Welcome to our Project Educate Week! Fan Art's week will last from today December 5th 'til the 11th and in this week we will do our best to explain and clarify all the aspects regarding Fan Art that might be confusing to you. We will also be giving you a lot of interviews with Fan Artists all over deviantART and Art features for your pleasure and enjoyment!
You can see a list of events prepared for each day as well as the past events in ^rydi1689's journal
Without further ado, I consider Fan Art Project Educate Week OPEN!
Everyone loves Fan Art but, what is it exactly?
Fan art includes those artworks that are based on or contain material such as characters, settings, concepts or universes in general that are copyrighted to someone else other than the artist creating said Fan artwork.
Fan art is a concept that varies a lot depending on the person referring to it, but this week our aim is to teach you what we consider to be Fan Art within our department. New generations are to come and this concept might evolve as they do and change to fit everyone's needs better, always with your feedback close at hand.
I think I should put this here for you all to read since I believe it's the most heart-warming definition of Fan Art you will ever read, and it's definitely true:
"Fan Art is a way to show appreciation for someone else's creation. It is a way to express your love for your favorite book that you grew up reading, or a way to draw your favorite video game character in a kick-ass new setting that goes well beyond the original creator's universe. You are passionate about Fan Art because you know it is one of the deepest ways to pay tribute to something that has inspired you.
The root of it all is love, gratitude, and the desire to create more than what was originally handed to you and that is what we all should be passionate about when we create fan art, fan fiction and when we are browsing deviantART's galleries stocked full of beautiful fanwork."
Don't you just feel the love and passion springing out of her words?
There are a few points that we will be covering in the upcoming days but most of these will be explained here:
Fan Art vs. Official Art
Art of someone's OCs
Art of an OC based on a pre-existing universe (usually known as Fan OCs)
In my year as GM I've noticed that this is one of the parts about Fan Art that confuses people the most. Many deviants have come to me with the same question "Is my drawing of my friend's Original Characters Fan Art or is it Original art?" and the answer is pretty simple. Yes! If you draw your friend's characters, your artwork qualifies as Fan Art since you're making art of something that is copyrighted to someone else. Easy, right?
OCs based on pre-existing universes -aka Fan Characters-
At first sight this one might seem a bit confusing. An original character based on a pre-existing universe is nothing more than a character you've created to exist in the world of your favourite movie, tv show, manga, etc. A clear sample of this case are all the Naruto based Original Characters, they are original because they do not appear in the show, they were created by the artist from scratch, but they are based on the Naruto universe, they are ninjas or are related to them, they use the overall designs from the series and if you know the original story you will recognize these easily. Yes, these are also Fan Art! If you're using copyrighted elements in your artwork, such as the designs of the ninja techniques or clothing, their ranks and other specific terms from the original source, then your work belongs in Fan Art! This also applies to sceneries and settings, if you place your Original Character in a copyrighted setting, such as Pandora from Avatar, or Soul Society from Bleach, that also makes your artwork Fan Art . :thumb188007721:
Art of Real people and Celebrities
This one is another factor that people don't seem to be aware of when submitting their artworks, but we don't give it much importance because we believe it's best to leave it up to people's free will and interpretation. However, when we receive Daily Deviation suggestions we usually explain the deviant in question why we don't consider it to be Fan Art and therefore why we forward the suggestion to the correct GM. Still, we don't move the deviation from the Fan Art gallery because what we consider to be fan art and what they consider can be different and it's just a matter of interpretation. Art of real people is not considered to be Fan Art because real people, regardless of how famous they are, can't be copyrighted and therefore it wouldn't fit with the definition of Fan Art I gave you at the beginning of the article. As mentioned above, Fan Art is a concept that varies greatly depending on who's speaking, some consider that Fan Art is any artwork made by a fan of something, be it copyrighted or not. This is the reason why we don't move artworks of real people (including famous people) out of the Fan Art gallery. Your artworks featuring real people should be placed in the digital art, traditional art or any other main root that is not Fan Art depending on the media you used to create your artwork. A sample that I always use to enlighten this case is the Johnny Depp vs. Jack Sparrow one. Johnny though he's a very famous person- can't be copyrighted, however, his role as Jack Sparrow can and is, in fact, copyrighted. Therefore I can't DD a work depicting Depp but I can DD a work depicting Jack, same face but a huge difference! ;
Fan Art vs. Official Art
will be discussed on another day, including features and a possible interview with a great artist working on the game industry! Stay tuned!
