This reminds me of the time I had to remake my fursona.

Long story short, I started off with a Mightyena Fursona but Nintendo reared their ugly head and had my stuff taken down and basically sent me a cease and desist for copyright infringement. I had no choice but to kill off my old fursona and make a new one.

Aww, that's really unfortunate, sorry that happened to you. I think there's really not enough Mightyena stuff out here.

dude,wtf,a fursona is very personal... let me ask you one question though, did you try to Monetize it, that would be the only way they could actually and legally send a cease and desist dmca letter. if not it qualifies as fair use,while i understand nintendo does have a right to protect thier ip, they don't have a right to go after everyone who has actually followed the fair use policy and didn't try to monetize the copyrighted material,case and point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_.....ter_of_the_use

i did find this though, so technically im right about fair use: https://www.pokemon.com/us/legal/

I did not try and monetize it.

then i don't know why they would have gone after you, its possible Nintendo is doing this because the furry community has some sexual aspect to it as i didn't think if it wasn't monetized without permission from the owner that they could go after you. when did this happen and how long ago.(to be honest i think Mr 45th us president has had a major impact in the us laws in the name of "religion and business" first net neutrality and maybe he even changed some laws that allow us to use copyrighted works as "fair use" secretly,regardless its no coincidence that this started happening after Mr T got elected)
also can someone with knowledge and understanding in legal jargon explain to me some ways that Nintendo could go after furry community members even if its considered fair use (i suddenly feel like Nintendo is coming after the furry community just because of the NSFW content but doing it as a whole whether monetized or not and legally fair use or not due to the the NSFW content, as such i retract my statement about doubting that Nintendo would care if its NSFW or not as long as it isn't monetized without permission...

This happened about a year and a half ago in 2017 before 45 went into office. The day was October 11th of 2017.

I do remember someone saying to me that because I decided not to roleplay with them, they would report me and my fursona for copyright infringement and sexuallizing copyrighted content. Think it could be that?

...sigh. This myth again.

For something to be a copyright violation, monitization is irrelevant. It only matters in determining compensatory damages¹. Whether or not you are making money matters for determining if you have a trademark violation, (which is relevant here, as that is how things like characters are really protected²).

Something can be fair use that you make a lot of money from or not fair use that you don't get a single penny out of.

Note however, that many companies will send meaningless threats claiming far more than they can actually back up. For years Warner Brothers was notorious for the C&Ds their legal department was generating to the chagrin of the animation department, (who wanted legal to stop harassing the fans).


1: In any lawsuit, there are three things that can be awarded. Injunctive relief, (i.e. the judge tells the person to do something or stop doing something), compensatory damages, (the amount you lost and/or the amount the person unjustly gained), and punitive damages, (extra damages over and above any actual harm awarded to act as a deterrent against similar violations in the future³).

2: Character copyright is not granted by most nations and even the US is very iffy on them, (current precedent is a "yes but" decision saying it exists but the character in that case did not qualify, there are no current decisions finding any characters to have qualified as works in and of themselves⁴). Trademark, OTOH, can easily apply to a character as it will inherently represent the product.

3: This is what generates those 'ridiculous' payouts that sometimes get groused about. They are aimed to be big enough that they hurt and don't just become part of the cost of doing business. McD's isn't going to notice $20k for burn treatment and a part-time home care worker but they will notice two days of company-wide coffee revenue.

4: The "Tarzan" and "Air Pirates" cases that are often pointed to were invalidated as precedent in the mid-1980s when the US finally adopted the Berne Convention.

Fair Use is a defense in court, not a right. Fair use existing does not stop a DMCA notice, it is something you use after a counter claim and the owner decides to sue. A lot of what you might think you know about copyright is probably wrong.

fair enough. i read rwpikul's answer to my question so yeah.

Could just adapt it to be a just yena with similiar color scheme

I could have but I am happy with how I have my fursona now.
A badass greaser thug who works as a mechanic to hide his true job as a mercenary for hire.

I see what happened now as a blessing in disguise. I was uncreative then LOL

Due to Disney's heavily lobbying here in the states back in the 60s or 70s, the US Copyright system is a utter mess and a total disaster. If anyone is to blame, it's Disney really for why stuff like this happens so often.
The history goes that Disney's strangle-hold (their ownership) on the Big Mouse was running out and their panicked hard. So they lobbied really heavily and so the number of years it takes for a character or IP of any sort to leave their hands and enter the public domain went something from less then 20 or so to close to 100 years. Well more then enough time for a company to own their IP and not magically forget to renew.

