It Belongs to the Fans: about creative control and Undertale

[Komori]

When you produce something and put it out there, and then people like it, glom onto it, and run with it... exactly how much do you as the creator get to hold onto?



This somewhat nebulous topic was inspired by Toby Fox, the creator of the game Undertale, and the way I believe he's poorly-managing the merchandising of his runaway hit game. Fox had previously said he didn't want individuals (ie, fans) selling items based on his game. Something one-off like commissions would slide, but he's put a big kabosh on anyone who wants to sell tshirts, plushies, body pillows with skeletons on it (because that's a thing). Okay, sounds reasonable. However, the ONE place that has the rights to produce merch, Fangamer, has two measly (and in my opinion, unappealing) t-shirt designs that have been sold out since November. Hope none of you Undertale fans wanted any merch of your favorite game for Christmas!

Okay, so fans aren't allowed to sell tshirts, and you can't get the official ones... well, maybe it's time for Fox to work with a bigger distributer? That's where today's tweet comes in:




And honestly? And I think this will probably be an unpopular opinion here, but I think this is exactly the wrong way to foster a fanbase. Fans like buying things to support their favorite artists, as well as being able to show off their fandom to people. Heck, 99% of my wardrobe is just game-related t-shirts. Are most of them official NIntendo merch? Nope! Most of them are fanart Teefury-type shirts. And I think that's okay!

Look, when something becomes popular, you're not going to be able to control every little thing every fan does. Just ask JK Rowling. But the absolute worst thing you can do for your fans is to cripple their ability to share in their fandom. Because sure, there's plenty of free fanart out there, but not every fan is an artist, and how else can they feel like they're a part of the community if they can't even show off their love of a series?

Art is something that you release out into the world, and sometimes people are going to take it and run with it, possibly in ways you never planned or intended. But that's just how art is! If you didn't want anyone to take anything from your precious little piece, then you should put it in a closet. Hide it away from everyone, and periodically take it out so you can marvel at how special it is and then put it away again. Because if you really want a work to connect with people, you're going to have to be okay with the idea that some of those people are going to want to put it into their lives. And maybe you should help facilitate that, instead of trying to angrily take your ball back.



But what do you think? What's your view on monetizing fanart? How much responsibility does a creator have to facilitate its fandom? How much of something DOES a fan own?

[Zoey]

For me, I actually have a certain level of respect for creators that don't allow rampant commercialization of their work. One major example of this is Bill Watterson and his comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes. To this day I still don't see a lot of Calvin and Hobbes merchandise, which greatly contrasts Jim Davis, who created Garfield. And yet, his works are still considered the "last great comic strip of our era," because the quality of it was just amazing, and people still love his work. Because of him, I personally don't mind people who refuse to allow others to make money off of their creations. I can respect that.

But, if we were to discuss what limits I think are okay in terms of monetizing fanart?

I think the bottom line is, stuff like fanart and fanfiction should be allowed to proliferate, because while the actual book/video game/movie/tv series is the core of a fandom, the fan-made content is what allows it to grow and make people fall in love with a creation. And I think fan-artists can do small-scale sales of their work, as long as they A) mention that it is technically fanart, and B) give proper credit to the creator. A lot of fanartists who sell their work do fail in this sense, which is unfortunate.

In addition, I think that if a creator sees that a certain fanartist is becoming popular, then they have the opportunity to partner up with the artist and maybe even dub their works as "official" while getting a cut of the profits. That way, fanartists are getting their work out to a more mainstream audience, and the creator is still getting a royalty. I think it would be a win-win situation, in that case.

One instance that would be similar to this that I can think of is the Percy Jackson fandom. Aside from the books and a few movies, the author Rick Riordan hasn't sold the rights to any other company, so 99% of all Percy Jackson merchandise is not "official". One aspect of this series is that the official art is god-awful, and everyone and Rick Riordan himself is a big supporter of this one fan-artist, Viria. Her works are stunning enough that she can sell mugs with her Percy Jackson fanart on it, and make a decent amount of sales on a small scale. It doesn't bother Rick at all, because he tries to distance himself from fanart and fanfiction (and its subsequent products) for literary reasons, but then again, he's also already made tons of money off of his books. And it gets harder and harder to control a fandom as your creations become more popular and garner more fans.

