Has TFS damaged the reputation of the franchise in the U.S.?

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

Everything's subjective until someone enjoys things in a different way than you do. Then suddenly they're wrong.

I'll admit to that flaw many times, but not all the time. There are times when I think "I know, taste is supposed to be subjective, but how can you not see how bad/good this is?"

I actually think it's interesting when people have wildly conflicting ideas about the quality of something. In theory it makes for great debate, but in reality often turns ugly.

[rereboy]

Your argument is needlessly nitpicky and says people don't like the things you like because they aren't looking at it right because SCHOLAR EEEEYE and apparently there are two types of CONSUMER EEEEYE (why are these divisions even necessary)?

You invalidate the very notion of the subjectivity you're arguing by needless categorical divisions that exist entirely to say "No, you only dislike what I like because you are looking at it incorrectly." If things were subjective, why would either of us be looking at the product wrong?

It's just a drawn out way of saying "people who don't like what I like must have a problem that prevents them from enjoying it", rather than just admitting maybe some people don't like the same thing you do and just because they can say why doesn't mean they have some mental handicap that prevents them from the sacred joy you have.

Everything's subjective until someone enjoys things in a different way than you do. Then suddenly they're wrong.

No, I only explained why certain stances sometimes ruin a show for someone who might otherwise enjoy it with another stance. But there's nothing stopping someone from having the proper stance and not liking the show.

I didn't dwell on subjectivity because that wasn't the point I was trying to make and it was rather obvious that I wasn't trying to say that the enjoyment of the show would solely depend exclusively on the stance we have towards it.

You continue to ignore what I say and just talk non-sense that hardly has anything to do with my point. You are definitely best left ignored.

No I didn't. It's possible, just not been my experience that people watch something with the intention of analyzing it the first round, nor do I think it's the right thing to do when you are watching or listening to something. I'm sure it happens, I never claimed it didn't.

Then why you even have a problem with me saying that if a person does that it most probably would be a problem for their enjoyment of the show?

You say that people are different, you admit that people can very well act just like it was described, and then when I explain that that most likely would be a problem for the enjoyment of the show, your argument is that is not logical for someone to do that and that in your experience most don't do that?

How is that argument logical based on what I said? I never argued how many people do that at all, I just argued that if they do that, it would be a problem. And yet your response is based on the quantity of people doing it or not doing it. Like I said, whatever you say... I feel that by now, in all my posts combined, I've properly explained my opinion on how stance can affect the enjoyment of a comedic show when we first encounter it and afterwards when we re-watch it, and I'm satisfied that I expressed myself regarding it so my purpose in the discussion is fulfilled.

[ABED]

How many people do you know who do that, or is it just a hypothetical?

I just argued that if they do that, it would be a problem.

Perhaps there are some that are always analytical, but to them, maybe that's the joy they get out of it. Who in the world knows? Again, not all people are the same. Just because you can't see how it wouldn't be a problem doesn't make it so. You're simply deducing that it would be a problem. I will agree that it's improbable that it leads to greater enjoyment, it's hard to quantify something like that so all we can do is speculate.

[Cursed Lemon]

I'm just laughing over here because this entire thread has been a stunningly predictable exercise in people grossly overvaluing their ability to tear something down while at the same time completely forsaking the given responsibility to build it back up again in a useful way.

Or, more simply, armchair directors.

[rereboy]

How many people do you know who do that, or is it just a hypothetical?

Obviously it aims to be a general rule, like its exceedingly clear from all that I have said so far.

[ABED]

How many people do you know who do that, or is it just a hypothetical?

Obviously it aims to be a general rule, like its exceedingly clear from all that I have said so far.

Through what, a deduction, observation? You are clear, but you don't say how you reached this "rule" of human behavior.

[rereboy]

How many people do you know who do that, or is it just a hypothetical?

Obviously it aims to be a general rule, like its exceedingly clear from all that I have said so far.

Through what, a deduction, observation? You are clear, but you don't say how you reached this "rule" of human behavior.

Are you serious????? .

I reached it by LIVING and forming an opinion about it. Obviously you couldn't reach that conclusion by yourself, we have to debate it.......

I'm out.

[ABED]

I reached it by LIVING and forming an opinion about it. Obviously you couldn't reach that conclusion by yourself, we have to debate it.......

Good bye the, but I don't even know what this means I'm just kidding, of course I do, but it's the pot calling the kettle black.