So you want someone to blame? It's not Nintendo, but Disney. Disney paved the way for what all other companies now simply use to their fullest.
Does it suck? Fuck ya it does, but people don't seem to care about resolving the numerous laws that shouldn't be in place and have more holes then a test dummy on a shooting range, and instead are fighting the wrong people.

Oh well. Stuff like this isn't new (sadly) and as long as Hollywood exists and people keep feeding companies like Disney money this will not end.

Sucks though. Sorry to hear you had to deal with that shitty experience. I hope you were able to create something more original (less likely to get a C&D letter) and things are looking up for you now. :)

This is the second time I've seen someone have Patreon and Nintendo remove stuff based on Pokemon. Probably their ninjas going out ahead of the new games, making sure there is as little smut or "for profit" third party stuff outside of their direct control. Kinda sloppy work, but as close as Nintendo guards their stuff, can't say I'm totally surprised.

And yet they don't even bother to check google ads on youtube for 100% copy-write infringement games (that copy the models, textures, names, and game mechanics to the letter and somehow still exist and make money from it). Maybe eventually they'll get to those, but the fact that they're targetting furries and patreon accounts is stupid AF. They're literally turning their fans into angry mobs.

One of the many reasons I'll never pay for another pokemon game past Sun/Moon.

I'm gonna be the asshole and say it: using pokemon as a fursona is lazy and you shouldn't do it.

that too, but that wasn't even what I was referring to. I more meant fanart/fangames. people who can't even make up their own generic fursona without stealing someone else's concept (pokemon or otherwise) need to gtfo. especially those who are outright pretending to be popufurs (for instance I've seen at least 2 fake "Majira"s online).

So, in the interest of discussion. What separates a Non Lazy-Fursona and Lazy Fursona? What's the difference between someone that uses a Wolf as its base from say... One that uses a Charizard fursona as a base if both are customized or Drawn well? If both have the exact same of effort in making it unique past the point of origin? Does that Matter? I've seen so many people with Wolf Fursonas or Dragon Fursonas, are they lazy? I'm not arguing the uniqueness of the Charizard, nor is the argument restricted just to said Charizard. I should really just say "Pokemon Species" because just like a Wolf is a Species of animal and not a unique base, a Pokemon typically is about the same, just with weird powers.

What I'm getting at with my argument is that be it a Dragon, or Wolf, or any other Animal... none of them are truly unique at Base.

Though for the people that literally try to make named Characters, like... Draco from Dragon-heart, or Simba from the Lion King into fursonas and make no alterations I totally agree that there is an incredible amount of lazyness there.

Honestly I am of the mind that... if it makes someone happy and its not hurting someone else physically or purposefully seeking to directly emotionally harm someone... who cares?

Your manifesto isn't very convincing when S/M were the weakest mainline games that followed up on another extremely weak mainline game (X/Y), and S/M is also the most recent one to boot.

I know, I disliked them after the fact, but I had to give them a try. Basically I tried x/y hoping they were good, and albeit the gen 3 remakes were good, x/y had basically no replay value. then I hoped sun/moon would be better, figuring they couldn't screw up AGAIN, but lo and behold they did. Which is why I said I would never buy another after sun/moon (for instance I did NOT buy the sun/moon 2.0 games, and never will).

Keyword searches, eh? Guess we're going back to the ways of rule34paheal to evade it.

Oh? I'm curious what ways those are?

They changed "pokemon" to "porkymans" to evade keyword search

Ahh, fair! But I imagine with this, you need to change all the species names

Honestly dunno, I don't think they do really

No, unlikely to work. Nintendo's lawyer's are much smarter than you think.

Based on what H0rs3 said, they aren't as smart as you are implying.

Though considering the current state of the Pokemon Mainline games being a total disaster (not talking profit here but community reception) I think this is not because of H0rs3 using those words (though it did make the stuff easier to find) but instead Nintendo knows their Pokemon games are struggling and suffering and are probably trying to keep every penny they can in their own banks rather then the communities.

This has been a tried and true method of years now.

I mean take recent events. Game Grumps is calling the name of the current outbreak the "Back Street Boy's Reunion Tour" instead of it's actual name to get around the shitty and aggressive YouTube monetization video flagging system. And it's working.

Kinda ironic considering the amount of growth content their latest game will no doubt spawn.

Tag searching eh? Wowwowowow

I know R34 gets around this by tagging Pokemon as Porkyman instead.

