- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 10,252
I'd like to start a discussion about the problem I see with the Icon Approval "rule" of "requiring the artist of a custom icon to receive permission from the creator of the custom model the icon is for", which I have now seen a number of times on recent uploads to the Icon section.
I say "rule" in quotes because, after carefully going over the current rules for any relevant instances of the word 'permission', I couldn't find anything about this specific scenario. I'll stop using quotes for the rest of this post, though.
I think this rule is:
A) detrimental to the modding community
B) inconsistent in principle, as seen with other cross-discipline works
C) illogical in it's very premise
And will argue that it should be discarded (or rather, not formalized since, again, I'm not seeing it) in favor of a more egalitarian approach.
===
A) Should be obvious but is also the least-compelling; we are unnecessarily chilling the efforts of our talented 2D artists by requiring them to submit to this rule. It's already a huge boon for our custom assets to have associated assets (SFX for spells, textures for models, icons for abilities, etc), and greatly increases the utility of a given custom asset to have additional, bespoke assets made for it. Every custom model with a bespoke custom icon is eminently more usable than those without.
B) Based on what I've seen & been told, this principle of "asking for permission when creating derivative works" does not happen in the other cross-disciplines; a key example is 2D textures. 2D artists need not get permission from the artist of the 3D model they are re-texturing. In fact nowhere else (between e.g. SFX, spells/systems, textures, models, icons, soundsets) does this principle come into play... only for custom icons made for custom models. This is wildly inconsistent & unfair to icon artists.
Think about this from the other perspective. Does a modeler need permission from an icon-er to make a model based on a cool icon? And what about other disciplines; how far does this go? Do modelers need permissions to make models based on textures, or icons for spells, or SFX for textures? Regardless of whether or not these are common (they aren't), they could happen, and it would be ridiculous to suggest they be 'gated' in the same way.
C) The premise of getting permission to do something with someone else's work (and indeed the current Rules for such as-written) depend on "using something tangible from the original without major change". In fact the exact wording is:
This rule makes a lot of sense for e.g. a modeler geomerging with pieces of another modeler's work, or using their animations. Or an icon artist using someone else's icon as a base, or a spell coded with parts from another coder. All of these use tangible, 'actual' parts of another's work in their construction & finished product (vertices, pixels, lines of code, etc).
What, exactly, is the icon artist "stealing" or tangibly "using" of the model artist's 3D model? What part of the mesh, which vertices, is contained (in whole or in part) on the pixels of the drawing? What has the artist taken except for the conceptual reality of the other's work? Where in the pixels of the icon is contained the vertices & meshes & animations & textures of the model?
It's not.
Even in the case of an artist using a screenshot of a model as a base (as often happens), when the dust settles & the icon is done, the screenshot has been completely drawn over; the icon as an asset is still a fully-created work that does not "contain" anything from the model.
(Honestly, I might even go so far as to argue that even a purely screenshot icon (no drawing on top), if it were allowed in the database, should not require permission; you are literally taking a picture of a model. The model is not the picture. However, I'm not going to argue this point if it's the line we want to draw.)
The problem is we seem to be applying a sort of "copyright" rule to these things; that the very concept of the model is "protected" from derivative works (such as icons), when this is a Hobbyist space without such laws. Which is kinda crazy to me; I mean heck, what about concepts in writing? Is my "artistic output" (designs/ideas in writing) not protected by this same copyright-esque rule? Because not once but twice I've had modelers ( @PROXY & @Gyrosphinx ) make a model based on the same very specific, unique concept I wrote about (troll spider-riding shaman), and I don't think they asked permission.
As well they shouldn't. As well I should be honored that fellow modders & artists were so inspired by my creativity as to be motivated to make their own creative wonders. We are all enriched when we build upon each other's successes. If I created a model I would be honored for someone to make an icon to match it, or textures to rewrap it, or SFX to match it. At the very worst, I should be completely unbothered by it (rather than threatened & feel the need to demand "permission"), because it doesn't affect me or my art at all. It's a separate thing that has no material effect on my creation.
So let's stop this.
DISCLAIMERS:
I say "rule" in quotes because, after carefully going over the current rules for any relevant instances of the word 'permission', I couldn't find anything about this specific scenario. I'll stop using quotes for the rest of this post, though.
I think this rule is:
A) detrimental to the modding community
B) inconsistent in principle, as seen with other cross-discipline works
C) illogical in it's very premise
And will argue that it should be discarded (or rather, not formalized since, again, I'm not seeing it) in favor of a more egalitarian approach.
===
A) Should be obvious but is also the least-compelling; we are unnecessarily chilling the efforts of our talented 2D artists by requiring them to submit to this rule. It's already a huge boon for our custom assets to have associated assets (SFX for spells, textures for models, icons for abilities, etc), and greatly increases the utility of a given custom asset to have additional, bespoke assets made for it. Every custom model with a bespoke custom icon is eminently more usable than those without.
