The "Team Four Star" actors were blacklisted by Funi and Toei rumor

[Yuji]

Akira Toriyama, or any other artist that worked hard for their given intellectual properties deserve to have the finantial security their hard work provided

Yes, I agree?

You or anyone else dont get to profit off it.

Why not?

You sound so happy to just give away the rights to your life's work. I wonder how happy would you be if it actually happened.

You're not giving any rights away because you're still entitled to do follow-ups to your own work whenever you please. And once more, like I said repeatedly, copyright law is necessary in the current system to protect small, poor creators who live on their art; as far as I know, I'm not a millionaire. But to answer your point: as a PhD student and aspiring academic, I'm more than used to borrowing someone else's work as a basis for an essay or a chapter of my dissertation, and having the same be done with my published work, too. I likewise have a book in the works, and I'm not planning to keep exclusive rights on it, but ultimately that call will depend on my publisher since I don't have the kind of power to make those calls myself. Like JulieYBM said, mere acknowledgement of the original creator is enough for me.

If I were Toriyama, I wouldn't feel threatened by a competitor picking up my work and doing their own spin on it. As an artist, curiosity comes first. I'm not greedy enough to think I can keep ownership of an idea after deliberately sharing it with millions, nor arrogant enough to think nobody else besides myself can improve on it. This isn't to say Toriyama is greedy or arrogant; he, like many others, probably never thought of this and I would never criticize anyone for not relinquishing their IP while the current system is in place.

But when an idea is then turned into something produced and sold, the item is the public's but the idea, the intellectual property, belongs to the mind that made it. It's ethically dubious at best for someone to take your concept, make something out of it, and sell it without you seeing any profits for it - and thus, why laws are necessary to prevent that from happening. Someone can resell the physical product of which you've earned money for the intellectual ideas within that product, but they can't produce their own version with your ideas and sell it.

If someone wants to make something off your idea, then they should inject their own ideas into it and make it something their own. That's how innovation actually happens.

The "intellectual property," when a work of art is turned into a commodity to be bought, sold and shared around, is out there in the ether. The knowledge about the story of Dragon Ball and the character of Son Goku et all belongs to you and I, as well as Toriyama. He may be privy to the finer details of his universe than we are, but that doesn't matter because he hasn't inserted those details into the work he has published. Dragon Ball as experienced by millions was public domain from the moment it was published for the first time. How is it property when you can't safeguard knowledge?

Of course, that is why I keep saying various times over the course of this thread that copyright law is sadly necessary in the current system to protect small creators from having their work "stolen" (which I define purely as reselling/reprinting your work without any change, although I don't very much care if that happens to the rich and successful; the dent to their profits wouldn't be substantial enough to cause any harm). In a society which strives to move past material gain and profit, copyright law wouldn't be necessary because there would be no incentive to steal someone's work without any change and pass it off as your own.

Human knowledge is NOT a collective endevour.

There are plenty of ways to protect the idea without a third party like limiting distribution, etc. So what defines something as legitimately yours is that you have the ability to defend it? So if some big jackass takes my stuff and is better able to defend it, does that make them the legitimate owner? You do need the government involved regardless if it's tangible or not.

It absolutely is. Rarely does one individual achieve something substantial by his lonesome without any influence. Scientific advancements are the collective effort of various scientists, engineers, researchers and so on over the course of centuries in human history. Philosophy has progressed basing itself on continuous arguments, rebuttals and developments of the thinkers who came before. And art, too, is a product of various cultural and artistic trends and movements. Dragon Ball would not exist without the Journey to the West, it would not exist in its current shape without Toriyama's editors either. Shakespeare's plays would not exist in their current shape without the works he borrows from, which in turn borrowed from other stories, which themselves were influenced by the cultural and artistic trends at the time. Most of the Western canon can be traced back to the New Testament, which can be traced back to the Old Testament and Greek philosophy. So on, so forth. All of human knowledge is a direct or indirect product of prior knowledge. If you go back enough, you will return to the primeval man, who got his knowledge from his senses and experience but nevertheless passed them down genetically to his offspring; even ancient archetypal knowledge is a collective effort.