This is one reason I don't touch other people's characters (without explicit permission), and especially commercial properties. Just too much potential liability if someone gets pissy about their IP.

I Love Macro~
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/19402878/
Art should not be subject to strict control~

I think I chose one of them.

more adult pokemon content being hit. i'm trying to look into this, because something doesn't feel right about what's happening. is it possible for me to read over the suspension letter? or is that not allowed?

From what Kuroodod said, it's a DMCA, meaning Nintendo feel like their copyright is being infringed.

TLDR

Nintendo also hasn't done this before. finding patreon sites making money off of Nintendo properties is not hard, so why did they not start hitting them until now.

it reminds me of AM2R. that game was incredibly popular, i'm sure Nintendo knew it existed (I think they commented on it once), but they didn't hit any of the demos. the game was only hit with a DMCA a day after the full release.

speaking of fan games, do you remember back when several Nintendo based fan games where being taken down. it turns out that a at least a good chunk of those where fake DMCAs from people impersonating Nintendo.

that is why I am curious.

plus, some research has told me that patreon themselves have removed some adult content without much reason. so this might not be Nintendo's fault.

https://twitter.com/haurseuh/status.....86961397424129

thank you for the link. In the message it said "attached is a copyright notification of the claimed infringement from Nintendo of America." that is the part that I'm curious about and want to read over. this could easily be a real claim from Nintendo, but it could also be a fake one. people have done that to some fan games, so why can't they do that to patreon.

i'm not saying it is a fake claim, I just want to find out all I can. something feels off about this patreon situation.

I also just realized that it's only pkemon content being hit. I haven't heard anything about Zelda or Mario stuff being taken down, which only adds to my questions.

Regarding commissions, if I simply want to update my idea instead of submitting a new one, is there any way that you would prefer me to do that? The core idea is the same, but I have better references now and would want to tweak the idea slightly. New description would be shorter/more focused.

Nintendo has and will always be overly stingy with their butthurt copyright sadly.

Yeah, really surprised the animation you did for me didn't get flagged. It's kinda well known...

Why is anyone surprised? Nintendo is know to go full adolf hitler when it come for copyright abuse.

Yeah, Nintendo is definitely trying to boost search rankings for the upcoming games, based on what I'm seeing trend-wise.

So how does one apply to commission an idea from the list?

Patreon devient de la grosse chiasse. plusieurs artistes on été touchés aussi. Certains vont migrer une partie de leur stuff NFSW sur subscribestar. j'sais pas ce que t'envisage cheval, mais bonne chance pour la suite quand même ^^

ps: tu repasse quand nous voir à Nantes?

I mean...unfortunately it is their right since they really do have the legal copyright...as annoying as it is.

This is wrong on both counts. It is their right and you can copyright names.

You cannot copyright a name, that is trademarks, which do exist, and Nintendo has them all locked pretty tight.

Their giving the porn a lot more attention than they need to all while making themselves look kinda dickish as well.
But this sort of thing usually flares up around the time a new game is in the works, remember the metroid 2 remake ordeal?

Out of curiosity. I see dragons are low priority. But I've been looking at your stuff a long time. Would my dragon designs and the Aerusan species intrigue you or nay? My gallery has example.

And here's a gallery to their general refs. https://www.furaffinity.net/user/aerusandragons if your interested I do have a idea but otherwise I'll leave it there for now.

It's all good.
It just adds to the pile.
The US Government is launching an Anti Trust investigation into multiple businesses including Patreon for varying abuses.
Can't recall which ones.

So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out if Patreon, YouTube and son-on keep abusing content creators, Political Advocates or Small Business.

Yeah this is simply incorrect.

Whoa... Uhh...
I apparently missed something XD

But yes, Copyright and Trademark Laws function differently.

A perfect example would be Tim Poole vs StudioFow ovee tge Subverse Trademark.

Aimlesswaves just blocked me too after giving a link blowing his her argument out tye water.

Just another triggeree SJW Fascist

seems like they are on a warpath, https://www.furaffinity.net/user/kuroodod/ literally yesterday got hit for the same thing on his patreon

Nintendo has been on a witch hunt, not just you. Kuroodo got his Nuked too. and it was way worse because alot of his content is pokemon stuff.Same for Diives. Nintendo is getting nasty about it.

