In re solarhedonist on Avatars [Link]
/t/post/79000069873/solarhedonist-regarding-all-the-talk-of
A similar question could be asked of clop: I wonder if Hasbro/DHX will appreciate this…
Rule 34 almost always implies disrespect for a character’s creator, because most of the time they don’t appreciate pornographic depictions of them. Of course, Lauren Faust and other creators definitely shouldn’t be harassed with it, but beyond that it isn’t really that simple. But that doesn’t mean we don’t take these sorts of things into consideration.
If you didn’t see my other post, there are personality rights to consider when it comes to real people (but I’m not sure if this goes for alternative personas). So that would make the case for real people (and potentially alternative personas, at least morally, if not legally). But I just took issue with the statement: You do not do things that could creep out, upset or otherwise harm another human being without asking them first. This, I think, is overly broad, which is why I originally said the issue was oversimplified.
((You just equated Hasbro to a human being. Your argument is invalid and I’m ignoring future replies.))
I’d like to point out that I basically agreed with you in the end, because of a legal (and probably moral) consideration called personality rights. Please read my entire previous response (and the link) for details.
I’m using the comparison because, while Hasbro and DHX are not people themselves, the creators are in fact people. Lauren Faust created the characters in “Friendship is Magic.” While the discussion so far has been surrounding her avatar, there is still the question of porn of FiM in general. I don’t think Faust would appreciate this, either.
This brings up another issue: Rule 34 of fictional characters vs. avatars. Pony OCs that bronies create can be avatars, that is, representations of themselves, but they don’t have to be. I’d like to ask what people here think of Rule 34 of OCs that are not avatars. (A very popular character that fits this description is Nightmare Rarity.) Personality rights are nonexistent, so do these characters have the same level of ownership/protection?
(Also, just because I’ve been giving logic lessons in these discussions: My argument cannot be “invalid” in the strict sense of the term. “Invalid” means that it doesn’t prove what it claims to prove. It applies only to deductive arguments, those that are intended to prove something with certainty, like a mathematical proof. All our arguments are inductive, which means they try to support instead of prove. You could say my argument is “weak.” Plus, refusual to consider arguments from a particular source just because one of its arguments is bad may be an argumentum ad hominem [discrediting a person making an argument instead of the argument itself] or invincible ignorance [refusing to consider evidence].)