiple demographics and that'd be preferred, but marketing 101 makes it clear that for commercial works you generally try to make it "for" a specific group.

[Scowling Dragon]

The Hays code was instituted because of Boycotts and such, but it doesn't take away that there WAS a consumer base.

A consumer base that sustained the industry and gave it money to work with and live off of.

Its not like crazy old Hollywood one day wen't crazy and didn't do what people wanted. It did. But then a group of people said that Hollywood should not provide such service to ANYBODY and thus Boycotted it, and like usual tried turning the issue into a public health issue. And once its public health its no longer protected by Free Speech. Then the Government can be involved. So instead they opted to have the change happen from within rather then let the government be involved.

Strong-Arming is Strong-Arming no matter the end result.

And who knows (Somebody who might show up with stats), maybe after enough public yelling and shaming, enough of a stigma was attached to the products that sales declined. I still find "Moral" Guardians Repugnant. Unless it involves obvious harm, then leave it alone. Your not the Parent to the whole worlds population.

[Poison_Fish]

It's obviously a distant second. But it's an easily rectified second by comparison, since you don't have to call as many lawyers and deal with as many accountants.

It's not even a distant second. There are so many more threats to job security then something that doesn't even threaten the industry. It's not even close to the comics code authority. Hell, your attitude towards consumers is more of a threat to your job security then this. The industry is not going to be ended by people asking for better representation. It's not going to lose a significant amount of revenue. Being told "you can do better" is not the equivalent to congressional hearings on "delinquent youth". Yes, there has been some other pushes in the past few years that weren't great (but were extremely unsuccessful). But do please recognize that there is a spectrum of critics out there.

Edit: Just to show how gaming is here to stay, look for any article discussing projected growth. Take note as well, teenage boys are no longer the primary demographic to market to.

Also, you should really knock out trying to continue your personal war here.

I just feel like I'm claiming to be an ally when in reality I'm just phoning it in slactivist-style. I get that I have privilege. I get that I shouldn't make assumptions about what people, especially minorities, go through, because that privilege made things easy for me in ways that it blocks to others. I get that the media I consume was not made specifically for me, and should be accepting and inclusive to all. But that just leaves me with one question.

"Okay, now what?"

How do I make good on these realizations? How do I practice what I preach?

It's still a choice you can make on how much you want to participate. You can also just vote with your money. You can chose if you want to actively support things that interest you or think further a cause you support, or decide that even with compartmentalization, a series is so problematic you can no longer support it. As a consumer, that is pretty much enough.

If you want to do more, discussing specific pieces of fiction with a friend who shares similar interests, even if it's problematic, can work. Just make sure that they are also interested in the discussion.

Because ultimately, the biggest issue that people are fighting for is awareness. You've established to yourself that you at least have some awareness.

[RPGuru1331]

I was using him as the face of a much larger context more than anything else. But still, my mistake and I'll own up to it.

The loss of funding and boycotts could be an issue, but they weren't from the main consumer base, at least to my knowledge(if you have any mention of sales numbers or the like, feel free to hit me up and I'll retract the point again). If the actual consumer base didn't like a certain type of story, they'd stop making money and stop being made.

Dude, I don't know why you're having a hard time with this. The loss of profits lead to the exact thing you said would happen 'if they stopped making money'. I don't know if you're aware of this, but companies nominally seek to maximize profits. If they can keep people from boycotting while maintaining their 'normal consumer base', they will absolutely do both.

That's not to say that Hollywood didn't have several major problems in the era, but censoring the films wasn't the proper answer and didn't do all that much besides stick a road block between the creators and their audience, which is never a good thing.

MPAA. Hired by Hollywood. Given its powers by Hollywood. Maintains its powers at ultimately hollywood's discretion. It's self-censorship to maintain profits.

Right, but bear in mind not everything is for everyone, and in fact most things aren't. You divide the public into demographics and decide which of those groups you want to go for.

If I'm going after teenaged boys, all the other demographics become of secondary concern unless they spend a bigger percentage, or I have to re evaluate. If teenaged girls don't like my product, they were never my audience to begin with. Neither were middle aged men. Or younger boys. I'm working for a specific set of sensibilities.