How do you limit distribution without a third party? Publishers are a third party, of course. If you self-publish, you are still sharing your knowledge with other individuals, then you are trusting their good will not to appropriate, replicate or share your work with other people. It is much simpler to draw a weapon and protect your land or physical possessions than it is to claim ownership over any idea.

I'm not judging property on the basis of who can better defend property. I am judging property on the basis if you even can or not.

[ABED]

Even though someone builds from prior knowledge, they are still the person(s) who take it that next step.

I am judging property on the basis if you even can or not.

Then you can defend anything. I can limit the people the consume my story. What makes something yours is that it is a product of your effort, and that includes mental effort.

which I define purely as reselling/reprinting your work without any change, although I don't very much care if that happens to the rich and successful; the dent to their profits wouldn't be substantial enough to cause any harm

In other words you don't care about principles. After a certain arbitrary point, a person doesn't deserve to have their rights protected.

In a society which strives to move past material gain and profit,

This isn't primarily about material gain, it's fundamentally about control. I don't think Bill Watterson cared much about how much he made, he simply wanted to keep control over his creation.

[Yuji]

Even though someone builds from prior knowledge, they are still the person(s) who take it that next step.

And they couldn't have taken that next step without building from my prior knowledge, and then that next step will become common knowledge and used in the future for the following next step.

Then you can defend anything. I can limit the people the consume my story. What makes something yours is that it is a product of your effort, and that includes mental effort.

Again, you can't defend an idea without the enforcement via a third party. Physical products of your effort like tables and cakes are sold and you can no longer claim ownership. The same is true of intellectual "property." Your work of art is a product of knowledge acquired through centuries of collective effort, anyway. If you wish to keep ownership of it, why not just draw/write/paint for yourself without sharing or selling? Many artists did this, in fact, and in that case I would agree that they do own their work - they own the only physical copies along with the information kept shut in their brain, none of it is floating around in the world for use and consumption.

After a certain arbitrary point, a person doesn't deserve to have their rights protected.

I don't think copyright is a right, we've gone over this. I think it's necessary, because it would be unethical to keep artists starving, but if they had the means to survive outside of their artistic work, then the abolition of copyright law would extend to everyone.

This isn't primarily about material gain, it's fundamentally about control. I don't think Bill Watterson cared much about how much he made, he simply wanted to keep control over his creation.

It's almost entirely about material gain but I concede that it may also be about control, a meaningless sense of control. You still keep possession of your work without copyright: you can publish a follow-up or a spin-off if you want, you don't need to stop others from doing the same.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Akira Toriyama, or any other artist that worked hard for their given intellectual properties deserve to have the finantial security their hard work provided

Yes, I agree?

You or anyone else dont get to profit off it.

Why not?

You sound so happy to just give away the rights to your life's work. I wonder how happy would you be if it actually happened.

You're not giving any rights away because you're still entitled to do follow-ups to your own work whenever you please. And once more, like I said repeatedly, copyright law is necessary in the current system to protect small, poor creators who live on their art; as far as I know, I'm not a millionaire. But to answer your point: as a PhD student and aspiring academic, I'm more than used to borrowing someone else's work as a basis for an essay or a chapter of my dissertation, and having the same be done with my published work, too. I likewise have a book in the works, and I'm not planning to keep exclusive rights on it, but ultimately that call will depend on my publisher since I don't have the kind of power to make those calls myself. Like JulieYBM said, mere acknowledgement of the original creator is enough for me.

If I were Toriyama, I wouldn't feel threatened by a competitor picking up my work and doing their own spin on it. As an artist, curiosity comes first. I'm not greedy enough to think I can keep ownership of an idea after deliberately sharing it with millions, nor arrogant enough to think nobody else besides myself can improve on it. This isn't to say Toriyama is greedy or arrogant; he, like many others, probably never thought of this and I would never criticize anyone for not relinquishing their IP while the current system is in place.

