FA+
Shop
What's the line on Rule 34?
12 years ago
Simple question: Where do you draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable in the furry fandom for Rule 34?
And a more complex question: Why is that the line?
I know that someone's personal character is NOT open to Rule 34 use (without their permission). Something like the characters from the Lion King are often used for Rule 34, and nobody bats an eye. So, somewhere between those two sides is the line between acceptable and not acceptable.
Is it that the character was used to make money? Some artists have comics they produce for money, and many artists have put their own characters into commissions for money, but I don't think many of us would think it would be acceptable to use their characters without permission.
Is it that the character was made by a corporation, such as Disney? There's still people pouring a lot of time, effort, and emotion into bringing some of these characters to life, even if it is Disney signing the paychecks at the end of the day. What happens to their desire to put forth the effort next time when they see their previous efforts misused? If one of the artists here was offered a chance to have their stories turned into a motion picture, would they be forced to decide between fame and wealth versus seeing their ideas warped and debased by their fellows here?
Note please, that I'm not saying I want to see an end to Rule 34. I just want to see what people think about where the lines on acceptable/unacceptable are drawn, and why.
And a more complex question: Why is that the line?
I know that someone's personal character is NOT open to Rule 34 use (without their permission). Something like the characters from the Lion King are often used for Rule 34, and nobody bats an eye. So, somewhere between those two sides is the line between acceptable and not acceptable.
Is it that the character was used to make money? Some artists have comics they produce for money, and many artists have put their own characters into commissions for money, but I don't think many of us would think it would be acceptable to use their characters without permission.
Is it that the character was made by a corporation, such as Disney? There's still people pouring a lot of time, effort, and emotion into bringing some of these characters to life, even if it is Disney signing the paychecks at the end of the day. What happens to their desire to put forth the effort next time when they see their previous efforts misused? If one of the artists here was offered a chance to have their stories turned into a motion picture, would they be forced to decide between fame and wealth versus seeing their ideas warped and debased by their fellows here?
Note please, that I'm not saying I want to see an end to Rule 34. I just want to see what people think about where the lines on acceptable/unacceptable are drawn, and why.
The thing is, this is something that people have always done. We've always written myths and legends and adapted each other's stories. A guy called Patrick Alexander once said that culture is like an ongoing conversation between people who've never met. The idea that a single person or a small group of people get to possess a story and dictate how it is used is a relatively recent development. Not that the people who make movies and stories shouldn't get compensated for them, but this is something we're built to do. We see an idea, we take it, and we modify it to suit our needs.
When it's acceptable seems to come down to a perception of who "owns" the idea. At some point, a character or a story seems so ubiquitous -- so many people have heard it -- that our perception is that it should belong to the world. We all know this story about Simba, but I want to tell this other story about Simba. And let's face it, a fanfic written by one guy is never going to have the cultural penetration of the original Lion King movie. Our internal justification, whether it's right or wrong, is that we're not taking anything from Disney by doing it because they're still seen as the "official" owners of the characters and the story.
Compare that to the example of someone's personal character. For a large majority of the fandom, a personal character isn't going to have a high cultural visibility, even if you just look within the fandom. I think we see a problem with "misusing" another person's character because the misuse has the potential to be seen as the "canon" within the fandom -- in this case, the person using the character effectively is wresting control of the character and the story away from the original author.
It may also be a matter of the size of the culture. The furry fandom is a relatively tiny subset of the larger culture. The smaller your culture is, the more likely you are to have a personal interaction with the people who you affect with your adaptations. The creators of the Lion King have a relatively low chance of ever encountering or being affected by any individual Rule 34 drawing, especially if they're aware of their existence and make a point of avoiding them. On the other hand, the fandom is small enough that someone is very likely to find out when someone else misuses their characters and ideas. Moreover, other people in the community are likely to find out and have an opinion about it.
The whole thing is kind of a huge gray area, and this is just sort of my initial thoughts about it. I'm sure I could dig into this for hours and discover all sorts of incorrect assumptions and hypocrisy rattling around in my head. It's worth thinking about.