Tag: Fausticorn

As a reference, I’ll try to summarize each of my posts on this issue in one or two sentences. These summaries are necessarily simplified, so please read the actual posts and reblog them if you have a response.

• What about celebrities? Fictional characters?
• Real celebrities, no. Fictional characters, maybe, but have at least some respect. Seems like a good standard.
• Wow, this has exploded. And I didn’t even give my own opinions in the first place!
• Celebrities are going to be creeped out, but there’s no point in trying to stop it. Subjectively, some people might think it’s wrong, but no one’s being harmed. Just move on.
• People can generally claim ownership of their avatars. But how much respect do they deserve? Do avatars deserve more respect than other OCs? Are people separate from their avatars?
• Intellectual property rights may apply.
• Everything is offensive. The issue isn’t that simple.
• Rule 34 implies disrespect. So “the creator doesn’t like it, so don’t do it” isn’t as clear-cut as it seems.
• A corporation isn’t a person, but creators are. What about the distinction between avatars and other OCs?
• Personality rights may serve as a foundation.
• Keep calm and consider other people’s reasoning.
• Using other people’s OCs is like using their pens.
• I’m digging out some questions from this discussion that have not yet been answered.
• Ambris, the question post isn’t just for you. Even so, I’m still unclear about your answers.

In reply to this post:

I’m pretty sure you already know my stance on the subject.

Like I said, it’s for anyone to answer. (I was really hoping for some people other than those who already participated before.) But leaving that aside, I honestly don’t know your answers to the questions. I’ll explain, but I’m not going to force you to respond. (You know, maybe I should start a separate blog for these discussions.)

1. Are sexual/”Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? Why or why not?
   Okay, I know your answer to this, anyway.
2. What right to people have to create “fan work” with characters created by others? How does this apply to sexual depictions (“Rule 34”)?
   I ask this because practically all fan work of “Friendship is Magic” (sexual or not) is based on characters created by Lauren Faust. I think a lot of people don’t have a problem with this. Why not? What about other types of OCs, such as furry characters that aren’t fursonas. That leads me to the third question…
3. Are there special considerations for avatars (such as fursonas and pony “OCs”) as opposed to other fictional characters? Why or why not?
   Again, the characters in FiM (or the main six, at the very least) are essentially Faust’s OCs. So, is there some special consideration for her avatar, an alternative representation of herself, as well as other people’s avatars? It seems that the answer for you is yes. Why?
4. What about creating and sharing a drawn depiction of the sort [a nude person such as a celebrity], or any other depiction that doesn’t involve a breach of privacy?
   This one’s really for notaclopbanana, but I was hoping for your opinion on this.

(This is for a “general” audience, so I’ll give some background information.) A few days ago I got into a debate over the question: Are sexual/“Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? It resulted in way too much flak that I’m just recovering from.

It’s mostly died down, but recently I came across another post relevant to this issue.

It raises more questions than it answers, and I think the questions are the same ones that I tried raising earlier in the debate. These seem to have gone unanswered, so I’ll ask them again. I invite anyone who’s interested to respond.

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t have a firm stance on this issue. I’ve tried to respond to all sides as neutrally (reasonably) as possible, and I hope that by starting off with these questions I’ll be able to do that better.

1. The cardinal question: Are sexual/“Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? Why or why not?
2. What right to people have to create “fan work” with characters created by others? How does this apply to sexual depictions (“Rule 34”)?
3. Storytellers create characters that may rightfully be called “OCs” (original characters), but often they are not alternative representations of themselves (“avatars,” as I like to call them). Are there special considerations for avatars (such as fursonas and pony “OCs”) as opposed to other fictional characters? Why or why not?
4. It is clear that taking nude pictures of a person (such as a celebrity) is an invasion of privacy, and therefore wrong. What about creating and sharing a drawn depiction of the sort, or any other depiction that doesn’t involve a breach of privacy?

(If you decide to use the Tumblr answer feature as opposed to reblogging, I will respond with a post tagged with your blog name [as it appears in your blog URL]. Please check the tag if you’re interested in seeing my response.)

solarhedonist:

needs-more-plot:

sheeponmyhead:

This was inspired by something that recently happened to a friend. Might considering posting my source of inspiration for B if they still do not see the error of their ways after being informed by various people including the artist themselves. People. OTL

If anyone identifies with B please understand and change? I’m sure you’re not a jerk inside but just behaving so due to ignorance/convenience/pride/whatever. Do you really want to continue?