But when an idea is then turned into something produced and sold, the item is the public's but the idea, the intellectual property, belongs to the mind that made it. It's ethically dubious at best for someone to take your concept, make something out of it, and sell it without you seeing any profits for it - and thus, why laws are necessary to prevent that from happening. Someone can resell the physical product of which you've earned money for the intellectual ideas within that product, but they can't produce their own version with your ideas and sell it.

If someone wants to make something off your idea, then they should inject their own ideas into it and make it something their own. That's how innovation actually happens.

The "intellectual property," when a work of art is turned into a commodity to be bought, sold and shared around, is out there in the ether. The knowledge about the story of Dragon Ball and the character of Son Goku et all belongs to you and I, as well as Toriyama. He may be privy to the finer details of his universe than we are, but that doesn't matter because he hasn't inserted those details into the work he has published. Dragon Ball as experienced by millions was public domain from the moment it was published for the first time. How is it property when you can't safeguard knowledge?

Of course, that is why I keep saying various times over the course of this thread that copyright law is sadly necessary in the current system to protect small creators from having their work "stolen" (which I define purely as reselling/reprinting your work without any change, although I don't very much care if that happens to the rich and successful; the dent to their profits wouldn't be substantial enough to cause any harm). In a society which strives to move past material gain and profit, copyright law wouldn't be necessary because there would be no incentive to steal someone's work without any change and pass it off as your own.

Human knowledge is NOT a collective endevour.

There are plenty of ways to protect the idea without a third party like limiting distribution, etc. So what defines something as legitimately yours is that you have the ability to defend it? So if some big jackass takes my stuff and is better able to defend it, does that make them the legitimate owner? You do need the government involved regardless if it's tangible or not.

It absolutely is. Rarely does one individual achieve something substantial by his lonesome without any influence. Scientific advancements are the collective effort of various scientists, engineers, researchers and so on over the course of centuries in human history. Philosophy has progressed basing itself on continuous arguments, rebuttals and developments of the thinkers who came before. And art, too, is a product of various cultural and artistic trends and movements. Dragon Ball would not exist without the Journey to the West, it would not exist in its current shape without Toriyama's editors either. Shakespeare's plays would not exist in their current shape without the works he borrows from, which in turn borrowed from other stories, which themselves were influenced by the cultural and artistic trends at the time. Most of the Western canon can be traced back to the New Testament, which can be traced back to the Old Testament and Greek philosophy. So on, so forth. All of human knowledge is a direct or indirect product of prior knowledge. If you go back enough, you will return to the primeval man, who got his knowledge from his senses and experience but nevertheless passed them down genetically to his offspring; even ancient archetypal knowledge is a collective effort.

How do you limit distribution without a third party? Publishers are a third party, of course. If you self-publish, you are still sharing your knowledge with other individuals, then you are trusting their good will not to appropriate, replicate or share your work with other people. It is much simpler to draw a weapon and protect your land or physical possessions than it is to claim ownership over any idea.

I'm not judging property on the basis of who can better defend property. I am judging property on the basis if you even can or not.

But that knowledge (The whole thing about information from other students who graduated) is not a narrative nor is copyrightable stuff. Sure, I massively agree and I hope that one day my thesis will help others learn and even graduate. But its a RESEARCH you explicitly set out to make available yourself. Akira Toriyama didnt consent to that for example. And not just Akira Toriyama. Any mangaka, NO, any artist that put literal blood, sweat and tears and did not consent to give away their life work is under no obligation to do so. The money excess is more understandable. But their intellectual property. NOPE.

[Yuji]

Akira Toriyama didnt consent to that for example. And not just Akira Toriyama. Any mangaka, NO, any artist that put literal blood, sweat and tears and did not consent to give away their life work is under no obligation to do so. The money excess is more understandable. But their intellectual property. NOPE.

Of course he did. He published Dragon Ball, did he not? Millions of people have experienced, didn't they? Shueisha hired a fan-artist to write the follow-up supervised by him, didn't they (I don't remember if Toyble was selling AF, but I don't feel that diminishes the point)?