What I'm interested in seeing is if Toby Fox will still have the same ideals if Undertale becomes more mainstream.

Anyway, to sum it up, I guess I don't mind if Toby Fox looks down on fan merch, because it's technically his creation, and maybe he doesn't care if his fandom proliferates or not? I think it's definitely okay to, say, sell T-shirts or mugs in a fandom if the creator doesn't say anything (provided they follow the proper crediting rules), but if the creator mentions that he/she would rather not have merchandise be sold, then it just feels more right to respect his/her wishes. Whether or not the fandom suffers because of his choices would be his consequences to deal with.

Well, that turned out way different than how I thought it would. XD

[PFA]

I kind of feel like I'm missing context. I'm not familiar with Undertale or the creative process that went into it, but what exactly does he mean by "it's personal"? It's personal to him? It's personal to the player?

If it's the latter, I don't see any reason why fans couldn't own t-shirts if they want to. If it's the former... I've never really understood that mindset, tbh. Pretending you're not famous doesn't make you not famous. If you didn't want people to enjoy it, then why did you put it out into the world? If you don't want to make money off of it, why isn't it free? Surely he's made back whatever it cost to make the game by now. (And maybe none of those examples are the case for Undertale specifically, but y'know, in general)

I mean, if he doesn't want to sell merch, he doesn't want to sell merch. No one can tell him what to do with his game. I just think there's a fine line between "avoiding over-commercialization" and "avoiding commercialization in general."

[Moni]

A creator has absolutely no responsibility to grow their fandoms. I get being grateful for your fans and happy that your work has had an impact on it, but as far as growing the fandom, that's more of a business move if anything.

And if the guy doesn't want to have his work commercialized by his fans, then he doesn't want to have it commercialized by his fans. tbh I can get the idea of being uncomfortable with your work being used almost as a label or an identity--it's kind of strange when you think about it, and I understand why you wouldn't love it.

[Komori]

Jan 15, 2016 2:06:20 GMT -5 Zoey said:

For me, I actually have a certain level of respect for creators that don't allow rampant commercialization of their work. One major example of this is Bill Watterson and his comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes. To this day I still don't see a lot of Calvin and Hobbes merchandise, which greatly contrasts Jim Davis, who created Garfield. And yet, his works are still considered the "last great comic strip of our era," because the quality of it was just amazing, and people still love his work. Because of him, I personally don't mind people who refuse to allow others to make money off of their creations. I can respect that.

See, I also think of Bill Watterson as an example, but kind of a different way. Like, now you can find a zillion Calvin & Hobbes fan designs all over the internet (to the point where I'm SO VERY sick of seeing that same "Hobbes and Calvin crossing a log" image, just crossed over with whichever fandom du jour). But for a long time, the only thing you could buy of Calvin were those car decals of him peeing on stuff. Yeah, obviously not licensed, but it was everywhere. To me, that's kind of worse.

And yes, I too don't have a problem with a creator trying to stop others from monetizing their work. But at the same time, you can't just spend all your efforts trying to quash everything, without at least trying to provide an alternative. That seems kind of childish to me.

Jan 16, 2016 22:20:57 GMT -5 Moni said:

tbh I can get the idea of being uncomfortable with your work being used almost as a label or an identity--it's kind of strange when you think about it, and I understand why you wouldn't love it.

But you can't enforce what other people want to claim as their identity. In fact, I feel like when you put something out in the world, you're GIVING it to people to add to their identity! That's just how art works. I've had people email me and tell me that my comics were what inspired them to pursue art as a living. The things I've produced have inextricably affected another human being, helped shape their identity. And that shouldn't be that surprising. I'm pretty sure you can name the things produced by others that've been formative in your life. Neopets has been a HUGE influence in my life. I can't imagine what I'd feel if Adam and Donna insisted that they didn't want Neopets to be used as part of someone else's identity. That's an impossible request.

[Moni]

Jan 17, 2016 2:45:48 GMT -5 Komori said:

Jan 16, 2016 22:20:57 GMT -5 Moni said:

tbh I can get the idea of being uncomfortable with your work being used almost as a label or an identity--it's kind of strange when you think about it, and I understand why you wouldn't love it.

