Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 7689824" data-attributes="member: 18182">Thanks for adding to the conversation guys! Those of us uncomfortable with the unauthorized use of artwork and intellectual property are pretentious, fascist, corporate apologists. Ah, I get it. I like dismissing others opinions with name calling and oversimplifying complex systems as well!It boils down to (IMO), does an artist have a right to financially profit from their work. For how long? For how much? Can they transfer that right to others, their descendants or a corporation? Is all information (ideas, art) "free", to be used by anyone for any reason with or without the consent of the original creator? While enshrined in a complex web of laws, this is a very philosophical argument with no right answer. And any choice a society makes, is bound to protect the rights of one group of people versus the freedoms of another group.Should we create a system (laws) that allow artists to have control over their works, allowing them to earn enough money to be full-time artists? That's the basis of copyright and intellectual property protections. If I paint an awesome image of a dragon, then sell that painting to someone else (or put a scanned image up online), is that the end of my "right" to profit from my artwork? If so, I'll likely be less motivated to paint more awesome images, and focus more on my dreary day job so I can feed myself and my family. And that's not necessarily a "bad" scenario, it's just not the path our society has gone down.For hundreds of years, Western society has decided to protect an artist's right to control and profit from their own creations, to promote the flourishing of the arts in society. More recently, this cultural idea has gone off the rails a bit with the corporate acquisition of IP and perpetual extension of copyright . . . but without that corporate pressure to manage and protect IP, we wouldn't be enjoying Star Wars, Star Trek, and D&D in their current forms.I find it highly ironic, and a bit sad, that fans can get so wrapped up in a "lifestyle" property like Star Wars or D&D that only exists due to corporate management that they cross the line with their own creations and can't see how that endangers the very property they love. The creators of the Star Wars and Star Trek games in the OP put all that effort into the projects because they love these properties and feel a very strong connection to them. And I support that aspect 100%. When they go a bit too far and appropriate the IP (including trade dress) of Star Wars (etc), they ignorantly are weakening the very property they love, making it harder for Disney (etc) to justify giving us more Star Wars movies, books, toys, role-playing games and so on. Granted, just one offending role-playing game isn't going to bring the whole system crashing down, but that doesn't justify the theft, IMO. Grains of sand and all.Worse yet (again IMO), is the theft of artwork. Taking a real cool image of Luke Skywalker you found on the net and using it without permission in your fan-creation is disrespecting the original artist and possibly hurting their ability to continue making profit off their own work (if they retain the right to sell prints, which many artists do).How much IP and artwork appropriation for fan-creations is "too much" is unclear, and likely different for each individual (even the original artists, some don't care, others care very much). But how much of this a fan-creation engages in is very much a part of my decision on whether I will support it or not. I respect the passion and game design of the fans who created the OP games, but they went too far . . . for me . . . and I won't be supporting their work, and I feel it's very relevant in a game review.</blockquote>

Verification