I don't think you can argue in good faith that Toriyama is incredibly protective of his work considering he doesn't own exclusive rights to it (Shueisha, Toei animation, Namco Bandai, FOX, Funimation, Fuji TV etc all have their share), he has passed the torch along to Toyotarou and had to suffer from editorial supervision all throughout Dragon Ball's run, a manga he lazily drew and wrote mostly to pay the bills. Sure, he definitely feels some degree of love for Dragon Ball considering the effort he put into it during his run and he felt compelled to return following DB Evolution, but Dragon Ball was never his passion project.

You're right that nobody should be forced to give away their life's work. I'm arguing that if you keep it private, you're not going to be forced to. If you make it public, then you are giving it away voluntarily because you can't claim ownership of an idea. After you make your ideas public, people will inevitably do what they want with them and the only way to stop them is through government violence. That's not freedom. You have the choice and the freedom to share your ideas, if you try to control what people do with them afterwards, then that's just tyranny.

[jjgp1112]

The "intellectual property," when a work of art is turned into a commodity to be bought, sold and shared around, is out there in the ether. The knowledge about the story of Dragon Ball and the character of Son Goku et all belongs to you and I, as well as Toriyama. He may be privy to the finer details of his universe than we are, but that doesn't matter because he hasn't inserted those details into the work he has published. Dragon Ball as experienced by millions was public domain from the moment it was published for the first time. How is it property when you can't safeguard knowledge?

Dragon Ball doesn't belong to me. I watch it and form thoughts on it. It's Akira Toriyama's concepts and creations, and we're nothing more than an audience to it. I am, as James Todd Smith would put it, only a customer.

[Yuji]

Dragon Ball doesn't belong to me. I watch it and form thoughts on it. It's Akira Toriyama's concepts and creations, and we're nothing more than an audience to it. I am, as James Todd Smith would put it, only a customer.

Dragon Ball belongs, in part, to Toyotarou now, who was just a customer as you or I. Dragon Ball's creator is Akira Toriyama, but Dragon Ball belongs to the people who have worked on it and, yes, to the people who experience it and decide to do their own spin on the story. That's just the nature of ideas, they spread, they're molded, they're borrowed and improved on. Dragon Ball as a group of ideas is no different.

[jjgp1112]

Dragon Ball doesn't belong to me. I watch it and form thoughts on it. It's Akira Toriyama's concepts and creations, and we're nothing more than an audience to it. I am, as James Todd Smith would put it, only a customer.

Dragon Ball belongs, in part, to Toyotarou now, who was just a customer as you or I. Dragon Ball's creator is Akira Toriyama, but Dragon Ball belongs to the people who have worked on it and, yes, to the people who experience it and decide to do their own spin on the story. That's just the nature of ideas, they spread, they're molded, they're borrowed and improved on. Dragon Ball as a group of ideas is no different.

Yeah, but Toyotaro and those who work and produce it actually go through the avenues to actually have the right to benefit off of that.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Akira Toriyama didnt consent to that for example. And not just Akira Toriyama. Any mangaka, NO, any artist that put literal blood, sweat and tears and did not consent to give away their life work is under no obligation to do so. The money excess is more understandable. But their intellectual property. NOPE.

Of course he did. He published Dragon Ball, did he not? Millions of people have experienced, didn't they? Shueisha hired a fan-artist to write the follow-up supervised by him, didn't they (I don't remember if Toyble was selling AF, but I don't feel that diminishes the point)?

I don't think you can argue in good faith that Toriyama is incredibly protective of his work considering he doesn't own exclusive rights to it (Shueisha, Toei animation, Namco Bandai, FOX, Funimation, Fuji TV etc all have their share), he has passed the torch along to Toyotarou and had to suffer from editorial supervision all throughout Dragon Ball's run, a manga he lazily drew and wrote mostly to pay the bills. Sure, he definitely feels some degree of love for Dragon Ball considering the effort he put into it during his run and he felt compelled to return following DB Evolution, but Dragon Ball was never his passion project.