But you can't enforce what other people want to claim as their identity. In fact, I feel like when you put something out in the world, you're GIVING it to people to add to their identity! That's just how art works. I've had people email me and tell me that my comics were what inspired them to pursue art as a living. The things I've produced have inextricably affected another human being, helped shape their identity. And that shouldn't be that surprising. I'm pretty sure you can name the things produced by others that've been formative in your life. Neopets has been a HUGE influence in my life. I can't imagine what I'd feel if Adam and Donna insisted that they didn't want Neopets to be used as part of someone else's identity. That's an impossible request.

That's not what I was talking about. When I say, "identity," I mean it in a social sense and not a personal one. Art can affect people without being commercialized by whoever. Wearing a piece of merchandise is really to show other people that you like something--essentially, you label yourself as lart of a group of people--and while that's really flattering and indicative that someone's work has affected you, that's a far cry from being equivalent to being affected by someone's work. You can change as a result of art without wearing a cutesy tshirt to show the world you're a fan of it.

THAT'S what I described as off-putting, not the fact that art affects who people are. The point of art is to hopefully communicate something with others, not to create pockets for people to use them the work as ingroup-outgroup identifiers. The latter is very strange, and I can only see it as being necessary in very limited circumstances.

Edit: plz tablet stop liking my own posts thank youuu. Also grammar and stuff.

[Komori]

Jan 17, 2016 14:54:09 GMT -5 Moni said:

THAT'S what I described as off-putting, not the fact that art affects who people are. The point of art is to hopefully communicate something with others, not to create pockets for people to use them the work as ingroup-outgroup identifiers. The latter is very strange, and I can only see it as being necessary in very limited circumstances.

Is it really that strange and off-putting? A huge chunk of people here have usernames that are based on some fandom or another (Off the top of my head, Nova, Buizel, Dude Pikachu...), and many, like myself, have avatars of someone else's work. I work in an animation studio, and I'm pretty sure 90% of my coworkers who have tattoos, have at least one game or animation-related tattoo. One of my coworkers had a completely Kingdom Hearts themed wedding.

I mean, I guess I can understand if a person doesn't want to use some outside source as a personal identifier, but it baffles me that someone would try to sell a product (ie, sell a video game), and then be off-put that others would use that as part of an identifier.

[♥ Azzie]

(disclaimer, I'm not being a pretentious hipster I'm just trying to explain how I see it)

This seems to me less like Toby Fox disapproving of fan works and more like him sort of trying to keep a bit of control over his baby outside of the indie world. Fanart is different from mass production. I mean... online, mostly everyone's heard of Undertale. And even if you haven't, if you see some fanart, it's generally made clear what it's fanart of. And the sort of people who tend to look at fanart online tend to also be part of the game's demographic. Whereas with something like, say, Minecraft, you see merch of it everywhere. Everyone knows what Minecraft is. And the overall feeling of the game is different, and that's why it works. There's no deep story there, and what there is, the merch's target audience (young kids, especially boys from what I've seen) are a bit less likely to understand or pay attention to it. The mood and story are less important to the game than the gameplay is.

Undertale has a sense to it. "Aesthetic" isn't quite the right word, neither is "mood", but it's kind of both. It has a very distinctive feeling to it, and I haven't even played it, but it comes across in everything I've seen/read/heard of it. And I think that's why it's so precious to Toby Fox, because he probably worked really hard to get that feeling the way he wanted it. And I don't think any kind of mass produced merchandise could really carry that feeling without losing something, the way you don't see that much Myst merchandise because the game is kind of like a multidimensional painting, and it's hard to make that appeal to mass audiences without changing it or downplaying some of it.
I dunno. I just don't feel like in this particular case, the game could be commercialized and have that commercialism retain the feeling that makes Undertale what it is. And I think that's why Toby Fox doesn't want it.

[Komori]

See, but it's not accurate that he doesn't want mass-produced merchandise. Fangamer's producing a licensed Toriel plush (albeit, slower than anyone's ever worked on producing a plushie in the history of ever, apparently), and they technically have shirts for sale, even though they've been sold out for months and no one's bothered to restock them.