B) Based on what I've seen & been told, this principle of "asking for permission when creating derivative works" does not happen in the other cross-disciplines; a key example is 2D textures. 2D artists need not get permission from the artist of the 3D model they are re-texturing. In fact nowhere else (between e.g. SFX, spells/systems, textures, models, icons, soundsets) does this principle come into play... only for custom icons made for custom models. This is wildly inconsistent & unfair to icon artists.
Think about this from the other perspective. Does a modeler need permission from an icon-er to make a model based on a cool icon? And what about other disciplines; how far does this go? Do modelers need permissions to make models based on textures, or icons for spells, or SFX for textures? Regardless of whether or not these are common (they aren't), they could happen, and it would be ridiculous to suggest they be 'gated' in the same way.
C) The premise of getting permission to do something with someone else's work (and indeed the current Rules for such as-written) depend on "using something tangible from the original without major change". In fact the exact wording is:
This rule makes a lot of sense for e.g. a modeler geomerging with pieces of another modeler's work, or using their animations. Or an icon artist using someone else's icon as a base, or a spell coded with parts from another coder. All of these use tangible, 'actual' parts of another's work in their construction & finished product (vertices, pixels, lines of code, etc).
What, exactly, is the icon artist "stealing" or tangibly "using" of the model artist's 3D model? What part of the mesh, which vertices, is contained (in whole or in part) on the pixels of the drawing? What has the artist taken except for the conceptual reality of the other's work? Where in the pixels of the icon is contained the vertices & meshes & animations & textures of the model?
It's not.
Even in the case of an artist using a screenshot of a model as a base (as often happens), when the dust settles & the icon is done, the screenshot has been completely drawn over; the icon as an asset is still a fully-created work that does not "contain" anything from the model.
(Honestly, I might even go so far as to argue that even a purely screenshot icon (no drawing on top), if it were allowed in the database, should not require permission; you are literally taking a picture of a model. The model is not the picture. However, I'm not going to argue this point if it's the line we want to draw.)
The problem is we seem to be applying a sort of "copyright" rule to these things; that the very concept of the model is "protected" from derivative works (such as icons), when this is a Hobbyist space without such laws. Which is kinda crazy to me; I mean heck, what about concepts in writing? Is my "artistic output" (designs/ideas in writing) not protected by this same copyright-esque rule? Because not once but twice I've had modelers ( @PROXY & @Gyrosphinx ) make a model based on the same very specific, unique concept I wrote about (troll spider-riding shaman), and I don't think they asked permission.
As well they shouldn't. As well I should be honored that fellow modders & artists were so inspired by my creativity as to be motivated to make their own creative wonders. We are all enriched when we build upon each other's successes. If I created a model I would be honored for someone to make an icon to match it, or textures to rewrap it, or SFX to match it. At the very worst, I should be completely unbothered by it (rather than threatened & feel the need to demand "permission"), because it doesn't affect me or my art at all. It's a separate thing that has no material effect on my creation.
So let's stop this.
DISCLAIMERS:
- I'm not arguing for gouging out artist's rights in any meaningful way; I think it's important that the Hive respects that (even if sometimes I worry it goes too far). But this isn't just too far, it's inconsistent & illogically far.
- Re: Copyright -- I'm aware that in the Real World, even stuff like what we do here could indeed fall afoul of such laws (e.g. "any derivative work"). However, as a modding community we've long recognized that this is a Hobbyist and not a mercantile space (even though I think things are unfortunately a bit more complicated when money gets involved, such as commissions. But mostly I'm talking about, like, an author selling a book or an artist selling a painting, and the importance of their ability to do so being protected from counterfeit, which is a big part of what Copyright Laws are protecting). People aren't making money off these things, and when they are (commissions) it's a one-time thing & then it's permanently public (no additional money being lost). So things should be different; we aren't beholden to such laws & shouldn't be.
- I think it's reasonable for an artist to have the prerogative of choosing how their creation is presented on the Hive, including allowing them to choose whether or not to "feature" (e.g.) a given custom icon made for their model. If they don't like it, they can choose not to incorporate it in their model's 'bundle' (even though that is, again, detrimental to the community trying to use a resource). Requiring permission from the creator to 'link' assets like that? Fine.
- I also think it's perfectly reasonable for an icon artist to mention the model in question when they upload their icon, especially with a link to the same. "Icon made for this model by UsernameHere" should be required to show where the concept came from, and allow people to access related works. That's great.
Sorry, if it felt like a brick falling on your head.
No one's expecting you to read & reply right away; tell us you need some time to parse through this & formulate a response, that's fine. 
