Probably never heard of the term "Twain's maxim", but I was reading Nina Paley's blog and her spiritual thoughts about how Copyright laws has been destroying culture. She went on and exposed the 'cult of originality'. I don't remember what it said exactly as it was a long time ago but I remember enjoying it a lot.
If you're generally trying to argue along with me by saying that "creativity doesn't exist" against my claim about creativity and fursonas, well then what's the point of the argument?
If creativity doesn't exist, then why are some people on here arguing it so specifically toward the Furry fandom in general? As if it does, but the fandom doesn't count for that?
I don't think anyone I know here is really stuck on Copyright, I think there was an assumption of the Disney comparison involving Copyright due to how people act like it really is 'owned' by Disney. After all, if art style isn't copyrighted then Disney can't be "ripped off" by art style alone. Since nobody would legally own it. Speaking of ripping off, I think we need to be careful about that label. I don't think adaption of art style equal to ripping off even if it's not considered bad.
-Skipping third paragraph in terms of replying.-
Even if you consider that ripping off elements is not on itself bad, I think the argument of that seems a bit off. I mean, it just goes back to the "everything rips of elements all the time" thing. So some furries "ripped off" some elements from Disney, but so did Disney; they copied elements from cartoons around the same time, including anthropomorphism from older animation and around same time animation, and it goes on.
If you're like "Yeah, that is true." then what is the point of your argument then?
Your last paragraph exposes the problem. While I don't think you're trying to tell furries to be "more" creative, you seem to indicate that furries adapting culture for commercials is just "stolen" elements (as if it's a property, even though you even said yourself that you can't copyright an art style) from several companies and therefor they "can't" be like some of those companies, but in reality, the companies (for example, Kelloggs) has acted no different. Even if they were different, that doesn't mean the general group of furry cannot adapt a corporate/capitalist society. The idea that "Hey, furries cannot ever adapt a cororate for commerical gain because their art must be different." is only an opinion, unless you're pointing out that there really is a law forbidding this and it's true.
Probably never heard of the term "Twain's maxim", but I was reading Nina Paley's blog and her spiritual thoughts about how Copyright laws has been destroying culture. She went on and exposed the 'cult of originality'. I don't remember what it said exactly as it was a long time ago but I remember enjoying it a lot.
If you're generally trying to argue along with me by saying that "creativity doesn't exist" against my claim about creativity and fursonas, well then what's the point of the argument?
If creativity doesn't exist, then why are some people on here arguing it so specifically toward the Furry fandom in general? As if it does, but the fandom doesn't count for that?
I don't think anyone I know here is really stuck on Copyright, I think there was an assumption of the Disney comparison involving Copyright due to how people act like it really is 'owned' by Disney. After all, if art style isn't copyrighted then Disney can't be "ripped off" by art style alone. Since nobody would legally own it. Speaking of ripping off, I think we need to be careful about that label. I don't think adaption of art style equal to ripping off even if it's not considered bad.
-Skipping third paragraph in terms of replying.-
Even if you consider that ripping off elements is not on itself bad, I think the argument of that seems a bit off. I mean, it just goes back to the "everything rips of elements all the time" thing. So some furries "ripped off" some elements from Disney, but so did Disney; they copied elements from cartoons around the same time, including anthropomorphism from older animation and around same time animation, and it goes on.
If you're like "Yeah, that is true." then what is the point of your argument then?
Your last paragraph exposes the problem. While I don't think you're trying to tell furries to be "more" creative, you seem to indicate that furries adapting culture for commercials is just "stolen" elements (as if it's a property, even though you even said yourself that you can't copyright an art style) from several companies and therefor they "can't" be like some of those companies, but in reality, the companies (for example, Kelloggs) has acted no different. Even if they were different, that doesn't mean the general group of furry cannot adapt a corporate/capitalist society. The idea that "Hey, furries cannot ever adapt a cororate for commerical gain because their art must be different." is only an opinion, unless you're pointing out that there really is a law forbidding this and it's true.