I don't know if it actually Nintendo doing this themselves but do yourself a favor and remove references to their properties, then contact them yourself to verify that it is actually from them or not, I feel as if it is a spammer.
https://en-americas-support.nintend.....om/app/contact
>under corporate questions there's a phone number there you can call and possibly get more answers or a web chatting service

wtf but there aren't pokemon

The fact of the matter is that if you hadn't mentioned pokemon i would have though they were regular feral furries. Especially the first one which looks rather like a regular fox. I don't see it as a pokemon.

Nintendo has gone way too far.

Just don't make content with copyrighted characters?

Why are people getting crazy over this?

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/201.....e-copyrighted/


Copyright protection does not extend to titles, names, slogans or short phrases, the Copyright Office has made that much very clear. You can not copyright your name, the title of your post or any short phrase that you use to identify a work.

If you're going to argue or tell people they are going crazy over something, or just claim they are flat out wrong.
It works if you research Copyright and Trademark Laws, or just understand the Definitions of Copyright abd Trademark.

Seeing as no Copyright Laws were infringed or broken, filing for Copyright infringement is false accusation and abuse if report functions.

You're wrong, not worth discussing. Learn what a trademark is and why it applies to brands and logos, which pokemon is.

Those things can be trademarked, and what people fail to realize is trademarks are MUCH more fucked then copyright!

The takedown did not include content of copyrighted characters if you look.

But they filed for Copyright infringement of which none had happened.
Trademark infringement, probably.
But the Copyright was never messed with


Also, I love how Aimlesswaves is blocking people immediately after responding.
Cowardly tactic.

Yes the filing was incorrect, which is whats stupid and a downside of automated takedowns.

Nintendo is consistently one of the worst companies when it comes to using copyright law as a weapon, often erroneously as you saw.

Patreon are stupid & should go fuck them self's.

I’m waiting for them to come for my bulba.

nintendo got yo shit down cuz of a username? damn that's hardcore bullshit

It's a derivative work, but fanart is in many cases (especially if characters from the original work are not used) considered transformative, and therefore fair use.

If work doesn't use published material of the copyright owners, or if any copyrighted material is used for different purposes than the original, it is fair use.
If you what you said was true, photographs, descriptions, parodies, or reviews of any copyrighted material would be illegal, as would reselling any copyrighted product.

In the case of the animation using arcanine and growlithe, it would have to be argued that the fictional species in the video are recognisably identical to those owned by pokémon - in most cases it probably would be considered infringement, but there are at least some arguments regarding how well defined arcanine/growlithe are and the lack of similar traits shown (we don't see them battling in the animation, and we don't see porn in the games). H0rs3 might have been able to get away with it in court, especially if he had called them something different.

"Profiting off fanart is confirmed illegal"

What are you basing that on? Some cases of it are illegal, but not necessarily all. Even if someone profits from fanart without consent, in most cases it's not technically illegal unless a court has actually made a decision on the specific example and the copyright violator continues to ignore that decision (innocent until proven guilty, and whatnot). If a civil court makes a decision to your detriment, it doesn't necessarily mean you've broken the law, as civil law is distinct from criminal law.

"all fanart commissions are making profit off copyrighted or even trademarked material."

A lot of fanart uses original characters which have little in common with the characters of the original work, and potentially nothing which copyright applies to (e.g. MLP fanart - you can't copyright magical ponies in general, only the specific characters, so people are free to create as many MLP-inspired unicorn, pegasus and gryphon OCs as they want).

"Also, if the creature is recognisable (those Pokemon are), and you still claim it's something else and refuse to credit it for what it is, you're literally plagiarising the thing. You can't draw a Pikachu and claim it's your original creature if people will be able to recognize a Pikachu in it."

The creature might be recognisable as a pokémon to us, from the perspective of pokémon fans who actively seek out stuff based on it, but if you compare the depiction in h0rs3's animation to the depictions pokémon/nintendo use, they don't really have much in common other than being tiger-dog hybrids. Pikachu is a more distinctive design than Arcanine, and also much more well known. I'll grant that this is somewhat subjective, and I'm not an expert in law, so I don't really know if a court would be likely to judge h0rs3's animation as "sufficiently similar". You may be right on this point.

"Other thing is that, following that "battling vs porn" logic, anyone could take your fursona and depict it in a fetish or situation you hate/prohibit and never depicted it in, and claim it's fine because it's out of character."

Yes, they could... because in the overwhelming majority of cases, fursonas don't have copyright or trademark protection. Anyway, the distinction I'm making is not how the character behaves, it's the purpose of the work they appear in. There could also likely be an argument that it's a parody.