If Toby didn't want any products made, in some sort of artsy statement, that'd be one thing. But he's trying to have his cake and eat it too; he's partnered with apparently the worst merchandise manufacturer I've ever seen, and while his singular partner stands around with their X in their hands, Toby's lashed out at any fans trying to fill the demand gap, and ALSO trying to claim some sort of artistic high ground by not working with larger retailers. THAT is my biggest problem with this whole scenario: it's just sheer hypocrisy.

[Zoey]

Jan 21, 2016 21:17:51 GMT -5 Komori said:

See, but it's not accurate that he doesn't want mass-produced merchandise. Fangamer's producing a licensed Toriel plush (albeit, slower than anyone's ever worked on producing a plushie in the history of ever, apparently), and they technically have shirts for sale, even though they've been sold out for months and no one's bothered to restock them.

If Toby didn't want any products made, in some sort of artsy statement, that'd be one thing. But he's trying to have his cake and eat it too; he's partnered with apparently the worst merchandise manufacturer I've ever seen, and while his singular partner stands around with their X in their hands, Toby's lashed out at any fans trying to fill the demand gap, and ALSO trying to claim some sort of artistic high ground by not working with larger retailers. THAT is my biggest problem with this whole scenario: it's just sheer hypocrisy.

Ah, well, I guess in that case it's more of a matter of, "I'm not a fan of commercialization, BUT if it's profitable..."

It does sound pretty off, being okay with merchandise partnerships, but not okay with fans making money from his work. Me, personally, if a fan makes products that have a significant amount of demand, I'd just approach that fan and ask if they want to do an actual partnership. Chances are, the fan will say yes, because who doesn't love the idea of doing actual business, getting more money and notoriety, and getting to work with something you love? But I suppose that's harder than just commissioning another (perhaps more hipster) company to create lower-quality merchandise. XD

[Nut]

Fans aren’t entitled to getting anything they want out of a creator. When they pay money for the product the creator is selling, they get exactly that product, no more and no less. A creator isn’t obligated to give the fans anything more than what they paid for, or create more things to sell, no matter how much the fanbase whines and complains and criticizes their business. Believe it or not, some people actually care more about the integrity of their work than about money, fame, attention, or satisfying other people’s demands.

And considering the immense pressure fans often put on creators, and how impossible it is to really control fanbases, I actually find it refreshing that Toby Fox is trying to maintain some level of control over how his work is used. Mainly, I’m curious whether it can actually be done. When a creator speaks up about their wishes, I am very curious how many people will listen and respect those wishes, and how many will disregard them because they get in the way of their own interests—because it gives me a sense of whether it’s worthwhile to speak up, or if we really should get used to the idea that after we’ve released something into the world, we are essentially dead. I’d like to believe that human nature isn’t so selfish as to believe that other people’s feelings don’t matter. If a creator spent a huge amount of hard work and energy making something you enjoyed, shouldn’t you want to respect their feelings about it, as the slightest measure of gratitude?

I agree that the official Undertale merch available is pretty paltry. But what I’m hearing from your argument is basically, “It would be okay if Toby Fox didn’t want to make merch at ALL as an artsy statement, but since he DOES have merch available, there should be BETTER MERCH!” ...So basically if you say “yes” to something one time, you have to say yes every time someone wants you to? I’m guessing Toby Fox is sticking with the one place because 1) he wants control over what’s produced, and 2) he isn’t that interested in making merch to begin with. If that’s how he feels, then the fanbase will have to accept that, in whatever measure they’re capable of.

It isn’t his responsibility to make his fans feel like they’re part of a community. It isn’t his responsibility to feed and grow the fanbase. When you do something that a lot of people happen to like, you don’t suddenly become responsible for making all of them happy. Their money and words of praise are not the only measures of success, and you have a right to decide not to chase after that.

Jan 14, 2016 0:09:25 GMT -5 Komori said:

Art is something that you release out into the world, and sometimes people are going to take it and run with it, possibly in ways you never planned or intended. But that's just how art is! If you didn't want anyone to take anything from your precious little piece, then you should put it in a closet. Hide it away from everyone, and periodically take it out so you can marvel at how special it is and then put it away again. Because if you really want a work to connect with people, you're going to have to be okay with the idea that some of those people are going to want to put it into their lives. And maybe you should help facilitate that, instead of trying to angrily take your ball back.