[damn]

TFS is kinda funny sometimes...but it's nowhere near as funny as the Original Ocean and Funi Dubs(both of them)...I always laugh my ass off at Freeza's Gay Lines,Your father was a brilliant scientist,I'll send you to another dimension etc...and just the overall amateurism of those early dubs creates a wonderful comedy that TFS can never hope to recreate

[Videlphia76ers]

Isn't using something to pay for your own living expenses, not the production, qualify as "profit"?
Just reading through this wild thread and that was a question that came up. If it's educational (like this entire site) then it'd be safe under fair-use and all that but beyond are some real grey areas.

[Ajay]

From what I understand, TFS do not earn money through advertisements on their videos. That's what their 'non-profit' intro refers to, I believe. Outside of that, they make their money through merchandise and spin-off videos that consist of original content.

[dbgtFO]

Outside of that, they make their money through merchandise and spin-off videos that consist of original content.

Their merchandising uses the likeness of Dragon Ball characters on shirts for example. Isn't that a no-go too, or a grey area?

[Videlphia76ers]

Outside of that, they make their money through merchandise and spin-off videos that consist of original content.

Their merchandising uses the likeness of Dragon Ball characters on shirts for example. Isn't that a no-go too, or a grey area?

No-go because it is not for educational purposes. Also legally the "non-profit" should maybe be changed to "not for profit"
http://www.idealist.org/info/Nonprofits/Basics1

[Ajay]

Outside of that, they make their money through merchandise and spin-off videos that consist of original content.

Their merchandising uses the likeness of Dragon Ball characters on shirts for example. Isn't that a no-go too, or a grey area?

It's a very complicated issue that pretty much boils down to - yes, it's not strictly legal but unless you anger the beast, you're probably okay.

I believe, if they wanted, Toei (or whoever holds the copyright) could put out a cease and desist. Most companies are very lenient which is why you see a huge amount of fanart being sold without issue. It's usually when the work uses official logos or depicts the characters in a light that would be harmful to the overall image of the series (hentai, for example).

Looking at TFS' store, I don't really see anything that would trigger a band of lawyers heading their way. It's all inoffensive references to their show featuring art created entirely from scratch.

This video is pretty useful - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKBsTUjd910 - it's an hour long lecture from DeviantArt's lawyer.

It talks about how the courts look favourably on parody and that crossover and extremely transformative work generally works in favour of the artist.

[Attitudefan]

Artists are the original maverick trouble makers and men in suits have crushed the spirit of creativity in the 21st century. I appreciate how informative the video is but it saddens me. I wish I lived in a different decade when this kind of bureaucracy was not feared but challenged. 

I agree to an extent. Art is expression, and censorship of art could be considered totalitarian. Funny how the West fought for this kind of stuff in the last few centuries to now having the center of the "West", the USA, the most prone to fakery (how all liver performances are lipsynced today except for older talent of 30 to 40 years ago and longer), and heavy censorship (violence, sexuality and sexual conduct, religion, Political Correctness).

The one problem I have for TFS is their use of the original footage and making money off of that.... that's plagiarism since they didn't produce any of it. Re-editing doesn't count. Remaking scenes from scratch would be fine, but not re-using the footage, then after gaining recognition (when they were still doing it for free), making merch off of the footage they don't own.

Redrawing/Remaking characters/scenes/the whole show is okay in my opinion. That is art. Stealing footage from something else, re-editing it labled as a parody, then subsequently making money off it has some moral practices that should be questioned. It's like if an artist traces something to the point except for a new hair style, or if I took Rembrandt's paintings, re-edited it by putting a moustache on it because it is funny, and the selling it or its likeness for profit is WRONG! That's essentially what TFS is doing RIGHT NOW.

There's a difference to referencing material and making it your own (Warhol's work with Tomato Soup, which is perfectly fine and morally okay!) then stealing it (Such as painting over a painting with some minor edits then selling it as my own work as it is parody... which it isn't since I'm taking the material source as my own). I hope my examples make sense, because that is essentially what TFS is doing.

[Adamant]

The one problem I have for TFS is their use of the original footage and making money off of that.... that's plagiarism since they didn't produce any of it. Re-editing doesn't count. Remaking scenes from scratch would be fine, but not re-using the footage, then after gaining recognition (when they were still doing it for free), making merch off of the footage they don't own.

The general issue behind it is that selling fanart is making a profit off things that are popular and have the buy-willing audience they do because other people spent a lot of time and money creating and marketing the material.

It's true that most license holders are pretty lenient when it comes to small-time fanworks since attacking your fans with lawsuits never looks very good, but "this person quit his day job and made a career of selling products with designs featuring characters and imagery our company created and made popular" would probably hold up pretty okay in court.

