Feminist Frequency Removes Fan Art From Tropes Vs. Women Banner

[JimB]

It's common decency to offer money in exchange for a service. I'm sorry common decency isn't something you agree with.

...Disregarding for now the passive-aggressive judgment of that statement, "common decency" is determined by the situation, not some ironclad, hard and fast imperative that applies to all permutations equally. Under the rules you have laid out, I am an indecent person for not offering money to the person at the grocery store handing out free samples of summer sausage on a cracker, as well as to the person who holds the elevator for me while I'm trotting down the hallway. Both of those people have done me a service, so I owe them an offer of money.

 

[The Lunatic]

Wow, do you think that was some kind of a clever comeback? I guess you have made your attitude clear so there is no point in continuing this discussion.

There isn't really much other response if you think it's okay for an artist to not be paid for their work.

...Disregarding for now the passive-aggressive judgment of that statement, "common decency" is determined by the situation, not some ironclad, hard and fast imperative that applies to all permutations equally. Under the rules you have laid out, I am an indecent person for not offering money to the person at the grocery store handing out free samples of summer sausage on a cracker, as well as to the person who holds the elevator for me while I'm trotting down the hallway. Both of those people have done me a service, so I owe them an offer of money.

Yes, that's completely and totally analogous to using an artist's work in your banner for several months and using it to promote and gain money for several talks, events, etc.

 

[Uhura]

snip

But it's so clear now. Anita has to pay for the art, whether Tammy wants the money or not. Because that's common decency. Ignoring people's wishes.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I don't get why you'd post about how you are protected by fair use against the fan art artist and now it's a tragic mistake all of the sudden...

I can't speak for anyone on the FF team but I don't think it's unreasonable of them to defend the legal basis of their position while at the same time acknowledging that it's not cool and doing something about it. If anything, I think that's a pretty decent approach to take - as the saying goes, just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.

 

[Andy Chalk]

So, I like how the article says they removed the picture of Princess Daphne, and yet, the picture linked to the side still has Princess Daphne in it...

The picture in the post is with an official image of Daphne, as was intended.

This is the original:



And this is the updated version:

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

Fake gamer girl bullshit? Really?

No one has to prove they are a gamer. No one. Not even Anita Sarkeesian.

None of the videos you post mean anything, because she (and other female gamers) don't have to prove a damn thing to you.

I could comment further, but I might say something mean, and you aren't worth a forum warning.

Edit: Although, I gotta say, your Sean Connery avatar is... very appropriate.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Not that I necessarily want to pour fuel on this fire but I am curious about one thing: Is it kosher for Tamara Gray to earn money for work that she lifted from another source? Strictly from a legal perspective, I mean. Does she have the legal right to profit by essentially copying someone else's work?

With all due respect to Gray and Sarkeesian both, that's the part of this I find the most interesting.

 

[JimB]

Yes, that's completely and totally analogous to using an artist's work in your banner for several months and using it to promote and gain money for several talks, events, etc.

Of course they're not analogous. That is entirely the point. I am demonstrating the absurdity of your claim of "common decency" by creating situations which fit the criteria you have established and applying them. Either your criteria or your term need modification.

On a slightly different topic, though, how do you propose to determine how much money Ms. Sarkeesian made specifically because of that image on the title card, which image you seem to claim is directly responsible for some percentage of money gained and the artist is therefore owed a slice of the pie?

 

[JimB]

Is it kosher for Tamara Gray to earn money for work that she lifted from another source?

I can't imagine it is. If Bill Watterson was disqualified from an elementary school contest with a cash prize for copying an image of Snoopy, then I doubt copyright laws have changed to become more permissive rather than less.

 

[The Lunatic]

Of course they're not analogous. That is entirely the point. I am demonstrating the absurdity of your claim of "common decency" by creating situations which fit the criteria you have established and applying them. Either your criteria or your term need modification.

It just looked like deranged rambling and completely misunderstanding.

On a slightly different topic, though, how do you propose to determine how much money Ms. Sarkeesian made specifically because of that image on the title card, which image you seem to claim is directly responsible for some percentage of money gained and the artist is therefore owed a slice of the pie?

I wouldn't even say that much.

No more than $500 or so, honestly.

It wasn't a major factor. However, it's still her service which she used.

Not that I necessarily want to pour fuel on this fire but I am curious about one thing: Is it kosher for Tamara Gray to earn money for work that she lifted from another source? Strictly from a legal perspective, I mean. Does she have the legal right to profit by essentially copying someone else's work?

