So, I found a disc with a story that was written around 2004 - 2005. Around this time, my “fursona” was a winged unicorn. You know, brown horse with an alicorn and wings based off of a hawk.
This particular story also happens to feature a piece of jewelry (Guess what it was. :P ) that had a stone on it. Except the stone wasn’t a geological stone - it was made from an alicorn.
Oh, I say “Alicorn” to refer to a unicorn’s horn. This is the original definition of “Alicorn”, before Piers Anthony and MLP fans popularized it to refer to Winged Unicorns. (Let’s be fair to MLP here… that misconception existed long before G4 did.)
Some part of me is glad that didn’t stick. Just because equines get sooo typecast. I’d have to deal with stuff like:
One thing I find quite amusing about the new fanbase for My Little Pony is that their motto is about “Love and tolerance” (depending who you ask) or “Friendship is Magic”.
And yet for a fanbase that was founded on such mantras and morals… they’re surprisingly prone to infighting, treating other fanbases like crap, trying to kick out members of their OWN Fanbase, abandoning their old friends, and giving non-bronies the cold shoulder. Oh, on top of that is how many people act casually racist, sexist, homophobic, or make offensive comments about people with disabilities.
Ironic. And this is a fanbase based around the ideas that friendship is magic? I don’t call those guys bronies - I call them BINOs. Brony In Name Only.
There’s been a lot o backlash about copyright in recent years. Mostly because I think people are just backlashing against copyright abuse not flat out copyright law.
I’m sure people in favour of complete abolishment of copyright law would change their minds if say, this happened: They invent something. Someone notices something that can be improved, so they make an improved model. Sounds good, right? Well, they get to take credit for everything. You don’t get a penny. You don’t even get to be a footnote. Even though you provided the base for their improvement, they get to take credit for everything, even the stuff that they didn’t design. Well, guess it’s karma seeing as someone gets to do the same to them and not give them any ounce of credit.
In terms of creative copyright, they might also change their mind if they wrote something, and all of a sudden, dozens of works claiming to be the official sequel (or prequel) to your own work show up crawling out of the woodwork and you’re not entitled to any credit. Especially if these things start to violate your own vision of your own work, and it’s considered “Canon”. (I dunno what Baum would have thought of Wicked or Oz the Great and Powerful - he might not have liked them because they didn’t suit his vision. But Oz is public domain today)
Am I saying I’m anti-fanwork? No. Not at all. I don’t mind if people are just having fun and aren’t actually trying to profit off of a fanwork. I’d encourage people to make fanwork or write essays detailing alternative interpretations - just as long as they give me credit for it and aren’t claiming that they thought everything up themselves, such as the character(s) that make a cameo. If someone made a heartwarming animation just for fun? I’d happily let them do it. They’re not harming me - fanworks are just for fun and aren’t for profit.
If they wanted to profit off of it? I wouln’t go “YOU MUST STOP IT’S MINE ONLY”, I’d say “Hey guys? Little bit of credit? I would really appreciate it if you just asked me or let me know you intended to make money off of this.” And I wouldn’t demand all of it - if anything, I would use that as an opportunity to educate people about where the money goes from these things.
I saw a “Copyright is evil” thing saying that because of all the licensing and theatrical releases, they clearly made the money. People assume that it just goes all into their pockets, or that they’re clearly making a profit. Hey guys - it doesn’t. Especially for stuff like games or movies that require a lot of people. The theatres take a cut. The marketers take a cut. The CG-I people take a cut. The actors take a cut. The people who were hired to make the sets take a cut. The people who were hired to make the costumes take a cut. The editors take a cut. The people who invested money to HIRE these guys take a cut. Sure I can be a jackass and stiff them (Life of Pi, anyone?) But being an ass who doesn’t pay people who made the movie work is a very GREAT way to make people WANT to work with or for you. Because we aren’t owned by the studios, and actors & directors aren’t assigned to a movie and just forced to work with them or else they get fired.
Oh, and all the stuff like toys, collectible figures, video games? Most of the money made from that goes to - what else - the people who made them. The actors whose likeness is depicted rarely get any cut from that.
I doubt people would be so much against copyright law if people weren’t assholes in enforcing it. If there’s one good thing that comes from copyright law… it encourages people to come up with their own designs and their own similar stories. Would you be in favour of “no copyright” if the market became saturated with hundreds of sequels and remakes of other franchises that were not made with the consent (or involvement) of the original creator and do not follow their creative vision? Probably not. People bitch about “Remakes” and “Sequels”… but I’m pretty sure there would be a lot more of those if just anyone could make a Harry Potter movie without the consent or involvement of J.K. Rowling.
Again, if there’s one good thing about copyright… it’s encouraged people to come up with their own designs. Punish the people who abuse it.