Inkbunny

Have you perhaps heard of the pony cum jar project?

Blackraven2

3 years ago

link

Edited 3 years ago by Owner

*cringes* I guess I am familiar with it now ;)

There was also this artist on gurochan/pixiv who had fun with fairies and other creatures drawn on paper and then cut to have them tortured and played with in a sort of 2d put into 3d art project. Sadly I forgot the name, but maybe you're familiar with the work.

Karmandel

3 years ago

link

I have a thing for Tinkerbell's costume in particular because Peter Pan, but not so much other fairy outfits. That backless dress... 50s style fan service to the max, how has that not been called out as problematic yet? Anyway, I'm sure a toad could make a quick meal of a butterfly-sized fairy. (Though if you google Victorian Flower Fairies there's a lot of tween girls -- but then I'm not looking at their clothes).

Other outfits: Native style ones, like the stereotypical plains indian one with just a half-open string vest, long loincloth and moccasins. Japanese kimono malfunctions (no underwear, or so I'm told). Or Daisy Duke shorts (with the tied checkered shirt, of course).

Meowmere

3 years ago

link

@ Karmandel

I guarantee you, the upcoming Peter Pan remake will butcher Tinker. And not in the sexy way.

I have drawn Dalia in indian get-up more than once, but it's been a while, so it could bear repeating.

TobyBaggins

3 years ago

link

Dalia looks cute dressed up as Tinkerbell

Meowmere

3 years ago

link

@ TobyBaggins

Thank you kindly. Dalia will always aim to be the cutest button on the site.

DarthRandall

3 years ago

link

You know that you have to get her stuck in a keyhole now.

Oh, and Karmandel, it hasn't been called "problematic," because Tinkerbell is owned by Disney which also owns half the other media in the world.

Meowmere

3 years ago

link

Edited 3 years ago by Owner

In recent years, Disney has itself been one of the driving forces behind the whole movement of "updating stories to be suited for modern audiences", meaning pleasing neo-liberals who care more about identity politics than creating deep characters and engaging stories. So far, the remakes haven't had many overt "sex symbols" to "update", but you've got me fucked if hey don't pull a Lola Bunny on Tinkerbell.

DarthRandall

3 years ago

link

Watch Tinkerbell get turned into a little flying ball of light like Navi from The Legend of Zelda. Oh, and she's a strong, independent fairy who don't need no little boy who never grew up.

Blackraven2

3 years ago

link

Disney doesn't necessarily own the rights to the character Tinkerbell. They own the rights to their own interpretation in the Peter Pan Disney movie, but the character itself was invented by Scottish Author J.M. Barrie who wrote the book in 1904 and died 19 June 1937. So - depending where in the world you are and how much Disney has lobbied the politicians, the character has long become public domain. There are also artist renditions of Tinkerbell from the early 20th century, some of which are close enough to Disney's rendition that one could easily claim this one here is based on the original design, not Disney's (especially with open hair >;>>>)

DarthRandall

3 years ago

link

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't everything that was created before Mickey Mouse belong in the public domain? Thus, the book would be in the public domain, but the film would not?

Blackraven2

3 years ago

link

Edited 3 years ago by Owner

Its not that easy. Rights can be transferred. but work become public domain typically 30 years after the original authors death. Except, when Micky Mouse threatened to become public domain, Disney lobbied for cpyright law to be changed, so it became 50 years after the original authors death. Then they lobbied again, and it became first 70 years, and by now it's 90 years after the authors death.

So even a work created in the mid 1800s, if the author - or one of the authors - lived until the 1950s and died 105, +90 years, it won't become public domain until 2040

Unless Disney successfully lobbies again to protect Mickey Mouse once more and rises it to 120 years.

The issue is that 3 generations after the work was done, in most cases there are no copies left. So I expect future generations to have almost no recollection of early 21st century art and music - 95% of it will be lost forever - since noone has copies, everyone just does streaming. And since noone is allowed to make any copies until the year 2150 ish - by then the master copy will long be unreadable.

DarthRandall

3 years ago

link

It would appear that intellectual property is the cancer that is killing creativity.