With all due respect to Gray and Sarkeesian both, that's the part of this I find the most interesting.

Difficult to say really.

I mean, a lot of the usage of Anita's stuff is kinda in a gray area due to the whole non-profit thing.

Also, it's difficult to say if stuff qualifies for fair use, etc.

Even then, there's always the option of providing payment for something else, or, a bunch of different stuff.

Basically, Iunno, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[deathbydeath]

Edit: Although, I gotta say, your Sean Connery avatar is... very appropriate.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you mean by this? I have an idea, but I'm not sure it's what you meant.

I could comment further, but I might say something mean, and you aren't worth a forum warning.

Oh snap.

No one has to prove they are a gamer.

Are people still debating this? I could've sworn everyone agreed to stop debating it in 2011 or something.

I mean, sure TvWiG is a pretty sketchy series, but why are people complaining that Sarkeesian didn't record her own footage or play every single game she touched? Ignoring the fact that that's about as practical as Obama building the Iron Man suit, why nitpick that when her arguments are subpar at best and usually nonsensical? Just look at her complaints about the Max Payne franchise!

Anyways, that was my Bimonthly Sarkeesian Rant[sup]TM[/sup]; thank you for reading. Now I'm off to play Urban Rivals, because if anybody calls that game sexist I can just point them to the faction of feminists and tell them to shut up.

Captcha: "run away!". Thank you for the advice; I'll heed it.
Second Captcha: "take umbrage". Dang, are the captchas here psychic or something?

 

[The Lunatic]

Edit: Although, I gotta say, your Sean Connery avatar is... very appropriate.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you mean by this? I have an idea, but I'm not sure it's what you meant.

Sean Connery is sometimes regarded as having a low regard for women.

Therefore, as this person doesn't like Anita, Bara is therefore claiming they dislike all women that have ever existed.

 

[Madmonk12345]

If it counts in the eyes of the law, then how is it not a not-for profit? What other jurisdiction is there? How is it a lie for her to say that she is?

Because the eyes of the law are the same eyes that ruled corporations as people, that allow Super PACs to exist, massive tax breaks and exemptions to multi-billion dollar corporations, and I can easily go on if I need to. The law is not a good basis for whether or not something "makes money".

While I'd certainly agree with you that the court of law isn't always reasonable on the issues you bring up, that makes it no less valid as a legal defense and as representative in fair use(which has its own problems for certain). I'm not referring to morals, but to how people were trying to bring up how she was "for profit" in the terms of legal discussion in the previous thread, which was why I brought it up early so that we wouldn't have that debate again. I just brought it up to shoot down that debate before it starts.

Also, she isn't making "profit" from her investment. No ads on the videos, etc. Even if you take the position that she "stole the money", it is most certainly not going for profit, and instead is going into several Anita Sarkeesian and feminism-shaped holes in the ground where it will produce videos, tears of assholes(in which I'm not including you, just to be clear), and endless vitriolic debate(for better or worse).

To be fair, we don't actually know that because neither you nor I can see her bank ledgers. It's fair enough to presume that she doesn't make any money from it, but it's dishonest to objectively claim that she definitely doesn't.

I probably should have put a little less certainty on the "most certainly" part; more referred to probably and reasonable to assume for now. I was just poking fun at the only narrative I cared to poke at beforehand, that she was buying high heels, make up, etc. and wasting the money on herself, which by definition implies that its frivolous and unprofitable.

I can give my perspectives to the idea that she is not a gamer, if you'd like; The quote from the video that she actually said those things states that she doesn't consider herself a fan of video games, or a part of the fandom at that time. This is different from not playing games; many people play video games, but do not consider themselves gamers, espsecially given the stigma tied to its stereotypes(some justified, some not). Gamer is an identity, not based on amount of play time; if she says she's a gamer, she IS a gamer. This means she can not be a gamer 3 years ago, and be a gamer recently.

That's fine and dandy but doesn't really answer my query: we have audio from her on two different occasions making contradictory statements.

Now it's one thing if she had said "I didn't used to be a gamer, but I grew to love it". That would be consistent with both statements. That is not, however, what she said. She said that she had "always been a gamer", which contradicts her earlier statements (in front of a different crowd) that she was not a gamer.

Now whatever stance you take on her personally, you have to admit that these two statements cannot co-exist. Meaning that there's a problem with one of them. What many have said, given the differences between her audience then and her audience now, is that she's changed her opinion so as to better appeal to the crowd she's currently talking to. And while I can't be sure of that myself, it is rather difficult to argue otherwise when the audio makes no mystery about it.