"You would defiitely not appreciate Nintento taking your fursona and profit off it without any agreeement with you, while this is what's being done to them."

To be honest, I'd more likely be flattered. I would likely be making no profit from my fursona myself if I had one (more likely spending money paying other people to draw it), and it would just make it far more popular. I may as well give another MLP example in here - the MLP TV show has actually referenced its own fanfiction several times with no credit or agreement - the biggest example is probably how it portrays Lyra and Bonbon a lesbian couple, and it's directly quoted fanfiction at least once as well.

"Idk how about you, but I hate the idea of consciously infriging anyone's rigths"

I don't really agree with IP rights as a concept. The way human culture has evolved throughout history is by people taking stories and ideas and developing them into new stories and new ideas. I get that profit is an incentive for people to come up with new ideas, and that without IP law this incentive is much weaker, but I think that new methods like crowdfunding can get around this, and culture was doing fine for thousands of years before IP law came along. IP law is also open to abuse (patent trolls are probably the best example) and already go much further than incentivising the creator (mickey-mouse law keeps extending copyright, even though Walt Disney is long dead, leaving his company's shareholders to profit while restricting everyone else).

You don't want to waste time on "nonsense" like addressing my points (and I'm not even sure you got as far as reading most of them) but you're still putting in the time to tell me I'm wrong? That's not particularly convincing to me, and I doubt it's an effective use of your time.

I did read that page you linked. Did you? You apparently didn't read the parts about "fair use" and "implied license". Anyway, a poster which describes an artist's view on copyright law isn't necessarily accurate. The poster is mostly correct, but some of it isn't (for example, fair use is NOT a copyright infringement which you're allowed to make, it's a specific exception to copyright, and therefore does not infringe copyright). I actually looked up the law when I was writing my previous reply.

How are you turning this around into accusing ME of being selfish? I think people should be allowed to use each other's ideas, and somehow that makes me the selfish one? As far as I'm concerned it's far more selfish to restrict people from creating what they want (especially when it gets to the extent of IP trolls - not that I think either you or Nintendo are guilty of this, but it's still a problem that current copyright law enables). This is how culture has evolved since the dawn of humanity - people take the ideas and stories of other people and add or take away other ideas to create something new. No idea exists in a vacuum.

People are actually entirely within their legal rights to draw your characters however they want. Copyright is not applicable to obscure online personas, and the characters themselves are not trademarked either. People may be restricted by copyright from directly using and profiting from art which you have drawn, and by trademark from using the name "Askentil" (though possibly not even that, as the trademark is not registered), but they would be allowed to draw the characters themselves.

I might not have experience of profiting from my own creative work, but I've created a few things which are freely available for anyone to use, and there are plenty of creators who create stuff for free or for profit and are perfectly happy for other people to create and profit from derivative works. Other people using your characters doesn't harm you. You have your own depiction of the characters which you can use and profit from, and if other people can offer derivative work that you can't or won't offer yourself, then surely that's just a benefit for everyone?

If you want a short answer because you're too lazy to read:

Fanart is NOT illegal in all cases, and the thing you linked does not say that it is.

Not all forms of "fanart" include copyrightable or trademarkable IP. Some things are public domain. Are you denying this, or just ignoring what I'm saying?
Aside from that FAIR USE can be done WITHOUT LICENSE, FOR PROFIT, and AGAINST THE CREATOR'S WISHES.

If it's time to stop, why do you keep replying, especially if you don't even have the decency or integrity to properly read what I've said before declaring that you disagree with it? It just makes you look like a childish troll.

The point I was trying to make was not specifically about pokémon, or about h0rs3's animations - I used them as examples because they're relevant to the discussion. I think they do infringe copyright, but that there are also some valid legal arguments that they do not.

The point of my comment was disagreeing with what you said in your first comment in this chain. You said "making any profit off fanart is totally illegal, unless you have a licence contract with the owner." which is untrue, because some works are public domain or under creative commons license (which does NOT require a contract with the IP rights holders), and because fair use (e.g. parody) does not need the consent of the IP owner.

I don't want to miscommunicate. I want my position to be unambiguous to you, and for your position to be unambiguous to me.

Do you understand what it is that I have said?
Do you agree that what I have said is true?
What is the point you are trying to make?

You can blame  toasterboi, he caused the purge
https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/9170449/

Got a screenshot of that journal? It's been deleted.

https://i.imgur.com/2780MQ7.png

when you are open for commissions?

Surely you could have just told them that they'd made a mistake, at least for that glaceonx video?

