Well im confused
https://youtu.be/HnUr85MrEII
https://youtu.be/_tuYF8kdwX8
>getting confused over two people having conflicting views on a particular topic
>>2350540
S-sauce
Selling shit you made and/or own is not wrong, but depending on the country you live in it might be illegal.
>>2350540
Deciding whether fanart is legal to sell or not is wholly dependent on the original creators. For example: Anime studios aren't nearly as up-tight as Disney. Disney will sue your ass at the drop of a hat.
You're also more likely to "get away with it" if you just sell your art at Artist Alleys instead of online.
You just have to do a little research anon
It's not legal, It's totally fair, ethical and legit, so guys, do and sell your fanarts if you can and don't give any fuck about it.
Characters aren't things that can't be own, they can just own their concrete films/images/marketables and shit, but not the character itself.
The author of hercules can't own hercules, that would make no fucking sense, but it's fucking happening with Disney and bullshitters who are begging for governments priviledges to monopolize ideas and therefore exploit like a mafia their original artworks
patents should have existed on the cromagnon age, then you would instantly repel these stupid institutions
>>2350920
>but not the character itself.
But they definitely can be, though.
Not characters based on something such as mythology (like Hercules you used as an example), but characters from the typical cartoon/comic book can very much be owned.
>>2350943
Owning ideas is the most retarded idea ever.
This person goes into more detail about copyright on fan art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKBsTUjd910
Most companies aren't going to go after you for fanart, but things get complicated when you start making a substantially large amount of money on copyrighted material.
>>2351072
The only retarded thing here is you. If people can't own the ideas they create how would anyone make money off intellectual proprieties? What would be the intensive for the entertainment or game industry to exist if they don't get to control their own creations? Go back to being a NEET, you obviously don't need any of the jobs those IP laws create.
>>2350920
>>2350943
>The author of Hercules can't own Hercules, that would make no fucking sense, but it's fucking happening with Disney.
You're a moron. They don't own Hercules the myth, they own their version of the character and it's likeness. Myths and things of that nature are public domain, you're free to make your own version of Hercules and sell it. You probably suck though, unable to create anything worth buying, that's why you and others like you are against intellectual property rights That way you can make money off other peoples hard work and continue to be a talentless lazy fuck with no good ideas of your own.
>>2350540
>>2350846
Selling fan art is illegal, right or wrong has nothing to do with it, just what your legal liability is. You're using other peoples copyright images and ideas and selling them for your own profit with out permission from the person who owns it. The fact you made an original piece of art for it doesn't matter in. If you make enough money and the company wants to go after you they can, you'll either be told to stop or they may sue you for monetary damages.
Until they come after you though you're free to do what you like but that doesn't mean it's legal. A lot of artists sell sell prints in person at conventions to try and stay under the radar, most companies seem not to care as long as you're not making crazy bank off their stuff. They like the fact their stuff is getting out there and keeping the fan base alive, plenty of artists make a living doing it and never get in trouble but it's always a potential problem to be aware of.
>>2351140
People can make money without monopolizing ideas. Just because there is a company that already makes chairs, doesn't mean no other company can make money making chairs.
The incentive for the existence of entertainment industry is that there is demand for entertainment.
Also, laws don't create jobs, people create jobs.
>>2352038
You'd be singing a different tune if you made a wildly popular character that is stolen by a big company that ends up making them millions. There is nothing wrong with IP laws, which have existed for much of recent history.
>>2350540
who is this semen demon ?
>>2351072
Says the fucking idiot who has never made anything worthwhile in his life. Congrats, loser.
>>2352042
No I wouldn't. I actually believe in what I'm saying.
Nobody can steal a character. I still have my idea of the character, just because someone else has it and uses it does not mean I lost it. I can still make my own work based on the character.
>>2352052
>1939 germany
>We shouldn't kill all the jews
>says the fucking idiot who never had to deal with a jew
>>2352173
>I can still make my own work based on the character.
You could maybe maintain a webcomic on your own, so what you're saying is it would be okay for a company like Disney or whatever to come in and make a movie that was basically your webcomic including all of the dialogue and characters story arcs and so on, and they shouldn't have to pay you a dime or formally acknowledge your webcomic's existence, for example.
>>2352184
You fail to realize in your hypothetical scenario that there are still consequences to something like this. If Disney did this to someone, the information about this would surface and Disney could face major backlash by the public, their sales could suffer a major drop due to an incident like this. The justice would be served, without the loss of freedom that IP laws bring about. It would not be worth it for a major company. They would much rather pay the artist or hire him if they wanted to use a character he made.
This has happened already. Lord of the Rings was published in the US without Tolkiens permission or any money given to Tolkien, when Tolkien released authorized version in the US he just wrote on the cover that this is the only authorized release and every time he responded to a fan letter he added explanation at the end about the problem, that they shouldn't buy the unauthorized book and that they should spread the info around. The sales of the unauthorized version dropped rapidly and it went out of print. And keep in mind that this was before the internet, done only by a professor in england sending some letters,.
WHO DA FUCK IS THAT BONER CONDONER
>>2352241
>If Disney did this to someone, the information about this would surface and Disney could face major backlash by the public, their sales could suffer a major drop due to an incident like this.
It's cute that you believe practically anyone gives the tiniest bit of a shit, let alone enough of one to boycott Disney in any way that they'd notice.
Do you seriously, genuinely think that someone coming out with "Hey guys, it turns out this story Disney told WASN'T THEIR IDEA!" would surprise anybody? Let alone offend them? Everyone fucking knows, they don't care.
those are some pretty flabby asses desu
>>2351136
How are sakamichi and kron alive then?
>>2351140
>ou probably suck though, unable to create anything worth buying, that's why you and others like you are against intellectual property rights That way you can make money off other peoples hard work and continue to be a talentless lazy fuck with no good ideas of your own.
Out of curiosity, but how the fuck did you get that from my post (>>2350943)?
Quit projecting your own weaknesses on me, or some shit.
>>2350545
Well one says it's illegal, so I guess it's more than opinions
>>2352461
Yeah, remember how that one He-Man re-release Blu Ray is literally going to have someone's fanart on the cover? Remember the public "outrage" that caused for about 5 minutes on /ic/?
>>2352498
Disney can't sue Saki-sama because she doesn't make money off of fanart.
Her fans don't pay her for her disney portraits, per say, but they pay her to CONTINUE producing art, as in, weekly donations so she can continue painting her heart away.
>>2352241
>backlash from the public
>from making a huge production out of something that would only otherwise be someone's backwater web comic
Yeah, they could throw the creator a bone just to appear extra magnanimous or not, I don't think it would affect them very negatively either way because the only person that would care that much would be the creator and a portion of his fans, many of whom would probably think it was awesome that whatever content was languishing due to the creator's limited resources was getting made as something more than it otherwise could ever be by a multinational corporation.
>>2352461
dude, you're retarded and mad as fuck, he just gave an example of this happening with lord of the rings, do you really think companies cannot be hurt by bad pr?
>>2350540
Seems to be a collection of Daniela Lopez ass shots. Just search youtube for the designers listed in the bottom right.
>>2353121
>mfw she is 17
>>2353148
>Daniela Lopez
she's 21
>>2350540
here is my fan art op.
>>2350540
It's legal if its fair use. Guy is talking shit.
>>2353318
To add - You can sell fan art of whatever you want. You just can not, for example, stick a copyrighted character on a shirt and sell it.
If its your own fan art however, you could argue that its "your" version, so its fine. Guy in the video obviously has not studied into this whatsoever.
