FA+
Shop
Bloody adoptables
12 years ago
I'm actually saddened to see that this trend has not died off. While it tends to be a quick and easy way for someone to make money, I honestly feel it is a bit of a scam and people are being taken advantage of. I know that not everyone has an easy time creating their own characters, it is actually why we have always had an issue with people using someone else's design as a base and building from there. It is compounded by the fact not everyone is an artist, so they would have to rely on a commission anyway to get a visual of their character.
This is sort of where adoptables come in, providing a base design someone can build off and make the character their own as well as having art right off the bat to display and help with future commissions. For the most part I don't have a problem with this concept, if the characters being generated were always unique, that is unfortunately not the case. It is not uncommon to see a single designed sold to multiple people with the minor differences, usually nothing more than a pallet swap. This more than anything I have trouble with, for not only being lazy but also basically ripping people off for a quick buck.
I would have a lot less issue with this if artists were offering their services to help design characters and simply charging for the resulting art like any other commission and I know that some basically look at it as paying the artist for the art they did do in creating a character, but it is a bit more complicated than that. The money being exchanged isn't simply paying for a piece of art, it is meant to be an exchange of ownership of the rights to use the character, this is where I take the biggest issue.
Characters do not fall under copyright protection, period. If people have not figured this out already they should really read up on how copyright and Trademark works. A character cannot, in anyway, be copyright protected. The actual piece of work depicting that charter can be, but not the character. Characters can, however, be Trademark protected in which a process similar to getting a patent is involved, but there is a very slim margin of artists here that even bother meaning that most characters you see have no trademark protecting them and cannot be copyright protected.
What does this mean? It means not there are no legal ramifications to using someone else's character designs. If the exchange of money is meant to be an exchange or rights, of intellectual property as it were, and the characters in question being purchased have no legal protection designating an owner, then what exactly is someone paying for?
For those that would cry afoul "character theft" for those that would use someone else's design as a base, grow up. You cannot steal something no one had any legal ownership of. By choosing to not protecting your characters, you leave yourself open for people to do anything they please with them and you unable to do anything, legally, to stop them.
This is sort of where adoptables come in, providing a base design someone can build off and make the character their own as well as having art right off the bat to display and help with future commissions. For the most part I don't have a problem with this concept, if the characters being generated were always unique, that is unfortunately not the case. It is not uncommon to see a single designed sold to multiple people with the minor differences, usually nothing more than a pallet swap. This more than anything I have trouble with, for not only being lazy but also basically ripping people off for a quick buck.
I would have a lot less issue with this if artists were offering their services to help design characters and simply charging for the resulting art like any other commission and I know that some basically look at it as paying the artist for the art they did do in creating a character, but it is a bit more complicated than that. The money being exchanged isn't simply paying for a piece of art, it is meant to be an exchange of ownership of the rights to use the character, this is where I take the biggest issue.
Characters do not fall under copyright protection, period. If people have not figured this out already they should really read up on how copyright and Trademark works. A character cannot, in anyway, be copyright protected. The actual piece of work depicting that charter can be, but not the character. Characters can, however, be Trademark protected in which a process similar to getting a patent is involved, but there is a very slim margin of artists here that even bother meaning that most characters you see have no trademark protecting them and cannot be copyright protected.
What does this mean? It means not there are no legal ramifications to using someone else's character designs. If the exchange of money is meant to be an exchange or rights, of intellectual property as it were, and the characters in question being purchased have no legal protection designating an owner, then what exactly is someone paying for?
For those that would cry afoul "character theft" for those that would use someone else's design as a base, grow up. You cannot steal something no one had any legal ownership of. By choosing to not protecting your characters, you leave yourself open for people to do anything they please with them and you unable to do anything, legally, to stop them.
I've seen a few rather inspired adoptable character designs, but generally I'm not a fan of adoptables. Especially when someone just draws a single image, changes the palette a bunch of times, and tries to pass that off as multiple designs. I have no intention of buying or selling adoptables. I feel much more "ownership" over a character when I designed it myself. If someone else designed it, then it isn't "mine." And if I put effort into designing a character, I'm probably going to keep it, not try to pass it on to someone else for a few bucks.
I appreciate that you brought up the issue of "copyrighting" characters. I'm no intellectual property lawyer myself, but I'm pretty surprised at how ignorant people are about this issue. This is an area where furry artists and art patrons seem to be in their own little world. There's SOCIAL pressure to avoid "stealing" characters, but there's usually no legal pressure, so people who adopt characters are paying for legal rights that don't exist. The whole practice of buying and selling characters is based on good faith.
Here's a related tricky issue: When you buy a used fursuit that you didn't design, is that design considered to be yours, much like an adoptable? Sometimes people sell suits and insist, "I'm selling the suit, not the character." What the heck does that mean? The owner of the suit would be running around (and doing God knows what else) as a character that still belongs to someone else? Oy.
It is an interesting topic as suiting is still a form of cos-play and furry if one of the few fandoms where dressing up as a original, or fan, character is something you even see. However, I have often seen suiters dressed up as characters they obviously did not own, but they typically get permission. A specific that comes to mind are those I have seen suiting as Zigzag, while this is the most notable character I can think that this has occurred, I am aware of other instances.
As there is a bit of performance involved and suiting is akin to mascoting, some even strictly following the rules of being a mascot in costume, many go in with the mentality that when they done the suit and head they are that character and will play the role, regardless of whom the creator is. It is an interesting thing to observe as I know few that enjoy swapping suits or even lending theirs out so people can experience first hand.