This is an extremely condescending way to talk about artists’ feelings about their own work. Art is a skill like any other craft. If someone spends their own time and money to build a bicycle, it’s their bicycle and although they can show it off and give their friends rides on it, nobody else is entitled to do anything with it. If someone takes off the seat or paints it pink while the owner’s not looking, whoever did it is a jerk, no matter how many times they say “Well, you shouldn’t have left it locked in your front yard where people could see it!”

If people are free to just take art and run with it however they see fit, what about the problem with reposting and editing artwork that’s been driving a lot of Japanese artists to take down their websites and stop putting their work online? This has been a huge problem as more and more Western people discover Japanese art sites and feel entitled to repost and share whatever they find. Japanese laws are very harsh about copyrights and people can literally get sued if their employers find their work floating around where it isn’t supposed to be. There are MANY artists who have closed their internet accounts and stopped putting work online because of this. So if you think people who care about what’s done with their art should just hide it away in a closet because people cannot be trusted to act decently, then congratulations! That’s EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO when people act like spoiled children who think a ball belongs to them just because it rolled into their yard.

Can it be controlled? No, it really can’t. Does it suck? Yes! Should artists just learn to suck it up? Most of them end up having to. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make things better, by learning to listen and respect creators’ wishes.

[Komori]

Your examples are extremely flawed. Physical items like bicycles are vastly different than ideas and stories. Art, music, and stories aren't a singular thing that can be destroyed or permanently changed. It's a flowing medium that MULTIPLIES itself, rather than remains in the singular. Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland, and now look at how that's multiplied! An infinite number of variations, things that stick closely to the source, things that barely hint at its existence but would be incomplete without it. Your bicycle example would be more apt that someone spends their time and money to build a bicycle, and other people see it in their yard, and decide to build their OWN bicycles, but maybe theirs are pink or made of wood or twisty shapes.

And your second example is also not the same. OBVIOUSLY it's wrong to take someone's work and repost it elsewhere without their permission. That isn't at all what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about fan art, where the fan artist DOES put in their own work, their own spin, and their own ideas into the concepts. You know, like your avatar and your signature, both someone else's ideas that you put your own work into.

I'm an artist and I have no problems buying lithograph prints of Nintendo concepts done in traditional Japanese Ukiyo-e style:
www.ukiyoeheroes.com/

Or buying scarves off Etsy that use the Ravenclaw's blue and bronze colors from the books rather than blue and silver:
www.etsy.com/search?q=ravenclaw%20book%20scarves

I have no qualms with custom handmade Pokemon plushes:
magnastorm.deviantart.com/gallery/12109030/plushies

But what, you're saying that no one should ever pay for a fan-made piece of work? Are you going to tell me that everything you own is official and licensed?



Honestly, I think art as a whole would benefit if more things were in the public domain. People do -fantastic- things with Alice in Wonderland. And the Mona Lisa. And Beethoven's music. What's the point of a copyright that lasts 70 years after I'm dead? It's just a stifle on creativity and it privatizes things that really belong to our culture as a whole more than any one person.

Feb 2, 2016 7:32:54 GMT -5 Nut said:

But what I’m hearing from your argument is basically, “It would be okay if Toby Fox didn’t want to make merch at ALL as an artsy statement, but since he DOES have merch available, there should be BETTER MERCH!”

Actually, my point was that he DOESN'T have merch available. Or, at least didn't until today, when Fangamer finally got off their butts and restocked some things. My point was that he theoretically was going to make merch, but did the triple-action of trying to take an artistic high ground against corporations, failing to actually get produced ANY merch that was promised, and then lashing out at fans trying to fill the void. It's just a dickish stance, is all.

[Nut]

Feb 3, 2016 0:36:02 GMT -5 Komori said:

Your bicycle example would be more apt that someone spends their time and money to build a bicycle, and other people see it in their yard, and decide to build their OWN bicycles, but maybe theirs are pink or made of wood or twisty shapes.