Relevant to the Fausticorn OC debate I was having here earlier.

((Oh my god yes. I had this same talk on Twitter not long ago about some girl stealing someone’s fursona but feeling OK about it because she “gave credit” to the maker.

My example “So if I go and steal your car, it’s OK and not stealing so long as, when stopped by the police, I tell them it belongs to you and give you full credit for paying for it?” ))

(For the record.)

I saw it coming. When needs-more-plot called notaclopbanana “hopeless” and notaclopbanana stereotyped those on the opposing side of the issue, I realized that people were getting frustrated. That’s not always a bad thing, but the problem that usually arises is that people start to ignore the actual arguments of others and make bad arguments themselves. They start to get the mentality of: This person is clueless, so why should I care?

If it really is the same argument with nothing else to back it up, then it’s okay to ignore it. (Though I think it’s better to at least refer back to a prior response.) But if there’s something new, consider it. You will encounter people who disagree with you. If you think they’re wrong, tell them why. If you think they’re right, then you might change your views. This is what reasonable discussion is about: considering the views of others so you yourself become more reasonable.

This is especially important in discussions about morality. Unfortunately, because moral views tend to be very strongly held, discussions on these issues have a greater chance of devolving into irrational discourse. This seems to have happened with the issue of Fausticorn Rule 34.

This last part is dedicated to solarhedonist: I fully respect your decisions as a result of this issue. I’m sorry.

notaclopbanana:

Drawing or posting Fausticorn in rule 34 is terrible and I can prove it.

All I have to do is lie about what she said(to myself), ignore that it’s harmless, assume that some arbitrary hierarchy of rights to a character is what defines right and wrong instead of harm and situational awareness, ignore that the same statement that it “kind of gives [faust] the creeps,” that I’m twisting into “I can’t stand these disturbing images and it needs to stop,” and that she’d rather not have it pointed out to her was said about all clop in general, that all the main characters are her ocs, and make accusations about anyone who thinks that disrespectful actions do not equal malevolent, evil, or punishable ones.

((Reminder that you do not know me. You do not know that I rescued a stray dog a few months ago and found him a home, you do not know that I volunteered at a hospital, you do not see it everytime I sign a petition, every time I give to charity. You want to imagine that person on the other side of the screen has no empathy or compassion so you don’t have to think. Go ahead. But don’t fucking pat yourself on the back for it, and mistake that for a virtue.))

Actually, there is a thing called personality rights, though its legal applicability is doubtful. More information.

/t/post/79000069873/solarhedonist-regarding-all-the-talk-of

solarhedonist:

((I don’t agree… It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. /Especially/ in the stated case where Lauren has /already said/ she doesn’t like it. You don’t get any simpler than “No”.

“I want to draw Lauren Faust’s pony being fucked in the ass” should really trigger a thought of “Gee I wonder if she’d be upset about that”.

Saying “Eh, fuck her I’ll do what I want” shows the person to be an inconsiderate asshole.

Asking her if she cares about porn of her character is the only correct approach. And if she says no, the only correct approach is to /not do it/. If you go forward anyway, you are directly violating the will of the character’s owner, and in this case the will of the character herself since Fausticorn /is/ Lauren Faust for all intent and purpose.

If it never, ever even occurs to someone that doing this might upset another human being in the first place, well, that’s a sign of being a sociopath.

It is /seriously/ that simple. Questions of morality don’t have to be complex. They’re usually only complicated by people who want to do wrong and feel justified about it anyway.

I don’t play that game. Wrong is wrong. Period. Trying to justify wrong acts is just being wrong /and/ too cowardly to admit that you know you’re wrong and just don’t care.))

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 avatars). 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.

solarhedonist:

((Regarding all the talk of non-consenting depictions of people’s OC and personas in sexual situations:

It’s being over thought now. This isn’t something that needs to be debated to death. It’s something every fully functional human brain should already know the answer to.

