Fandom/Kins Rules Update Feedback Box

TL;DR I'm arguing that fan interpretations of "canon" characters and derivative fan characters shouldn't be punished because they are such a core part of being in a fandom in the first place.

There isn't anything wrong with somebody's character resembling or referencing a canon character. It's just a person making their own character that happens to connect with a canon character in the same way that people in real life connect with characters (at least in the terms of cosplay - characters tend to have a "default outfit", and if it's a canon character's, that's pretty much the same thing). 

I especially don't see an issue with kids making a character that's a canon character in a different form. Recolors exist, fan interpretations of canon characters exist. There may be discomfort with knowing that others would display those kinds of works publicly, but it really doesn't harm anyone to have things like that. This is just what people in a fandom do; creating fan characters, fan fiction, and any other kind of fan creation involves the creator's own personal idea of how canon characters and their fan characters would act.
Take the MLP fandom on deviantart; creators like Earthsong9405 and Loppodity have next-gen fan characters and interpretations of canon characters. People probably bash them all the time for "not being original", but there's far more people who just enjoy the "original" and "canon" characters in their stories and art. They wouldn't be such popular artists if fan interpretations were a real issue in a fandom. That's not even talking about how popular fan fictions are with canon characters.

Personally, I think the real problem has to be that Toyhouse's population is really particular. People store their original characters here on a site that values the copyrights that the user has over their own characters. There's, inherently, a large value on having a character that is completely original. But not everybody has fully original OCs. Barely anybody does; we have tropes, color schemes, and even outfits that tend to be inspired by something else we saw. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's unnecessary bashing on people who are just figuring out this OC stuff, and it's just because it's got to do with a fandom. Where else is a kid going to start? They found something they liked and wanted to build on it. What's wrong with that?

how abt we just let ppl have fun and do what they want if they arent claiming a character they dont own. im paying for art of bobble from splatoon and i need an easy place to store it. its not like im claiming the damn character. and what abt canon characters who are blank slates like the agents from splatoon or some of the guards from fnaf?

y'all are just bitter and dont like when ppl have fun! i paid to be on this site and i plan on using it to store art that i buy for my personal use, oc or canon character ^^

I think that canon characters and kin galleries should be banned; however, derviative characters draws a bit of a grey-zone. Redesigned canons should be banned on the account that it's practically the exact same character- or at least only banned if the owner is attempting to sell them. Playable MC's are basically just the same as a redesign- the same character with the same design. Oc's from a canon setting (Hogwarts OC, or a BNHA OC) Should be allowed- as they are still original characters themselves. And finally, OC's of canon species should be allowed- as people tend to make them completely original in their own way. 

So, my final thoughts would be:

+1 Banning canon/kin galleries
+1 Banning redesigns
+1 Banning 'Inspired' Characters
-1 Banning Playable MC's
-1 banning Fancharacters
-1 banning Canon Species

RedRarebit

oop my bad but my point still stands. kinsonas and w/e arent doing anything wrong. they obv Arent trying to claim the og charactet so whats the issues. jus let ppl have fun.

Hey, I'mma just add on something. This will be kinda long, so bear with me. I also will not be making any further comments on this.

Not everyone who starts making OCs starts with recolors or redesigns. In fact, I personally didn't start making fancharacters until last year. I'm in my twenties. My first OCs were just...dragons. Fluffy dragons that weren't really based off anything. My oldest OCs that I've kept aren't related to fandom in any way. When I did fandom RPs with people, I would just alter my normal OCs to fit rather than make fancharacters.

Now...with these 'canon as a different species' characters...I never met anyone who claimed these as OCs until last year. Before then, I'd see them posted as fanart. And explicitly only as fanart. Were there some I didn't know about being refered to as OCs before? Probably. But my point still stands...if your design still resembles the original enough to be called fanart, then your design is most definitely not okay.

Here's the thing: We're not saying to ban all characters inspired by canon characters. If we were, I'd have a few that I'd have to move offsite despite them having clearly different designs. We just don't want the ones that are literally just Deku as a dog with no or almost no changes. And, I feel the same with gjinkas that are blatantly obvious who they are based off. A dog with a similar hairstyle to deku or a similar color palette but different traits? Those are fine. I personally have characters that were designed as gjinkas of pokemon. I used those pokemons' palettes when doing their refs, but didn't follow any markings at all(I'm actually debating on doing some revamps on them because a couple cut it way too close for my taste).

And...AUs in my opinion shouldn't be treated as your character if you don't own the character the AU is of. I make AUs for my OCs a lot. I have a couple homestuck troll versions of my kids. But....I still consider them as just....my character with something changed, not an entirely different character. Even if the AU's personality is different, there's not really enough changes to make them their own character. Because they aren't a new character....they're just an alteration of one I already have. Why should it be different with a canon character?

If all fancharacters do get banned, I'll happily transfer them all to a thumbdrive and just upload them to googled drive or something if one needs art. Plus check to see if AUs of my characters as fandom species can stay as long as they are attached to the actual OC. But, I'll still stay. Because I came here mainly for somewhere to organize my OCs not connected to fandoms. 

I understand that some of you have hundreds of fancharacters. And, honestly, I don't think you have too much to worry about. It's mainly the canon characters and the select few derivatives that look exactly like them(or have few changes) that a lot of people want to see removed. The only others not wanted being MCs you can't edit and pet site characters from places that don't allow them to be treated as yours. 

Canon species, characters in canon settings, and the majority of inspired characters? I see no problem with those. They can stay.

Sorry if this makes no sense. Just got back from a ten hour shift and a dinosaur feels more lively than I am.

what about canon characters with no canon design? say if i wanted to post the way i imagine book characters to look like, as long as i specify that they arent my character and are just my design for a book character, would that be okay?

softcubes That would probably go in the fanart category, since they aren't your character. Just your interpretation of a character from a book.

Edit: However, it would still be okay to make a character based off them. In those cases I think TH would rule on basis of how close to the description your design is.

I feel like if someone just straight took a picture of spirit from spirit of the cimeron for example and said "this is my character" yeah thats a no; but honestly people making OC's based off a (for example) anime character is fine? Most the time they have originality to them so they're not violating anything IMO. No reason to police other peoples happiness when it's not causing any harm. ;o