FA+
Shop
A Lesson in Internet Art from Derpy Hooves
13 years ago
For those of you following the new My Little Pony series, a little context: the show has several in-joke background characters. One of them, had gotten a large following in the fandom and recently got a small speaking role and had her fandom name used. The episode was pulled by Hasbro and changed as follows.
Original version:
Updated version:
I theorize the removal of the fan-name is a bit of over-caution from Hasbro's legal derpartment; they know the name originated outside the company and therefore they don't own it. Technically, someone could claim to be the creator of the "Derpy Hooves" and try to get credit/royalties from them--they'd almost certainly lose, but it's a legal quagmire that would help nopony. Heck, this is similar to the reason I ask people not to show me fanfic of my own work--I'd have to intentionally avoid writing anything similar because it would look like I was stealing ideas without giving credit.
I personally like the new voice (even the voice actor says she didn't know the character was a girl in the original version). I like making her lazy eye more inconstant (my little bro has strabismus and it literally is inconstant). Heck, even when the episode came out, I thought it odd that she was called "Derpy" after the show's creator wrote the name "Ditzy Doo" into the show and gave a word of god that she considered this the same character. However, I think pulling the episode for a touch-up was overkill.
While my feelings on this change are mixed, this situation DOES showcase an interesting aspect of art in the internet age. In essence, an artist or writer can now release "updates"! As a student of literature, I can assure you this is a huge new tool for authors. As a writer, I can tell you that I personally have made edits to my posted works that I feel have improved them dramatically: everything from typo corrections to fixing weak points to adding whole new scenes.
I've had readers get upset by these updates, and I really do try my best to reassure them that I'm making changes in the spirit of the story.
In my opinion, art is not a series of frozen, perfect moments, but instead a life-long journey into exploring what it means to be sentient and alive, discovering new ways to connect with people along the way. Art is the conduit through which we can glimpse the deepest parts of one another. Art lets one know, truly, that one is not alone.
And think about it: for the first time in history, artists can literally update almost every copy of a work instantly. If you don't think this is a massive relief to writers, just ask someone who's published a book. That wait between editions is a loooooooooooong time to have typos staring at you, and even then there are hundreds or thousands of copies that have the mistakes.
I admit, artists could try to censor themselves, to try to put the genie back in the bottle. But another aspect of the Internet Age is that nothing of value is lost: any trying amazing work will be backed up and reposted. And I suspect that, as companies get more acclimated to these new realities, this sort of updating will become more artful and less dramatic. Would anyone complain if George Lucas offered a v1.1 of the new Star Wars trilogy? Or if Douglas Adams had been given the magical power to make his fourth Hitchhiker's Guide book less of a "mistake," as he called it? X)
TL;DR
So, in short, I admire that the staff of the show cares enough about their viewership to not only include sneak in a fan-favorite, but personally reassure fans that the character will continue being an easter egg in the series. You go, guys.
EDIT:
Chromamancer has pointed out to me that Ditzy even has derp eyes IN THE NEW VERSION. For example at 0:27.
EDIT: Additionally, I don't want to make baseless assumptions here, but Ditzy does talk more like a second-string pony and less like a background one now... Say, like Big Mac or Cheerilee...
Original version:
Updated version:
I theorize the removal of the fan-name is a bit of over-caution from Hasbro's legal derpartment; they know the name originated outside the company and therefore they don't own it. Technically, someone could claim to be the creator of the "Derpy Hooves" and try to get credit/royalties from them--they'd almost certainly lose, but it's a legal quagmire that would help nopony. Heck, this is similar to the reason I ask people not to show me fanfic of my own work--I'd have to intentionally avoid writing anything similar because it would look like I was stealing ideas without giving credit.
I personally like the new voice (even the voice actor says she didn't know the character was a girl in the original version). I like making her lazy eye more inconstant (my little bro has strabismus and it literally is inconstant). Heck, even when the episode came out, I thought it odd that she was called "Derpy" after the show's creator wrote the name "Ditzy Doo" into the show and gave a word of god that she considered this the same character. However, I think pulling the episode for a touch-up was overkill.
While my feelings on this change are mixed, this situation DOES showcase an interesting aspect of art in the internet age. In essence, an artist or writer can now release "updates"! As a student of literature, I can assure you this is a huge new tool for authors. As a writer, I can tell you that I personally have made edits to my posted works that I feel have improved them dramatically: everything from typo corrections to fixing weak points to adding whole new scenes.
I've had readers get upset by these updates, and I really do try my best to reassure them that I'm making changes in the spirit of the story.
In my opinion, art is not a series of frozen, perfect moments, but instead a life-long journey into exploring what it means to be sentient and alive, discovering new ways to connect with people along the way. Art is the conduit through which we can glimpse the deepest parts of one another. Art lets one know, truly, that one is not alone.
And think about it: for the first time in history, artists can literally update almost every copy of a work instantly. If you don't think this is a massive relief to writers, just ask someone who's published a book. That wait between editions is a loooooooooooong time to have typos staring at you, and even then there are hundreds or thousands of copies that have the mistakes.