[rereboy]

I agree to an extent. Art is expression, and censorship of art could be considered totalitarian. Funny how the West fought for this kind of stuff in the last few centuries to now having the center of the "West", the USA, the most prone to fakery (how all liver performances are lipsynced today except for older talent of 30 to 40 years ago and longer), and heavy censorship (violence, sexuality and sexual conduct, religion, Political Correctness).

The one problem I have for TFS is their use of the original footage and making money off of that.... that's plagiarism since they didn't produce any of it. Re-editing doesn't count. Remaking scenes from scratch would be fine, but not re-using the footage, then after gaining recognition (when they were still doing it for free), making merch off of the footage they don't own.

Redrawing/Remaking characters/scenes/the whole show is okay in my opinion. That is art. Stealing footage from something else, re-editing it labled as a parody, then subsequently making money off it has some moral practices that should be questioned. It's like if an artist traces something to the point except for a new hair style, or if I took Rembrandt's paintings, re-edited it by putting a moustache on it because it is funny, and the selling it or its likeness for profit is WRONG! That's essentially what TFS is doing RIGHT NOW.

There's a difference to referencing material and making it your own (Warhol's work with Tomato Soup, which is perfectly fine and morally okay!) then stealing it (Such as painting over a painting with some minor edits then selling it as my own work as it is parody... which it isn't since I'm taking the material source as my own). I hope my examples make sense, because that is essentially what TFS is doing.

No, it doesn't make sense. Pretty much anyone can sell merchandise that references franchises or works of art. See this T-shirt website for example: https://www.qwertee.com/tees/previous/all. On that note, how many altered images of Mona Lisa have we seen being sold in T-shirts and the like? But according to you, that's "wrong". Well, if you truly think so, then where do we draw the line? Should all merchandise that references in any way any franchise or work of art be illegal without paying royalties? How about cosplayers? Who gave them permission to wear that design? How about comedians? Who gave them permission to make a reference to a plot point of a movie or book? See how quickly it becomes absurd...? As long as its only a reference to a franchise or work of art, in parody style or similar, even if it uses a portion of the original work, there is nothing wrong and if we put that in question, then it quickly becomes a slippery slope and quickly anything and everything is not allowed in true totalitarian fashion.

Its precisely because of concerns such as these that notions like "fair use" exist in the law, allowing people to use portions of the original work for purposes of commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching and such. So, even from a legal point of view, what you consider wrong, aka the use of portions of the original work, is perfectly acceptable within those purposes.

So, obviously, there is nothing wrong with them selling the merchandise they sell which references the franchise and their fan parody dub.

As for the episodes themselves, the use of portions of the footage is irrelevant because of what I already stated, because it has been pretty much completely reworked and because they aren't selling it at all.

It's true that most license holders are pretty lenient when it comes to small-time fanworks since attacking your fans with lawsuits never looks very good, but "this person quit his day job and made a career of selling products with designs featuring characters and imagery our company created and made popular" would probably hold up pretty okay in court.

Not really, unless you want to include "that guy who teaches modern literature and frequently quotes portions of modern poems and books in his class without paying the authors" or "that guy that became a comedian with jokes about pop culture and franchises and has sketches that have parodies about them" and such.

Fortunately, the law is not that ridiculous.

[Adamant]

Not really, unless you want to include "that guy who teaches modern literature and frequently quotes portions of modern poems and books in his class without paying the authors" or "that guy that became a comedian with jokes about pop culture and franchises and has sketches that have parodies about them" and such.

Fortunately, the law is not that ridiculous.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Quoting other people's work for the purpose of educating a paying audience or making a referential joke to someone else's work to an audience paying to hear your jokes is one thing, and definitely falls under fair use. Making significant profit from drawing fan art of other people's creations and selling them is another. The difference between a bootleg Dragonball poster and a poster print of a piece of Dragonball fanart is mostly just the scale of the production and the level the artist likes the franchise.

[ssjjanemba]

TFS aren't really that funny anymore. Their best stuff was during the saiyan saga.

[VegettoEX]

TFS aren't really that funny anymore. Their best stuff was during the saiyan saga.

While you're certainly welcome to feel that way and express your opinion on the quality of the work, that's not what's being discussed here. If you wish to talk about the series itself, its own respective general discussion thread would be more suited to that.

Additionally, I would caution people with no legal background to be... well... cautious with what they toss out there in terms of legal discussion they simply have no background in. Armchair lawyer-ing isn't necessarily something that can get you in trouble, but it sure is a good way to show a total lack of understanding of both domestic and international copyright law.