I must admit I fall into the second camp.

But yeah, you're absolutely right that there's a long, rich tradition of re-using existing characters and changing them in new adaptations or stories based on their exploits.

Yes there is, and personally, I feel it to be completely harmless. "Back in th day" stories were written to teach, to pass knowledge and to inspire. Stories were TOLD to a target audience.

I get it Kids like stories too, but I am an adult, and I'd like to be inspired by some characters, and move them beyond the level of a 6 year old, into the realms of "is the feasible" and of course if the character is attractive, why wouldn't they have feelings?

If there's anything I've learned from having hung out with you, it's this. :D

You have..hung out with me? *smiles* Love the Avatar BTW :)

We've chatted on AIM a few times, as I recall.

This is what I mean.

And I'm glad you like it!

You got through Moby Dick? Congrats, man. I could never manage to finish that tough hunka bread.

Copyright spoils everything. It's shameful that the current polyopoly of entertainment companies got their big breaks doing remakes of popular stories in the public domain, then worked for years to eliminate the public domain.

Yea, and when you look at those same companies, that ripped off "Kimba the White lion" to make "The Lion king" or "The Seven Samurai" to make "Magnificent Seven"

O hate how our youth is being programed to think...if you aspire to be that character, or have their abilities...your somehow a BAD person

The first was utter rip, plain and simple. The latter was open, they didn't pretend that Magnificent Seven wasn't related to Seven Samurai.

Yes I agree though CDRKitsune makes some points :)

Disney is bad about changing perfectly good stories. In the real Little Mermaid Ariel does NOT get the prince. In the real story of Robin Hood, the noble thief dies, Marien is never mentioned, Sir Guy of Guisborne takes the role of sheriff and is killed, and Prince John isn't arrested or very much involved with the story. Disney made both him and the Sheriff of Nottingham direct villains.

I should read the original Russian tale of Cinderella, but I'm sure it doesn't end the way Disney portrayed it.

Take a look at all Hollywood. the original "Starship trooper" was nothing like the hack movie they made. Even Homer's "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" were written based on tales Homer HEARD on his travels, and then INCORPORATED into his own stories. It was not a case of "oh you stole someone Else's idea" it was a case of the story INSPIRED him...

What ever happened to imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?

I have said for many years, I would be so honored for someone to take one of MY characters, and use it in THEIR story, even if that meant completely corrupting it.

Homer also knew some soldiers so he got the conditions right probably just by talking to them. The Iliad and the Odyssey are pretty hard to mess up, but Hollywood did. They completely changed the one-sided fight between Hector and Achilles. Never mind that they removed the gods and goddesses who started the war. Yeah, that's one that is definitely better read than watched. Even Virgil acknowledged that his Aeneid was inspired by the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Battlestar Galactica was the Aeneid set in space.

Yes, I have sometimes considered working other people's fursonas into stories.

I just despair at the idea that to use someone eases IDEA...is or should be a bad or discouraged thing...to make a profit of someone elses work is wrong, but from inspiration and ideas comes blends one never thought before...

In this day and age that we air stories so conservatively because a young child MIGHT see it, I look at animation, and I see adults working jids shows, and can see teh desire..to do something deeper, more mature..but for fear...

There was a scene that was written for Pocahontas that would have given the movie a more mature theme, but was pulled at the last minute by Disney.

We must remember that our definition of childhood is a rather recent one. I do remember G. I. Joe and Thundercats having a few mature moments back in the 80s. We coddle kids these days to the point of dumbing down cartoons for them. Hell, I remember once or twice Bugs Bunny showed his sheath in early Loony Tunes shows. That would be pornography these days.

Yea I agree, and the worst part is, that most of these kids hear worse in school...further, if they ARE shielded, they go out in the real world after school and get rose colored glasses ripped off..I am not saying kids NEED to see porn.... but I am saying, that just in the same way that Children should have stations and times that they can watch without content that is beyond their maturity level..there SHOULD be places *I8 can go as an adult geared TOWARD MY maturity level.

The reason Disney made a mint off of changing the characters around is they bought the rights, made sure therights had passed, or put down lawyer repellent. I may be a fanfiction author but even I respect that there is a process. It's almost like a religious ritual, even if it is mostly symbolic on some level there are very real legal consequences so staying within a set level of accepability is absolutely necessay (See the Fighting is Magic debacle; they crossed the accepable legal line slightly and Hasbro was forced to respond in a proper legal fashion, where the law is very powerfully on their side.)

I also have something of a perspective on this from the creator's side. I have a few pony OCs and have usedthem in very loved stories. Some other writers I know have used them in cameos or one in a whole sidestory that eventually led to merging canons. If someone were to take, say, Lime Sherbert, Princess Luna's lady-in-waiting and a happily married unicorn, and make her into a sex-crazed serial killer I would be very upset. I never would have given permission for that. And on a site like FiMFiction the ownership would chastise the one who used the character without asking.