I admit, artists could try to censor themselves, to try to put the genie back in the bottle. But another aspect of the Internet Age is that nothing of value is lost: any trying amazing work will be backed up and reposted. And I suspect that, as companies get more acclimated to these new realities, this sort of updating will become more artful and less dramatic. Would anyone complain if George Lucas offered a v1.1 of the new Star Wars trilogy? Or if Douglas Adams had been given the magical power to make his fourth Hitchhiker's Guide book less of a "mistake," as he called it? X)
TL;DR
So, in short, I admire that the staff of the show cares enough about their viewership to not only include sneak in a fan-favorite, but personally reassure fans that the character will continue being an easter egg in the series. You go, guys.
EDIT:
Chromamancer has pointed out to me that Ditzy even has derp eyes IN THE NEW VERSION. For example at 0:27.EDIT: Additionally, I don't want to make baseless assumptions here, but Ditzy does talk more like a second-string pony and less like a background one now... Say, like Big Mac or Cheerilee...
I am going to have to take issue with you, though, on one thing. You touched on it, but kind of let it pass. And that's the legal requirement of what constitutes a copyrighted work. Being able to go back and "touch-up" any work, as you put it, opens entirely new legal problems about copyright and what could constitute infringement.
In the US, any creator is automatically granted copyright to their work upon its creation. In other words, it isn't necessary to register the work with the copyright office. However, it is required that the work be registered before any legal action involving the work can be undertaken. In registering the work, you must supply two copies of the work in its final form. If a person can go back and make changes to the work, then obviously it's not in final form, and the newly revised work must be reregistered to protect those changes. Copyright, fortunately, doesn't recognize correction of spelling and grammar errors as a new work, so those types of changes are fine. But if the author were to write another chapter, or revise said material in a major way and add that to the existing work, the copyright issued for the prior work may no longer protect the new revisions, and thus the newer work.
Second point, two authors write similar stories, though not the same. The stories are published in order author #1 first, then author #2, with neither author registering their copyright. Author #1 likes the way author #2 wrote a particular chapter of their book, so goes back and rewrites his chapter in a similar way, then files for copyright registration. Upon getting his copyright, author #1 sues author #2 for plagiarism, even though author #2 wrote the original passage for which he's being sued.
Technology is a two-edged sword. I can definitely understand any creators love of being able to "do over", but being able to do so may open them to other perils.
Well, much like remastered versions of old movies, they seem to count more as a continuation of the same work as long as it's reasonable. Lucasfilm added entire scenes to the old Star Wars movies, after all, and then re-released them under the same titles. Even with the firm's team of Jedi-lawyers notwithstanding, it would be tough to prove they are different works under copyright law. I suspect they'd be more like editions of a book, where only the first one matters for determining how long the copyright runs.
On the topic of point two, it sounds a bit like authors could do that without the internet. Author #1 could read #2's work, then change the book in the next printing if they really wanted to. I'm not sure how that would be grounds for a lawsuit for 1 against 2, since it would be tough to prove damages. Author #2 suing #1, however, would actually be likely in that case, since all 2'd have to do is show that 2's book came out before the revision and that 1's actions are infringing on 2's copyright.
I'm not sure I totally understand the specific perils, aside from what I mentioned above. X) Are those the ones you meant?
And Lucasfilm, along with any other large production house, registers any revised copies as they're released. They can do that, as they own the original registration. This would affect the smaller writers and self-publishers more.
Judging by the FAQ, it looks like all it takes to register is $35 and a physical copy of your work. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/f.....-register.html Don't get me wrong--we writers are usually broke, but any publisher I've dealt with just does this as part of the production. The Library of Congress, in fact, has a copy of Sixes Wild.
My cat is named derp, I think it's a fine name.
I kind of like the first voice better.
And about the "updates": it's a great thing but some big companies making video games stopped doing proper beta testing before releasing the game. So if you buy a game on day one it may have bugs and sometime won't run properly on theoretically strong enough PC's.
YUP! And part of what I was trying to say in my journal was that as a collector, I've already been "trained" to try to find a way to own all of the versions. xD Which can sometimes be trouble (sometimes it makes certain variants more expensive, dammit), but it gives me something to hunt for, which I like. x3
I know the Pokemon people have the same problem, where if a Pokemon that doesn't have an official English name yet, they can't name it what the fans are calling it, because "that one guy" can stand up and be like, "I MADE UP THAT NAME, PAY ME!" So I was VERY surprised when they called her Derpy -- but if they have to change her name, I don't mind. I thought "Ditzy-doo" was kinda cute, and I know it wasn't technically her name, but, they never showed the pony who is named that, right? So maybe she can "adopt" that name. xD
I think the new voice is cute, although I did like the "stupid" kind of sound the original had. x3 I think "stupid"/clumsy characters are cute, though, so I'm prolly biased. x3
I was surprised too! I suspect the writers just DID it, and the legal dept. just wasn't up-to-date on their bronyology. X)
I don't suppose Erik is enough of a baka to have an "idiot hair"? ;D Granted, he'd need hair first...
Also what is "idiot hair"? xD
It's that one sticking-up hair on anime characters like Edward Elric. It shows that they're an idiot in some way.
Maybe he can have one part of his little tuft that sticks up that way. xD