I was promptly kicked from his Discord server even though I paid to be his patron.
Apparently, all of you don’t own anything so it’s okay to take it.
brb making my own compilation videos and Patreon.
WARNING: WALL OF TEXT LARGE ENOUGH TO REPEL THE WHITE WALKERS. This is an extremely important situation that warrants everyone’s interest - not just artists.
Skip to “The Solutions” for the most important part. Read the whole list if you need help understanding why this is a problem.
I’m going to break apart this conversation as seen in the screen caps.
The Problem (and why it’s bad, m’kay?)
- YouTubers get paid for their stupid videos. How is this any different?
First off, this is called a false analogy fallacy. Moving on, some people (as evidenced above) don’t understand how YouTube works, exactly. YouTube does not pay money to creators out of their own pocket. Who does? Advertisement agencies. Advertisement agencies are basically paying YouTube for the right to air commercials on peoples’ channels that are conducive to the products they are attempting to sell. Most importantly however, it is up to YouTube as to whether or not a creator is paid. People certainly remember the PewDiePie fiasco a few moons ago where he lost several endorsements for a mindless event he perpetrated. Advertising agencies felt as though PewDiePie was too risky to advertise with after the situation, so they pulled their endorsement of him. As a result, he lost money. In essence, when a YouTuber is paid, they are entering into something of a contractual agreement with advertisers to maintain a certain public image…just like any other celebrity.
- I’m a patron of these artists, so I’m buying their stuff and can use it how I want.
This is a weak foundation to stand on. A seamster can take bolts and swatches of cloth and turn them into a giant quilt which they can then turn around and sell to their heart’s content. So what’s the difference here? The seamster purchased or acquired the cloth from a distribution or retail center on the grounds of exchanging money for goods. This is NOT Patreon’s intended use. Patreon is a platform for which fans can show financial support to their favorite creators, much in the same way that a person buys tickets to a concert or sporting event. Just because you buy a ticket to a Justin Beiber concert doesn’t mean you can then take him home and sell him. You are paying for a service that is intended for entertainment purposes that is provided for the implicit use of personal consumption. Other artists instead use Patreon as a tip jar service, IE you give them money BECAUSE they offer artwork. The argument you’re trying to make here is flawed because you’re basically equating patronage to a commission. Commissions are contractual agreements between a service provider and a client regarding not only the creation of the service but should also include the provisions for USE of the service after it has been rendered.
- I’m taking the time to advertise myself and doing the work to actually put all this stuff together. Doesn’t that make it mine?
No. The argument here is that you’re operating as a self-promoting advertisement agency…but you’re using Pepsi products without Pepsi’s permission to show how awesome you are at mixing the different Pepsi flavors without ever once mentioning you’re using Pepsi products. Advertising agencies enter into legally-binding contracts with the companies they represent, and 99.99999 times out of 100, the company they are advertising for paid them to do so, and it’s usually a lot of money. In 2016, Disney spent approximately $2 billion USD on advertising alone, ending the year with a revenue of just over $55 billion USD, with a net income of $9 billion USD.*
Very simple math shows that advertising accounts for almost four percent of their expenditure. Given these numbers, and the fact that the breakup of patronage provided on your Patreon is hidden from public view (but that it requires at least $5 for “access to the good stuff”), it would be somewhat safe to assume that your Patreon draws in approximately $2,695USD monthly. Using Disney’s own expenditure as a guideline, this would mean each creator whose animations appear in your work need to be paid at least $100 USD per month (4% of revenue). Again, this is per artist. Honestly? I’m being gracious with this number as well, as the “service” you are providing is actually more akin to making a movie with several stars in it. In 2015, Robert Downey Jr. had a salary of $80 million USD. He starred in one movie that year, Avengers: Age of Ultron, which earned a total of $1.406 billion USD worldwide. Math dictates that RDJ’s salary accounted for almost six percent oftotal profit. Using this math, each creator should be earning $161.70 USD per animation. I get the sneaking suspicion this isn’t happening.
Also, using your logic someone else could steal the compilations you’re making, change the order of the animations, and sell it for less than what you’re offering it, and you wouldn’t be allowed to complain.
- Other people make SFM compilations. How is this different?
This is called the bandwagon fallacy, first of all…shame, shame. On topic, you’re monetizing other peoples’ work without their permission. Though piracy in general is a no-no, the majority of those people who make compilations offer them for free of charge. Does this make the free distribution of other artists’ hard work right or morally just? Not at all…but it’s a whole other level of meta-piracy to profit from their hard work.
- A lot of these artists are assholes. I’m morally justified! …right?
This is an ad hominem fallacy as well as a red herring. This argument is as valid as saying that because a bank denied you a loan they all deserve to be robbed, preferably by you. It’s foolish.
- None of these SFM artists own the assets they’re using. So that makes the SFM artists just as bad as me!
Ah, yes. And here, my friends is the rub. This is actually the only somewhat valid point in two pages of arguing that has been a solid(ish) defense. You are absolutely correct…most of the artists you’re plagiarizing do not own the assets they’re using. This is called a false dilemma fallacy with a dash of slippery slope fallacy. You’re holding the artists here hostage because they do not legally own the assets they’re using and implying that if you go down so will they. Honestly? You could very well be absolutely correct, but just like the situation here it is up to the holders of the respective intellectual properties to uphold their licensed property. In this situation, you are stealing the intellectual properties of artists who took the time to create these animations using someone else’s intellectual properties. If Disney, DC, EA, and every other gaming company in the world wants to come down right now and put a stop to SFM porn they would have every right to do so. This is been the case since the beginning, before you were stealing peoples’ work and monetizing it.
What you don’t account for are the Daz Studio, Poser Studio, Maya, Blender, and SFM artists who either create their own assets or purchase the legal right to use those assets as they see fit within the licensing restrictions that you are plagiarizing. Your argument is completely null and void when it comes to these artists. If anyone has a legal ground to stand on to crush you into the mud, it’s these people.
The Solutions
So there’s a giant wall of finger waggling and head shaking…but what’s the take away? What do we do? We know there’s a problem, but how do we fix it?
1) Don’t support this guy’s Patreon - Utilize your most powerful tool as a living organism: common sense. Support the artists that pour their blood, sweat, and tears into the content you enjoy. Without the artists, this guy’s Patreon would not exist.
2) Report this guy’s Patreon on grounds of plagiarism - This option is not without risk for many of the SFM artists that are victims of this senselessness. It is entirely possible this will rock the boat in unintended ways and could result in many SFM artists getting the shaft as well.
3) FutaSFMAddict negotiates contractual obligations with the artists he’s plagiarizing - I don’t see this one happening, but it’s worth a shot. It’s only fair that the artists whose work appears in these compilations are given some percentage of Addict’s Patreon earnings. Again, his Patreon would not exist without artists.
4) The 3DX (SFM, Daz, Poser, etc) community creates their own compilation Patreon - I could see this one working rather well in theory. It would use the same concept Addict is using, allowing artists to showcase some of their work in compilations as both a form of advertisement and allowing people to access a large selection of content in one easy location. This would require a LOT of effort beyond the dinner napkin version I present here, but something like this could potentially work.
At the very least, please reblog this post. It’s crucial that people understand the sorts of things artists have to fight for and that we do in fact have a voice.
