Fandom/Kins Rules Update Feedback Box

I think it’s just be treated how other prohibited content is, underage NSFW, NSFW icons, canon content, etc. If they appear in your path, you can report them or just leave them be. That’s how a good majority of TH will treat it. 

I’m sure there’s already people who report canon dogs now, others in this thread have admitted reporting that content already.

The worst they can do is report your character and it gets removed for being a carbon copy. But once again, of your characters are independent enough from their source material, you’ve got nothing to worry about. 

Canon Characters / Kin Galleries:+1 to banning and enforcing in all cases. If you want to RP fandom characters, you can just do that. You don't need to have them uploaded and that is all kinds of copyright/drama filled nonsense.. Kin galleries shouldn't get an exception to these rules either.

Redesigns of Canons (ex: Naruto as a Dog):+1 to banning for the most part. If it's different enough that someone who knew the show couldn't tell you that the OC was meant to a redesign or heavily inspired, then I think that should be allowed. 

OCs "inspired" by Canons (ex: identical design/backstory, either both or just one):+1 to banning for the most part, but my thoughts on it are the same as the above. Backstory might be an iffy one too, since like 60-70% of all YA novels have the same backstory. The whole "cosplays as this character all the time" thing should definately not be allowed though.

Playable MCs (ex: Personal Inquisitor from DAI): I think this one really depends on how much customization the person does. If you could reasonable pass it off as an original OC, a DnD character, etc, then I don't see an issue with this for characters that are at least almost entirely created by the player. For characters like Frisk that have limited in game customization and really are characters in their own right outside of what the player makes them, I would not allow uploads follow under the redesign policy above.

OCs in Canon Settings (ex: OC Hogwarts students, OC Pokemon Trainers): -1 to banning, I would not restrict OCs in cannon settings even if they do use things like the hogwarts uniform. These really are original characters and you'd end up getting into nitpickyness about things like warriors OCs. They're.... cats in a forest. It doesn't really make sense to ban these. 

OCs of a Canon Species (ex: Pokemon Gajinkas / Feral Pokemon): -1 to banning, As long as the design/backstory is unique and the artwork is not canon artwork or editted canon artwork, I don't see an issue with these. Even if this gets close to redesigns, as long as the character has a unique story and the OC's owners aren't harassing other people about a Eevee OC looking too much like another eevee OC, or two people using the same fusion type, then I think OCs of a canon species should be allowed. I think this can be seperated out from Redesigns of canon by having it very specifically be the species aspect that's important. Much like anyone can create a realistic dog character and have it be unique, anyone can create an eevee character and have it be unique. 

OK, I have a massive problem with everyone here saying that you should ban characters with recognizable features that imitate those of canon characters. This is directed at ORIGINAL characters, NOT AUs/species change/human-to-furry/etc

The big problem with this is that... a lot of people do that. It's a normal thing. And, some characters just might straight up coincidentally share features. There's no way to really moderate this, no way to fairly deal with this either. What about the person who decides to add a couple bits of obvious inspiration from multiple characters into their character?  The person who unconsciously added something from their fav interest? The person who, because they may prefer simple designs, have ocs with inspired traits that stand out a bit more than others? Are we going to ban these? Really?

Is this the point we're at now? 

Sidenote: my apologies if i'm repetitive at all, I still don't agree with the derivative character ban and I have many reasons as to why I feel that way. I can't remember which pages I posted on and there's 30 pages to this forum post so...yeah 
also please don't ping me

+1 to banning literal uploads of canon characters

-1 to banning derivatives. if TH is actually in danger or being contact by the owners of something over something uploaded here, remove it. But I don't think the owners of Marvel are going to come in and sue me or TH over my generic designed Golden Retriever character named Steve who's personality is based on Captain America's LOL. If you're not making money off it I reallyyyyy don't think big companies care at all about "this character but as X species". They have bigger things to deal with than some random person on the internet who draws Castiel but as a black dog with wings for fun. Or a uniquely designed cat with Naruto's hair and personality. People with animal versions of canon characters, from what I've seen, don't AT ALL claim to OWN the original character, nor are they making money from them.

Again, if TH is actually being contacted with creators trying to take legal action, then by all means remove these animal canon characters. But if this is really just a "nuisance" to people because it's not what they like and don't wanna see it....well, there's a block button for a reason LOL

Jayden I've seen multiple people who are AGAINST inspired characters who're obviously inspired by popular media/specific characters, hence why I made that post. I'm literally basing this off of what I've seen over and over and over again.

Also, can I just...remind everyone that this entire thread is over derivative characters being a nuisance? Like, its literally in the description of the first post. This entire thread is over whether or not derivative characters are too "annoying" for everyone, not over legality issues. They've already got that covered in their rules. 

and pls guys i really do mean it when I say don't ping me

What is this "I will state my opinion then don't ping me to discuss it in a discussion thread" mentality we got in this thread...

Not everyone is talking about them being a "nuisance", many have even said calling them that is unfair. If you read any of the comments you'd see people are arguing about the legalities of them. 

Anyway, I hope y'all are actually voting along with your novel-length responses. All great you voiced your opinions and all, but be sure to add your input in via the thread.