I have a horse in this race, I use canon characters in stories all the time but in some sense I try to maintain some semblance of retaining their personality. So I don't make Rarity a murderous bigot, or Pinkie a candidate for the unsub on "Criminal Minds". If character development happens it is done with some slowness and an organic change that makes sense.

Now about RPing with canon characters, I do that all the time, but with some retention of the things said above. Both in formal situations (like the Equestrian Dawn MUSH) or informal situations.

Well Gabriel, I have to dispute you here... while your right they DO have a ton of lawyers, in the case of Kimba, that meant they WAITED for the copy rights to expire (like the day AFTER). Now granted while it make be LEGAL.... By that same logic semitisim was at one time LEGAL in Nazi Germany, and Slavery was once legal in the United States.

making a law that says "you cannot imitate me" may be legal..doesn't make it right (especially when no money changes hands).

While I understand your point about Lime Sherbert, my personal opinion is, your too think skinned (a problem we have around here) it's a STORY.... Please do not take that personally, I have the same problem with "today refer to my race as this, tomorrow as that...hey I am an individual do what *I* want. To hell with all these other people.

being offended is a choice.

if you try to maintain some semblance of the characters personality, that of course is your choice, and your right, but why step in the way of *MY* right to change it?

What I am getting at is, I get it, I would never want to stand in the way of an artist (say Ebonyleopard) putting out a product and making a living...but I am not making MONEY off this stuff... I am not making a major production off of some other guy's idea (can you say Ghost Rider?)

I just think people aught to stop being offended at every little change. It's a story, it's an RP get over it.... Let *ME* enjoy what *I* like in the name of just plain ol entertainemnt

Thin skinned? It's my creation and it's a dick move to take it and make it somethif I never intended or the opposite thereof. I choose to be offended because it's offensive. I take the time to carefully craft and develop this character from nothing, moving from a throwaway gag character to an important part of my interconnected world. If someone comes along and says "stealy time now" and makes her the next Elizabeth Bathory I might have some objections, which might involve the site owners laying the hammer down.

Laws are the manner by which we eliminate the war of all against all. We agree to abide by certain agreements to smooth the wheels of the social machine. I agree not to violate the integrety of you character and you do the same. We get along famously and can even collaborate, which means we share notions and compromise on depictions. That way no side is malevolent and neither has a reason to "suck it up" (that term has always bothered me. It is too often used as a hypermasculine club against those defined as being incompatible with the dominant paradigm.)

I already talked about people making a living while I have fun with their world and concepts. Equestrian Dawn is a good example. I don't play a main character (in fact I play an original Diamond Dog) but some do. They don't have the writers there to do their dialogue so they try to act like the characters might in certain situations. I've had many good encounters with Fluttershy there because she acts the way Fluttershy might given the personality seen.

Also, you seem to be against laws in general, if you want to go to such extremes. You're either strawmanning my position (since I never spoke about slavery or antisemitism) or you want a slippery slope that says that is the outcome of having any laws. Maybe I have a different perspective. I'm a creator. The laws on copyright and fair use protect me in equal measure as they protect others. Ignoring my fair use protection, I have written original things. I have a novella I want to turn into a novel. If someone was not fair using the characters I would be upset. If it was fair use then I might have words but no more. Rose would bein the public sphere but not domain, giving me some control over her depictions.

Actually, the rights have not expired on Kimba. The Japanese law requires them to use the character every so often to maintain the rights. Tezuka productions has been doing that with most of their characters to ensure they maintain those rights.

As for "the Lion King" being a rip off of "Jungle Taitei Leo", they'll not need to worry about copyright infringement there. It may have been inspired by Leo, but that's where the similarity ends. Simba never left Africa. Leo/Kimba did. Simba never met a human. Leo/Kimba never knew his father. Simba knew nothing of his heritage. Leo/Kimba learned the white lions were worshiped by humans. Leo/Kimba returned to claim his position while he was still young. Simba didn't come back until he was an adult.

I don't have the copy of "Animerica" any more, but they had asked for a statement from Tezuka productions, and they felt the stories were different. Granted, Osamu was both a fan and a friend of Walt Disney, so I doubt they would have said anything negative about "the Rat" any way.

LOL

Interesting how they can have so many similarities, and still not be copy right infringement under "the law' but I had not thought of it that way...Thanks :)

IP law is… confusing at best.

Yea but you know, if the peopll I admire for this skill..spent just 10 min, "changing thing in the manner CdrKitsune relates, I'd be a happy lill clam.

I dunno much about all that, so I see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil... keep in touch with all of us while over in Haiti, if you can. SB.

This interesting, I did not know that people had that kind of issue using copyrighted chars in RP, cuz artists and writers don't seem to have issue. If I ever RPed I don't think that would be one of my fears.

Yea, people run screaming in fear of the Copyright police if you even mention a canon character