You're right that nobody should be forced to give away their life's work. I'm arguing that if you keep it private, you're not going to be forced to. If you make it public, then you are giving it away voluntarily because you can't claim ownership of an idea. After you make your ideas public, people will inevitably do what they want with them and the only way to stop them is through government violence. That's not freedom. You have the choice and the freedom to share your ideas, if you try to control what people do with them afterwards, then that's just tyranny.

No! That's bullshit! I would be more sympathetic if you were like Julie and genuinely cared about the poor and needy. But you want to steal someone else's work. Even if its as lenient as Toriyama and lets fans do the work for him? Why cant it be that way? Fans handpicked by Toriyama doing the work. I had been wanting to use that argument before you did. Toyotaro works under the auspices of Toriyama. There is no need to steal his work.

EDIT:Also Toyataro is an OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE. He's not and I quote "A Costumer". Sure he impressed Toriyama with his fanwork. But why cant just fans work under the auspices of the original creator then surely?

[Yuji]

Dragon Ball doesn't belong to me. I watch it and form thoughts on it. It's Akira Toriyama's concepts and creations, and we're nothing more than an audience to it. I am, as James Todd Smith would put it, only a customer.

Dragon Ball belongs, in part, to Toyotarou now, who was just a customer as you or I. Dragon Ball's creator is Akira Toriyama, but Dragon Ball belongs to the people who have worked on it and, yes, to the people who experience it and decide to do their own spin on the story. That's just the nature of ideas, they spread, they're molded, they're borrowed and improved on. Dragon Ball as a group of ideas is no different.

Yeah, but Toyotaro and those who work and produce it actually go through the avenues to actually have the right to benefit off of that.

Right, but those avenues are unnecessary and, frankly, unethical. Fan artists still exist. They make their own works based on the works they like and sometimes they sell it for profit. Much of the discourse in this argument has been based around the idea that artists should be rewarded for their effort, is it not, then, unethical to punish the efforts of artists who go through lengths to make their own fan manga or videogame or painting or whatever, just because they didn't think of the concept first? Is that effort not real or somehow less valid? Are the profits of billionaires and corporations that important that we justify striking fan-artists trying to make a living down?

No! That's bullshit! I would be more sympathetic if you were like Julie and genuinely cared about the poor and needy. But you want to steal someone else's work. Even if its as lenient as Toriyama and lets fans do the work for him? Why cant it be that way? Fans handpicked by Toriyama doing the work. I had been wanting to use that argument before you did. Toyotaro works under the auspices of Toriyama. There is no need to steal his work.

EDIT:Also Toyataro is an OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE. He's not and I quote "A Costumer". Sure he impressed Toriyama with his fanwork. But why cant just fans work under the auspices of the original creator then surely?

I don't see how you've interpreted that I am anything less than caring for the poor and needy. I'm not profiting off of Dragon Ball or anything else.

Toyotarou wouldn't work under Toriyama if he hadn't been a fan artist first. The idea that people should be allowed to appropriate someone else's work to show off their own talents is the very reason Toyotarou was hired to begin with. It proves that ideas freed from intellectual monopolies can be improved on.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Ok point taken. That is more fair.

EDIT:And there's doujins and fanfiction and all. Those are fine by me. Those are creative works that do work on your premise.

[jjgp1112]

Right, but those avenues are unnecessary and, frankly, unethical. Fan artists still exist. They make their own works based on the works they like and sometimes they sell it for profit. Much of the discourse in this argument has been based around the idea that artists should be rewarded for their effort, is it not, then, unethical to punish the efforts of artists who go through lengths to make their own fan manga or videogame or painting or whatever, just because they didn't think of the concept first?

No, it's not unethical. If they want to be rewarded for their effort on a large and more direct scale, then they should levy their inspiration into their own characters and stories. Or, get the permission of the one who made the idea they're using.

Now obviously there's a grey area - I don't think a fan selling some comic or fan art they made of Dragon Ball is an actual threat and I do hate say, Nintendo's draconian stance on that stuff, trying to prevent it from even existing. But it is their right. I write DB fan fiction - would me selling it to a few dozen people actually damage Dragon Ball? Probably not. But I also know the consequences if someone with the sayso felt differently. It is what it is.