Meowmere

3 years ago

link

Edited 3 years ago by Owner

No, your takeaway here is that mega-corporations should all be burned to the ground.
The news that copyright laws do not apply to AI-generated art, because there needs to be a human creator for there to be an offended part, should speak for the fact that there is good to be found in these laws. There should be protection for smaller creators, otherwise shameless entities as Disney would eat them for breakfast.

DarthRandall

3 years ago

link

It's straying from the point, but I am rather biased against the existence of any corporations regardless of size. To the point, creators only need protection in an environment where they are already denied access to their full creativity. Sure, Disney, AOL-Time-Warner-Whatever, and the like could steal your Dahlia, for example, but so what? You could steal her right back and make her go on debauched adventures with Mickey Mouse, Kermit the Frog, and Spiderman. When every creator has access to all their ideas, it's the little guys, the underground artists, who have the advantage, as they actually are creative. People prefer their works to the vapid and sanitized studio-produced tripe. There is no doubt in my mind that in an environment of actual competiton--which is not what we have now--the individual creators would be the ones doing the devouring.

Meowmere

3 years ago

link

I am not in a mind to go on about laws I know jack-all about.

I will say that Dalia is purposely designed to be generic enough that she can't be "stolen". She's a white fluffy cat, and there are likely plenty of artists who regularly hit her design by utter accident.
She's public use, all puns intended.

DarthRandall

3 years ago

link

Now I am imagining that keyhole as public use for mice.

Blackraven2

3 years ago

link

Well, copyright law in its original form not necessarily, but since the whole idea of "intellectual property" - aka someone can own an idea or concept - can lead to monopolization of ideas since someone buys up all of it and as such has undue control over basically all of civilization. And this monopolization is fundamentally flawed.

The problem isn't just copyright, it's the same with patents and trademark-law. All of those were made originally to protect creators, but as soon as something can be owned, it does what any capital does in a finite size capital system - it accumulates all in one place.

With patents you now have to face "patent trolls" - companies that exist only to buy patents from individuals and bankrupt companies to then extort money from those who are actually producing.

With copyright, you end up with a society where over 75% of all cultural media rights world wide - is owned by only 4 mega corporations/groups: Warner, Sony, Universal and Disney. The latter plays almost no role in music, so music is now down to 3.

With trademarks it goes so far as a computer company suing a farmer trying to sell their produce in China over a picture of their product (an Apple)

Creators are faced with total buy out contracts at the whim of megacorporations, no matter which field they work in, with independent platforms forming a tiny fraction of the market.

These megacorporations will gladly embrace AI - because they have the funds and resources to also monopolize artificial content creation just as easily as they monopolized human content creation. They will do so AFTER lobbying for strict copyright enforcement for AI creations - copyright that they already own - in order to cement that monopoly. Even if there are others who could run AI - they won't be able to sell their creations, while the big 3 WILL.

The whole system leads the original idea - protecting the creators - ad absurdum. The creators are little more than wage slaves, wage slaves that are only good to feed the training data of the very programs that will replace them. The music industry especially is at a state where the majority of content produced is so repetitious and predictable, it stands to argue the average quality and diversity of the field might actually improve if AI does it instead. Not because humans couldn't do better, but because the industry hires the cheapest and most easily exploitable talent to maximize their profits.

We are here on an independent content site. A niche which is the natural enemy of these corporations. They will do everything to make what we do here illegal. Lobby for stricter content rules to make WHAT we draw on IB itself illegal, or stricter copyright to make WHO we draw illegal. But they also don't care too much as long as it doesn't not threaten their business model. If it would, they would simply throw money at it and try to buy the platform and make it follow their rules.

Something like that must have happened with Deviant Art.

I think, if you compare the creation of content before intellectual property was conceptualized in the 18th century to now, we would likely be better off without. But that doesn't meant it's all bad, an intellectual property concept that actually benefits the creators IS thinkable. Most importantly it would require that transfer (and total buyout) of the rights is not possible.

Sadly that would not benefit the industry, so no body will lobby for that and the attempt to create and push for a system that would not be circumvented is probably like Don Quixote's fight against windmills.

In the current political system a fair and even intellectual property system is probably a pipe dream. It would be easier to fight for abolishing intellectual property altogether, and that *would* be better than what we have now.

DarthRandall

3 years ago

link

mah_nigga.jpg

Blackraven2

3 years ago

link