There's no such thing as "artistic originality." All an artist does is put their voice on an existing concept.

Case in point, what Radicons do and post here on a daily basis. All of your art is based on work that had previously been done by Hasbro, Takara, or whichever character designer, animation artist, or comic penciler.

You can ask any artist, regardless of their field, why is it they do what they do the way they do it. It's because of the work of other people. That's just how art works.

It may have been years, but I draw. And I may not draw a thing like any of them, but I can tell you the name of every comic penciller that has had some amount of influence in my style. Every single one.

 

that completely let go of any link to previous art styles. it took him a while, yes but eventually he did branch out and found a style truly his own.

nobody ever really "steals" concepts, they only tweak it a bit so that they contributed to it's general message. an artist is the voice of his community that either reacts or reflects their values or concepts. anything you consider new and original is such because it's different from the usual, but it doesn't have to imply it never had anything that preceeded it.

 

Uhmm, yes, yes he would have. Da Vinci would have been pissed.

 

   Woops! My bad, for some reason I thought Rembrandt did it. So I guess I should correct my question, would Da Vinci have been ruining the Mona Lisa by painting a moustache on her?

 

Personally, I think it should first be acknowledged that we all "Stand on the shoulders of giants" regardless of our activities, and that it is a necessary component of 'progress'.

In the context of a Transformer toy or media there are many hands that contribute toward the final product, all just as crucial IMO. I personally feel each contributor should be respected, regardless of their role, whether they be creative, technical, legal, financial, etc.

I also feel the interpretation of the Mona Lisa analogy is lost, or misdirected, when you consider it as a tangible object rather than the manifestation of an idea or concept (or a collection of ideas and concepts). Rather than bringing form to your own thoughts, that may or may not be inspired by another's, you're simply altering someone else's vision (and often anguish) to a desired effect. Unless you can alter the context (and thus the thought) remarkably with such editing, I wouldn't think it worthwhile from an artistic standpoint (It is unlikely org creators wouldn't either). [In the instance of a duplication rather than just defacement of a master]

However, in the case of re-painting a figure, or re-constructing one from many, I could imagine some of the original creators pleased (Or flattered) by an attempt by others to 'improve' the representation of some of their product by exploiting the luxury of not needing to meet stringent production and cost requirements, as long as it shows a high regard for the product (Simple use of violent battle damage may not convey this).
Other considerations are whether the work reflects the standards of the original work and may subsequently inspire negative perceptions of the original product.

 

Umm... Da Vinci spent years changing the Mona Lisa, up until he died.

As far as Da Vinci is concerned, the Mona Lisa is an unfinished painting.

 

I think that fan-edits are fine, and don't affect the pureness of the original work. None of the Kitbashers or Fan-Editors are seeking out prototypes or film master copies to do their bashes or edits: they are using what has been offered to the general public for personal use/enjoyment.

 

I think it difficult enough to find any work of art that could truly be considered finished by its creator. A work of engineering or illustration could be considered finished once it meets its criteria (and thus purpose) effectively, but a work of art will continue to evolve so long as the artist's inspiration evolves.
[Not insinuating that art, illustration, and engineering are mutually exclusive -Artist in case being the classic example]

...I still don't think he would have added a mustache had he lived, or a mono-brow for that matter.  

 

That's the point I was trying to make. Nothing to do with the mustache comment.

An artist has the right to change their works as they please. Da Vinci spent the latter part of his life adding and making changes to the Mona Lisa. Lucas (as much of an artist as you'd like to call him) continues to make changes to his Star Wars films.

They have all the right to do so.

 

I just thought I'd jump in here and chime in on this topic. Before I do so, a comparison with a TF (or a customized TF, no less) to the Mona Lisa or any such regarded masterpieces will fall short fairly quickly. That being said:

This is one facet of a two-pronged discussion - buying a toy and altering it for one's personal toy collection (e.g., non-profit). There really isn't much of a gray area here that I see. Person earns money, goes to a store of some sort, and purchases a figure. As long as their actions with that figure break no legal and moral ethic, the owner of the particular toy is free to do with it as they see fit. Extra paint apps? No problem. Don't like how a joint moves? Alter it. Want a Fallen toy that actually burns? Strike a match and watch it burn (under safe conditions of course!). The bottom line is Hasbro and co. have their money, and you have your toy you purchased for your own entertainment.

Facet #2 - profit-seeking work. NP does a really good job mapping the most of this out, I believe. Where he really hits the nail on the head is the subject of "IP". The Transformers brand, its characters, its likenesses, etc. are the property of Hasbro. The company owns it, and thus has the right to do (or not do) what they want with it. As NP pointed out, some gray areas exist here, but the bottom line is that Hasbro cares very deeply for its property and guards it very well.  


* * * * * * *

Stealing. It's wrong. For some reason, it seems that needs to be said.  

Regarding the topic, h-punk is right on the money here.

plowking and I have discussed this topic a lot over the years, and we fall mostly in agreement on these things. This is another such example  

I think one gets an even clearer picture of this topic when h-punk's quote and pk's quote are used in conjunction with each other.

While I feel I've mostly said my piece on this topic, there's also the issue of integrity between artists in the same community as well. Making a long story short here would simply be this: beign respectful and considerate to others and their work is the high road to take  

 

I don't have a fully formed opinion on this yet, however I like to point this out:

Unrated editons of movies are altered movies. They are diffrent than the original piece the content has been changed sometimes to the point of changing an ending or making a minor plot point a turning point in a story. Also, airplane movies are always edited for content to make them acceptible to all audiences. Of course both on these are both done with the consent of everyone involved with the movie in the first place.

There was a company some years ago that offered to edit movies to make them PG or G rated. There was a legal battle over it but I don't recall the outcome. I think the company have gone bankrupt fighting in the courts.