Yes, I'm aware this is the nominal song sung. But it's as I said with Hays - if people can please their primary fanbase while also maintaining enough potential revenue from off-target demographics, they will. And they probably can. You won't actively antagonize your primary demographic (Probably; there'll be exceptions that are also made for artistic reasons, such as Spec Ops: the Line), but you probably don't have to, while drawing in other consumers at the same time.

[Rodin]

It's not hypocrisy, though. There are different types of enjoyment. You can enjoy being titillated by the work (or its fanart) while not enjoying the work as a work of art. (Which is not to say that there is no such thing as artistic titillation; but they are distinct dimensions of the work.) Also, you can enjoy rule 34 fanart as fulfilling its aspiration of being rule 34 fanart, while still thinking that the source work that aspires to be more than a mine for rule 34 fanart did a poor job of it. Acknowledging differing contexts is not hypocritical.

It's also not an all-or-nothing situation. There are works which I refuse to look up Rule 34 material for, because I feel it would influence my view of the original work. At the same time, the majority of works I will happily seek out Rule 34 material, because I'm not worried about it in those cases. Generally speaking, I tend to avoid Rule 34'ing stories with strong characterization, because I've fallen in love with the characters and don't want to mess with that. It's why I don't read fanfiction - only the works I love most would be worth seeking out fanfiction for, but since the original is so good no fanfiction can compare.

On the whole "Chrono Trigger fan sequel" thing...I'm never going to criticize a company for upholding their copyright when they're being reasonable, and an unauthorized game using the name and lore of one of your major properties fits well within those bounds. Let's say the fan sequel happened, and it was better than Chrono Trigger itself. Now Square-Enix decides to make Chrono Break...there's a superior, and more importantly free game already out there, with a plot that contradicts the direction they want to take the canon. It might be good for sales, but it probably won't be since the demographic of people who play a fan sequel aren't likely to be series newcomers who suddenly decide to buy into the series.

There are times when companies get a little bit ridiculous with their copyright claims (like Blizzard forcing a movie called "El Diablo" to change its name despite Diablo being a legitimate, pre-existing Spanish word), but they do have to draw the line somewhere. Fan works always exist at the pleasure of the original creator, and I think complaining when they defend their income source is churlish. If what you're making is good enough, it should be able to stand on its own without pulling from the work of another accomplished creator.

As a comparison to show why I don't think what Sqeenix did was bad: Consider this.

What if Rich finished up the OOTS, and then retired? Then, some of us from this board decided to do a fan sequel, exploring the adventures of Elan and Haley's kids. Or a prequel, following the Vector Legion.

Do you think that would get off the ground without the Giant kicking up an almighty fuss? Do you think that should be allowed to be created? And if not, why is what Squeenix did different?

[The Glyphstone]

Just to toss this out, does anyone remember the Chrono Trigger fanfiction fan sequel that got a cease and desist. Where do people feel that falls along the can works spectrum.



The Paladin does the right thing and doesn't fall, because paladins don't fall that easily.

No, but I have heard of a - possibly apocryphal - Power Rangers fanfiction that got an entire message board shut down.

[RPGuru1331]

The Hays code was instituted because of Boycotts and such, but it doesn't take away that there WAS a consumer base.

A consumer base that sustained the industry and gave it money to work with and live off of.

Considering the fortunes amassed by the studio heads, I'm pretty sure their goal was not 'to make enough money to work with and live off of.'

Strong-Arming is Strong-Arming no matter the end result.

So... I have to spend money in ways pleasing to you? S'what you're saying by tryin to pretend that a boycott is wrong.

And who knows (Somebody who might show up with stats), maybe after enough public yelling and shaming, enough of a stigma was attached to the products that sales declined. I still find "Moral" Guardians Repugnant. Unless it involves obvious harm, then leave it alone. Your not the Parent to the whole worlds population.