[marumuju]

Fan art is generally allowed in the manga world to certain extent (for example Comiket wouldn't really be possible if doujinshi based on the existing series would be banned). It keeps the fans happy, and doesn't do that much harm since for example a porn parody generally isn't sold by the same number of units as a regular tankoubon would. Out of sight, out of mind. But TFS has millions of views on their videos, and has a big reach in Youtube, and as such, hurts the anime profits since they have big chunks of the animation uploaded. Changed and parodied yes, but not enough to make it into a completely original product. TFS knew what they were getting into when they started DBZA.

Since Toei has purchased the anime rights, they have the right of controlling the aspects they wish to control. It is within every creator's rights to defend their intellectual property (if they haven't sold their rights away), but the smaller entities may not have the means (or even want to) to make use of lawyers. But it is their right, as much as the larger companies. It must also be remembered that companies put massive amounts of money on the big IPs, so they are also entitled to the gains if there are any. Although, one is able to give everything away if they want to do so. That is also their right. If someone wishes to profit more seriously, then they should, as jjgp1112 very well said, 'levy their inspiration into their own characters and stories'.

And the citation right exists so that reasonable amounts of copyrighted content can be shown in a research article. This so that a work can be used to benefit the society, but even that doesn't give permission to share an entire book. That is just sharing for the sake of sharing. The intertextuality also works now, as even passages from another texts can be used on another creative product, if it is not found excessive. Sometimes it is no value to go to court over something, but overt plagiarisation is a different matter, since artists' product is the design, the story, the characters. Usually they are made into products, such as books or films. Unless a story or design is applied into those, we have books with blank pages and films with nothing but a dark screen. Might be useful for note-taking or a moment of introspection, but it would get terribly old at some point.

Also, talking of Toyotarou, Naho Oishi or others as fan-artists has passed. They are artists who work in an official product. They have been hired to work on it. The fan-manga they have done previously has of course given them a step up on the selection process, but the rights holder has chosen to ignore that, and given them the permission to profit from the official product by the work they put in it.

[UltraInstinctRorikon]

Being that people use Team Four Star to rewatch the series as their main way to watch it does substantial damage to the profits in the west.

[Adamant]

Fan art is generally allowed in the manga world to certain extent (for example Comiket wouldn't really be possible if doujinshi based on the existing series would be banned). It keeps the fans happy, and doesn't do that much harm since for example a porn parody generally isn't sold by the same number of units as a regular tankoubon would. Out of sight, out of mind.

Yes. In specific, Japanese rights holders and Japanese fandoms generally operate with an unofficial agreement that while all these fan products aren't actually legal, as long as the fans keep to their fandom circles and in general keep quiet about their works, the rights holders will just pretend they never see any and everyone's happy. Fans get to make fanwork and share it with other fans without the rights holders coming knocking, and the rights holders get happy fans that want to support the franchise with their money.

What TFS is doing is so RIDICULOUSLY far removed from what's considered normal courtesy and acceptable fan behavior there's absolutely no reason for Toei to treat them with anything but contempt. Had they been located in Japan and thus caught Toei's eye earlier, they'd have been shut down HARD long ago with how they're acting.

[The Monkey King]

Being that people use Team Four Star to rewatch the series as their main way to watch it does substantial damage to the profits in the west.

Original DBZ and DBZ Abridged are in two completely different genres and provide different forms of entertainment, someone in the mood to watch a sci-fi comedic parody like DBZ abridged would be far more likely to watch Rick and Morty than they would the original DBZ.

[UltraInstinctRorikon]

Being that people use Team Four Star to rewatch the series as their main way to watch it does substantial damage to the profits in the west.

Original DBZ and DBZ Abridged are in two completely different genres and provide different forms of entertainment, someone in the mood to watch a sci-fi comedic parody like DBZ abridged would be far more likely to watch Rick and Morty than they would the original DBZ.

As seen by many fans using Abridged canon as the actual canon proves that's not true.