True, this is probably a better comparison (and as you mentioned, ideas are intangible, living things that are nearly impossible to compare to anything physical, so this is never going to be a perfect analogue). But what if the other people begin selling those bicycles and saying that they’re the same as the first bicycle? If the first person cares a lot about their bicycle looking and working exactly the way they built it, they may not be happy about being associated with the others, or other people imitating their work for gain. Do they have a right to tell those people to stop selling bicycles based on their design, considering those other bicycles wouldn’t even exist without the original? (I'm not necessarily looking for an answer to this, as I think the comparison's getting run into the ground; it's just something to think about.)

Feb 3, 2016 0:36:02 GMT -5 Komori said:

And your second example is also not the same. OBVIOUSLY it's wrong to take someone's work and repost it elsewhere without their permission. That isn't at all what I'm talking about here.

Both situations have to do with respecting creators’ wishes. Some people don’t mind when their art is reposted. The point is about getting permission, regardless of what is being asked. I would argue that if people are used to respecting creators’ wishes in one regard, they are more likely to respect them in others as well.

I’m well aware that my own art is derivative of other people’s ideas. But as far as I know, nobody ever told me, “Don’t do that.” I drew fanart of video games, which as far as I can tell has been encouraged; Nintendo’s official tumblr reblogs fanart. I drew and wrote things for Neopets within the rules they established for their own creative contests, and the site published my work, along with the work of most other people here. None of us, however, sell Neopets commissions—because we know TNT disallows it. Toby Fox has explicitly stated that he doesn’t want people selling merch based on his ideas, and that’s what makes the difference.

Also, Toby Fox is an indie developer, not a big company like Nintendo; profiting off his work is much more likely to affect him than it would a large corporation.

Feb 3, 2016 0:36:02 GMT -5 Komori said:

But what, you're saying that no one should ever pay for a fan-made piece of work?

No, I’m saying that if the creator expressly says they DON’T want people to sell fanmade pieces of work, those wishes should be taken into account. It would be different if the creator were giving permission or turning a blind eye; the latter would at least be the gray area that most people count on when they sell their fanwork.

Feb 3, 2016 0:36:02 GMT -5 Komori said:

Honestly, I think art as a whole would benefit if more things were in the public domain. People do -fantastic- things with Alice in Wonderland. And the Mona Lisa. And Beethoven's music. What's the point of a copyright that lasts 70 years after I'm dead? It's just a stifle on creativity and it privatizes things that really belong to our culture as a whole more than any one person.

That’s great, but not every artist has the same perspective. And just as you have a right to say, “Yeah! Make loads of merch based on my stuff!”, other artists have a right to say, “Hey, please don’t do that.” The point is that the artists’ wishes should be respected, whatever they are—and those wishes are different depending on the artist, because we are all individuals with unique views on the world. That’s the whole point of what makes art so special!

You think art would benefit if more things were public domain, but someone else might think art would benefit if there were fewer knockoffs in the world; there’s no absolute right or wrong because everyone sees things differently. I definitely agree that amazing things have come from alternate interpretations, but I also think it's well worth trying to keep the creators happy, because doing so makes them feel encouraged to produce and share more of their work. To some people, art is very personal, like sharing a sensitive story about yourself—and to have people interpret it differently from how you intended can be very hurtful, like when you’re trying to explain something to someone and they’re not listening at all. I’m not saying it can be avoided; I’m saying it hurts, and I understand why some people might want to try to protect themselves from that.

The point is that, whatever your position is, you have the right to say what you want to be done with your own art—and not anyone else’s.

Feb 3, 2016 0:36:02 GMT -5 Komori said:

Actually, my point was that he DOESN'T have merch available. Or, at least didn't until today, when Fangamer finally got off their butts and restocked some things. My point was that he theoretically was going to make merch, but did the triple-action of trying to take an artistic high ground against corporations, failing to actually get produced ANY merch that was promised, and then lashing out at fans trying to fill the void.

Ah, thanks for clarifying, I understand the problem now. Yeah, promising something and not delivering isn’t good practice.

At the same time, I can’t help feeling sorry because I know I’d hate to be in the position of having a personal project snowball into something massively popular and suddenly be getting pressured on all sides to do things with it and outline clear terms of use for fans who are running off with it in all sorts of wild directions. It sounds like an enormous headache.