You do not do things that could creep out, upset or otherwise harm another human being without asking them first. Period. It’s called basic consideration. You should really have the empathy to process that without being told. It shouldn’t be hard to understand or need a massive debate.

In the specific case of Lauren’s OC, she has said on her own DA page when asked that she doesn’t like it. It makes her uncomfortable and weirds her out.

There you go. End of discussion. The lady said no. Stop it. You do not have a right or permission. In fact, you have a request to not do it.

Done. 

…and if that isn’t enough to close the issue for you, then you lack a full range of human senses and decency and probably need to see a therapist or whoever can teach you more about right and wrong since your parents clearly failed.))

I think this is going the other way of oversimplification. As they say, everything’s offensive.

ambris-waifu-hoard:

Exactly exactly exactly.

Even without the porn aspect, it’s still wrong to use someone else’s character for selfish reasons. Truth is, one could even invoke copyright laws in some cases. It’s effectively stealing someone else’s intellectual property. Using it for porn is adding insult to injury, but the more I think about the more I realize it’s not even acceptable when no porn is involved.

The only exception to the rule I can think of is when people drew Lauren’s OC as a gift to her; For a completely selfless reason. And unanimously, she really seemed to love that attention and those gifts.

Taking OC for one’s one selfish reasons without permission is just as bad as internet art theft.

Isn’t any Rule 34 (of a creative work, anyway), an invasion of copyright? Besides, one could argue fair use/fair dealing for parody or transformation (dramatically altering the work).

When it comes to real people, though, there are what are known as personality rights, that is, the right for people to control usage of their names or likenesses. I don’t know how legally applicable this is in the case of OCs.

The ever-relevant disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Please consult a qualified professional for serious issues.

http://notaclopbanana.tumblr.com/post/78874419322/sending-out-an-sos-with-clop-perfection

needs-more-plot:

[Thread removed.]

I have some points and questions for both needs-more-plot/Ambris and notaclopbanana:

First, notaclopbanana says that “[t]his idea that it’s better to sexualize something many people identify with than what one person identifies with is just crazy” to you. But why? It seems we all understand Ambris’s/needs-more-plot’s response to this. The response to that from notaclopbanana seems to be: But on the other hand there are people who care very much but you’re not actually willing to change your behavior for them. But any fan can claim “ownership” of a public figure (celebrity or fictional character), but this is generally regarded as creepy or obsessive. No fan can claim legitimate ownership, so a fan’s wishes, no matter how strong, do not have to be respected.

But Lauren Faust, like any other person with an avatar (pony or not), indeed can claim legitimate ownership of a character. (I have some objections to notaclopbanana’s claim that needs-more-plot is singling out Lauren Faust; I’m confident that Ambris feels the same about other avatars.) I say “avatar” instead of “original character [OC]” because someone can create an OC that is a fictional character, not representing themselves; it seems that these should be treated differently.

But it makes me wonder, again: How much respect do they deserve? Do real people deserve more respect that fictional characters? Of course, real people shouldn’t be harassed (“spammed”) with any porn, much less Rule 34 of themselves. But I’m sure there are people who want to get with any given celebrity, so maybe they get off to or even draw a sexual image of that person.

It is morally wrong to take nude pictures of someone without their consent, but notaclopbanana correctly points out that this is mainly due to privacy concerns. Ambris, what do you think about sexual depictions of real people that don’t involve a breach of privacy, such as with look-alike actors or drawn depictions? If real people deserve this level of respect beyond freedom from harassment, why?

I don’t exactly understand why notaclopbanana sees Fausticorn as wholly separate from the real Lauren Faust; why is that? (The view that Rule 34 of a real public figure is okay doesn’t require this; after all, someone could draw a nude Lauren Faust with no invasion of privacy.)

However, I think notaclopbanana is correct in this response to needs-more-plot: That she looses [sic] the right to her personal self-expression the moment it’s posted on the internet?(No, again, false dichotomy. You have the right to not be harassed, you have the right to not have your work exploited for financial gain, you don’t really have the right to stop people from drawing porn.) After all, do celebrities lose total control over their likeness when people draw porn of them?

This is a very interesting issue, and I’d like to say that I don’t completely agree with either of these two positions.