I am glad I came here to check if you had a journal about this, as you did not mention it on your Patreon itself. Which seems weird, as that's where all the commotion happenened. Real big shame, but also quite eye opening. Every time I hear about these constant Patreon accounts being locked for a bit over some stupid rule, it makes me worried how long the platform will stay useful. Someone needs to make a guide for things to avoid.

We're all aware of that law. That doesn't make it any less surprising. This is the furry fandom. We thrive because we do not follow copyright laws. It has never been a problem before.

And your opinion sickens people who disagree with the concept of copyright. Most people would probably be sickened by the extremes of both sides - mad theives and anarchists versus corporate greed and censorship. But moral outrage doesn't get us anywhere.

(Replying to myself, because Draff blocked me... to be honest, that might be for the best).

"as we were arguing of the latter, as fi you didn't notice"

You don't get to tell me what I'm arguing for. I have explicitly stated what point I am trying to make. Take it or leave it, and stop trying to strawman me. If you don't disagree with what I said, then either say that, or just don't bother replying. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying - I didn't mean to imply that you're defending "corporate greed and censorship" - though honestly I don't know if you are trying to defend greed and censorship, because you haven't actually made your position clear.

I respect a creator's rights. I am not defending people who breach copyright in ways which harm the original content creators! Literally all I am doing is pointing out that some people disagree with you about copyright, and that "fair use" exists. I don't think that copyright should be completely ignored - so I actually disagree with TailsClock.

Disagreeing with you does not equal "trolling". I'm trying to keep this civil, and you seem to be trying to turn it into an insult contest by misrepresenting what I'm saying, or by assuming that I'm taking the radical anti-copyright position just because I don't share your radical pro-copyright position.

I have put in the effort to try to understand where you're coming from, and you refuse to answer the questions I ask to help me do this. I'm asking only the most basic level of human respect and decency from you. Do you want to have a discussion, or do you just want to rant about how evil I am for daring to disagree with you?

If you don't want me to reply to you, stop replying to me. I'll keep trying to reason against bad arguments and false accusations wherever I see them. As far as I can tell, you're just some random wannabe artist on the internet with an ego so large that they can't distinguish between how they want copyright to work and how copyright actually works (maybe I'm wrong, but insulting me is not going to convince me of that - to do so you're going to have to treat me like an adult, rather than like a naughty child). You're not my boss, and you can't order me around.

Either way, I don't think we should continue filling up this journal's comments with our arguments. If you have any sort of valid point to make, please send it to my personal messages.

Wowza! Draff is the most over the top dramatic and obnoxious person I have ever seen in 30 years of life. They're almsot a living parody. Or maybe someone that works at Patreon come here to try to defend their action against h0rs3. It's hard to read it like he's a real person with a real opinion though. So out of touch with reality. So I'm gonna ignore even trying to talk to him. You're someone with sense though, so...

Copyright used to be a fine thing, but the ones who benefit from it are also the ones that get to change it. Disney have changed the laws over and over and over and have done serious damage to the art industry all for the sake of money. It's not about protecting artists anymore. It hurts artists. H0rs3 is an artist, and he got hurt. Satoshi was at no risk from H0rs3, so he wasn't being protected. This law hasn't protected anyone in a long long time. That is why I'd rather see the entire law thrown out than keep it as it is.
However, I know that's how it works in China, and I know how much of a problem the knockoffs are there. So with that in mind, I guess the better option would be to just hope the copyright laws can be fixed instead. Maybe when they FINALLY update the laws to include internet stuff, they can remove a bunch of the crap that got added in by greedy corperations that let them attack fanartists. I just, don't have my hopes too high.

Also I have the biggest urge to do fanart of Draff's characters. Just in the hopes that he sees it as a copyright violation. That would be hilarious, but quite petty. I'll leave it up to weather I get the time or not.

Yeah, I was thinking that as well, for all 3 points... The way they say "Our alter-egos MUSTN'T be used as art-sluts" on their user page as if they get to dictate what other people are allowed to draw (of characters to which copyright isn't even remotely applicable, no less - they're two shapeshifters, so have no defined forms, and have common English names) is pretty amusing.

Well that's pretty dumb. :V Sorry it happened.

I really like #14. It's totally my jam.

Looking good man!

Hope all is going well and really like your animations.
And wish to commission you one day

I still wanna apply for animation 10 with my hellhound sona

毕竟任天堂和迪斯尼合称东方西方最强法务部
只能说是叹息于他们的无情了
不担心啦不担心