Maybe it didn't actually hurt sales at all. Companies do frequently respond to things based on inaccurate perceptions and human irrationality, after all; this wouldn't be the first or last time. But the boycotts were quite real, and extremely well documented. Numerous financial backers went on the public record to say they were no longer supporting hollywood films because of their alleged indecency (In some cases, because they agreed with the boycotters, in others, for fear of drawing the boycotters' ire). Certainly, the Hays code did not anger the rest of the consumer base enough to end their movie going; Hollywood's existence speaks to that.

But if you want people to stop expressing their opinion that someone is doing something wrong, you should probably stop doing so yourself.

On the whole "Chrono Trigger fan sequel" thing...I'm never going to criticize a company for upholding their copyright when they're being reasonable, and an unauthorized game using the name and lore of one of your major properties fits well within those bounds. Let's say the fan sequel happened, and it was better than Chrono Trigger itself. Now Square-Enix decides to make Chrono Break...there's a superior, and more importantly free game already out there, with a plot that contradicts the direction they want to take the canon. It might be good for sales, but it probably won't be since the demographic of people who play a fan sequel aren't likely to be series newcomers who suddenly decide to buy into the series.

There are times when companies get a little bit ridiculous with their copyright claims (like Blizzard forcing a movie called "El Diablo" to change its name despite Diablo being a legitimate, pre-existing Spanish word), but they do have to draw the line somewhere. Fan works always exist at the pleasure of the original creator, and I think complaining when they defend their income source is churlish. If what you're making is good enough, it should be able to stand on its own without pulling from the work of another accomplished creator.

I think you're ultimately missing one of the key points of fanart; it is a labor of love. That's why I included bits about it not being for profit in what I said. You COULD make something seperate, and choose not to. Sometimes, that's a matter of cutting your teeth,b ut as much, it's because you want to work with the original work. Square has the legal right to do this, yes, but why? If anything, Steam has proved gamers will buy far m ore games than they have time to play, solely on the grounds they have the money to enjoy them. Considering that Square cut it off after CC, it accomplished nothing but limit mind-share, but even if it had a material interest to protect, I would consider it no less dickish, provided no misrepresentation was made by the fans.

As a comparison to show why I don't think what Sqeenix did was bad: Consider this.

What if Rich finished up the OOTS, and then retired? Then, some of us from this board decided to do a fan sequel, exploring the adventures of Elan and Haley's kids. Or a prequel, following the Vector Legion.

Do you think that would get off the ground without the Giant kicking up an almighty fuss? Do you think that should be allowed to be created? And if not, why is what Squeenix did different?

In order:
1: I don't know, dear, I'm not psychic. Didn't the Giant nix a fan translation when he doesn't even speak the language it was translated into? If so, probably not, and that's pretty dickish.
2. A fan work that generates no profit off of other people's work, and doesn't seek to claim it was made by the original creator? Yes, I think it should be created. It creates little actual harm, and is either practice or a labor of love. I respect that the rights holder can legally shut it down, I merely find it petty at best and misguided at worst. I would not be sad if the ability to create fan-works was legally protected, even (Provided no profit was made and no attempt at official-ness was established).

[Jayngfet]

Dude, I don't know why you're having a hard time with this. The loss of profits lead to the exact thing you said would happen 'if they stopped making money'. I don't know if you're aware of this, but companies nominally seek to maximize profits. If they can keep people from boycotting while maintaining their 'normal consumer base', they will absolutely do both.

...right. But I don't recall ever hearing of a major loss of profits that came from the scandal or boycotts industry wide. Heck, they kept right going after the code was installed and basically had to be forced to comply, because the market still wanted what they were selling and the protestors in that case were such a small portion of it.

Yes, I'm aware this is the nominal song sung. But it's as I said with Hays - if people can please their primary fanbase while also maintaining enough potential revenue from off-target demographics, they will. And they probably can. You won't actively antagonize your primary demographic (Probably; there'll be exceptions that are also made for artistic reasons, such as Spec Ops: the Line), but you probably don't have to, while drawing in other consumers at the same time.

...which wasn't what happened. Changes were enforced, not organic.