Triss Fan Art Thread

+
Editing someone's work is called art theft...whatever reason is behind it...the artist actually started with her Triss doodles after this incident with some Triss fans...which couldn't take this funny doodle...there are also tons of Yennefer doodles too...

It's called a parody.

---------- Updated at 03:08 PM ----------

The "artist" has as much reason to be upset by the edited version as the fans are by the original doodle. The phrase "dish it out but can't take it" comes to mind. While I generally ignore these doodles, I have to say they are becoming tiresome after seeing a few of them.

Being upset at the parody is a poor taste for an artist. Especially if the artist is a parodist / caricaturist himself.
 
Last edited:
this was clearly transformative use. but by all means, keep up your weird, bias interpretation- that poor girl!

The "artist" has as much reason to be upset by the edited version as the fans are by the original doodle. The phrase "dish it out but can't take it" comes to mind. While I generally ignore these doodles, I have to say they are becoming tiresome after seeing a few of them.

Yeah if she can't take the edit in the same spirit as she expects people to take her original, she's a tad over sensitive.


It's called a parody.

---------- Updated at 03:08 PM ----------



Being upset at the parody is a poor taste for an artist. Especially if the artist is a parodist / caricaturist himself.

If you take offense in someone’s artwork, that does not give you permission to go and change someone else’s artwork especially without their permission. If you want to voice your displeasure using some form of art, you go and make an original comic by yourself with your own ideas, you do not sloppily edit that which you “take offense to” in order to “fix it”. Just being offended at something does not give you permission to do whatever you damn well please, because you can bet your ass you would be extremely annoyed if someone took your original work and “fixed” it for you to suit their own biased opinions.
 
Last edited:
If it's a parody, you don't need to ask for permission. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

To parody something means you imitate the art style in a deliberately exaggerated way to the point it’s humorous, this means that you still have to make an original work that imitates a style of a certain artist in this case which would indeed be protected by the fair use link you quoted. This isn’t parody but blatant censoring, altering original artwork so that it conveys an entirely different message (that clearly isn’t humorous unless you count “humour” as “harassing an artist by changing their original works to something counter to the intended message”). What’s being altered is a piece of artwork that someone doesn’t agree with, so they change it to suit their whims...
 
It is a parody, as in making fun of the original work's making fun of the characters. So if anyone is upset about it, they should be equally upset with the author's original making fun of the charcters.
 
Last edited:
It is a parody, as in making fun of the original work's making fun of the characters. So if anyone is upset about it, they should be equally upset with the author's original making fun of the charcters.

Considering it's altering the original work, the only thing it is (because it isn't funny at all) is plagiarism
 
Considering it's altering the original work, the only thing it is (because it isn't funny at all) is plagiarism
I disagree, but I'm not really interested in debating legal aspects here. My point was simple. If the author is OK making fun of others (in artistic fashion), but can't stand when someone makes fun of his work - something is already wrong.

And secondly, for me it was funny enough ;D
 
SMiki55 drops this in here, you can expect reprisal.

:halt:
Ok, ok, I'm sorry :p

 
I disagree, but I'm not really interested in debating legal aspects here. My point was simple. If the author is OK making fun of others (in artistic fashion), but can't stand when someone makes fun of his work - something is already wrong.

And secondly, for me it was funny enough ;D

Making fun of someone in a game via creating an original drawing =/= making fun of a creator of said artwork by altering it sloppily to change the meaning to one more "palatable"...
 
Making fun of someone in a game via creating an original drawing =/= making fun of a creator of said artwork by altering it sloppily to change the meaning to one more "palatable"...

Which doesn't change the point, that author is over sensitive about parody of his work, while not being sensitive the same way parodying works of others. I find it intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Except it's not an art theft. You call it that, but it's invalid. If you don't like parody, calling it art theft isn't going to help you stop it, but will only make the artist look worse.
 
Last edited:
Right, so where is theft in that? It's clearly made with intention to make fun of the original. Removing the signature actually should make the point against your argument, since it shows that it's not the original and not made by the artist.
 
Right, so where is theft in that? It's clearly made with intention to make fun of the original. Removing the signature actually should make the point against your argument, since it shows that it's not the original and not made by the artist.

If the artist will make more comic strips and someone will continue to edit it and removing the original thought behind the doodle still using the artist style and sharing it online like it would be original artist work...sorry but no I don't understand how anyone can say it is ok.

Anyway thanks for all the replies. It just revealed some interesting things about this fandom to me...
 
Top Bottom