So at the very least, yes, I have to say that I consider her somewhat dishonest, because either she was lying back then to "cover up" her gaming habit (which is sad, because it suggests that this hobby she supposedly loves so much was somehow embarrassing to her at the time), or she is lying now when she says that she's an avid gamer (which would be much worse, because it's intentionally misleading her audience). I don't think it matters if she's a "gamer" or not, but I think if she's willing to change her tune on something that small, then it does add some degree of doubt to her stances on more important things.

This was why I didn't want to get into it until I did some more research, and don't feel really confident in this enough to discuss it. It was my initial impression. I didn't seek to answer the question, because I wasn't referring to this point in the first place, more using it as a leaping off point to talk and discuss other things. I personally feel the whole "Anita Sarkeesian is not a real gamer" thing to be more a red herring; even if she isn't a gamer her criticisms still have to be addressed.

Sorry if the context of discussion made my intentions seem unclear. Though I DID refer to that guys other post as asking Anita Sarkeesian to admit to fraud in absence of evidence, the point was more against the idea that she didn't play the games she criticized at all. Even if she didn't like games all that much and wasn't a gamer, I can't imagine her playing none of the games she mentioned that she criticized given that she actually purchased most of them and has the money to live off in the background and play them. She might not enjoy it, but putting up a pretense would have blatantly fallen apart by now in ways more obvious than a quote from four years ago and take more trouble to maintain than just playing the games; from a pragmatic perspective it doesn't make sense. If we're getting into that, then we're approaching the arguments with stock rebuttal and stock rebuttals to those rebuttals I mentioned earlier due to the size of the whole scheme just making it impossible and approaching conspiracy theory. I guess it did line up though I said it didn't to him. Oops. Should have thought more about it.

 

[Uhura]

Not that I necessarily want to pour fuel on this fire but I am curious about one thing: Is it kosher for Tamara Gray to earn money for work that she lifted from another source? Strictly from a legal perspective, I mean. Does she have the legal right to profit by essentially copying someone else's work?

I don't think she can legally profit from her fan art since she doesn't actually own the IP. It wouldn't be kosher to start producing and profiting from fan art made of Mickey Mouse so it wouldn't be kosher here either. I think Tammy knows this and it's one of the reasons she didn't ask for any monetary compensation.

 

[Strazdas]

What is this. A thing regarding Anita Sarcasmian has been resolved peacefully and logically? I... i dont even. Ill be on the lookout for flying pigs today.

 

[Gindil]

**snip**

Fake gamer girl bullshit? Really?

No one has to prove they are a gamer. No one. Not even Anita Sarkeesian.

None of the videos you post mean anything, because she (and other female gamers) don't have to prove a damn thing to you.

I could comment further, but I might say something mean, and you aren't worth a forum warning.

Edit: Although, I gotta say, your Sean Connery avatar is... very appropriate.

Anita's "gamer status" is about her credibility and integrity.

Why lie about your background and why should anyone enjoy talking about her when she's done nothing to help the gaming industry and does more to polarize and separate it for her own career?

 

[Goliath100]

I fail to see how "casual gamer" and "gamer" are the same.

I asked for a definition, you did give one, remember?

"someone who plays the games that are more functional the the average iPhone or facebook game."

And when asked if this sound like some other term, you said "casual gamers".
But, if you have no problem calling her a gamer, than why are you using a video called "Sarkeesian is not a real gamer"?

Anita's "gamer status" is about her credibility and integrity.

Why lie about your background and why should anyone enjoy talking about her when she's done nothing to help the gaming industry and does more to polarize and separate it for her own career?

Define "gamer".

 

[ShakerSilver]

But, if you have no problem calling her a gamer, than why are you using a video called "Sarkeesian is not a real gamer"?

I used it because it questions Anita's relationship with video games and shows that she was dishonest about it.

No one has to prove they are a gamer. No one. Not even Anita Sarkeesian.

None of the videos you post mean anything, because she (and other female gamers) don't have to prove a damn thing to you.

A critic of a medium shouldn't prove that they are not a fan of said medium? That doesn't seem all that fair. What's the point of critiquing something you have no personal interest in?

 

[Goliath100]

I used it because it questions Anita's relationship with video games and shows that she was dishonest about it.

A critic of a medium shouldn't prove that they are not a fan of said medium? That doesn't seem all that fair. What's the point of critiquing something you have no personal interest in?

Not only is it not need to have a "personal interest" to critique something,the video doesn't even disprove what it think it does. Not that it's relevant in the first place.

Why do you insist on this to be relevant?