This concludes the Introductory article to Project Educate's Fan Art week! You can learn more about Project Educate in projecteducate's profile
My dream is to become a Volunteer on dA in the category Fan Art someday ^^. That's why I'm reading old articles of former CV of Fan Art, in order to learn a little more about the great work of Volunteers and enrich my current contributions in the Fan Art . I want to be Volunteer because I love performing Fan Art (from small) and because I want to continue my contributions to the deviantART community
I agree that the definition is different depending on the person. It is similar to the definition of art itself. It has a unique meaning, has several assessments according to the person and we all think differently from the other person. For me art is a way of expressing my thoughts and emotions, while for another person the art is that which allows develop the imagination and exploit heretofore unsuspected, for others the art is a useful tool to educate society about the values, etc. And I think that art can also bring all these aspects, each as important as the other.
I never thought that art that is performed of a real and famous person is not considered Fan Art, but after reading this article I give you the reason. There may be some confusion because we are expressing bigotry by a famous person, like a fictional character. But I think being Fan of someone fictional is very different from being a fan of a real and famous person.
Keep doing your best, learning more about the fan art community, strive to be a guiding light for them! I hope you become a great CV and reach all of your goals If there's anything else you want to know about fan art let me know
I think still better create a specific category for pure Own Creations/caracters pictures. Use the root/main source of the picture(digital/tradicional) to determinate seens a less focused than fanart category itself.
at last a good info indeed. still I will need change all my pictures category to digital/tradicional.
Welll it wasn't that good of an idea to begin with, and I know it's not mythologically correct...but I wanted to do like a little Medusa who's vulnerable, blindfolded and scared or the scary snakes in her hair
It's okay I kinda want to do Voldemort as a child for the childhood memories contest...
Oh you were talking about the childhood memories contest? Well if you base the medusa in the ones appearing in recent movies like Clash of the Titans, or even in Hercules, you could have it qualify as fan art . Voldemort is a good choice too!
If it's a mythological character from a real myth then it's not fan art. But if it's a myth created in a series, then it'd be fan art. But yeah, the good ol' mythology isn't copyrighted (as far as I know) so it is not necessarily fan art unless you want to categorize it as such
This was so helpful. I was having a hard time trying to figure out whether the characters in my super long pokemon story were fan characters or not because they aren't in the pokemon universe, they all just play a lot pokemon games. But I guess they are fan characters. so thanks.
"It is a way to express your love for your favorite book that you grew up reading" Wouldn't it be illustration rather than fanart? I believe that is a different form of art, if it is based only on someone's written work. I've always associated fanart with a work that already exists visually, something that has been drawn/designed/painted by someone else, be it a picture, a movie, a video game or what have you. But if it is literature, you create the illustration. What do you think?
I've seen people writing fan fiction of movies, animes, or even someone on deviantART's drawings. And I've seen people drawing fan art of someone's fan fictions, original books... But I've also seen people making fan fiction based on someone else's fan fiction and same with art.
- Fan Fic out of original books...etc - Visual fan art out of original books...etc - Fan Fic out of visual art/fan art or other fan fics - Visual Fan Art out of Fan Fics or other visual art
Fan Art comes in all forms and it's not restricted to any
OK, you mean to say that your definition of Fan Art includes written works, fiction. It's obvious. My point was that book illustration is not the same as fan art, it's a completely different form of art and it is original.
No, no, if you are drawing something based on a description from a book that is copyrighted, no matter how you might redesign it, if the character doesn't belong to you then it is not an original illustration but fan art
In order for it to be an illustration it needs to be either made up entirely by yourself (not basing it on anything) or either based on a story that is no longer copyrighted such as Lewis Carrol's Alice in wonderland.
If you are referring to the art that is contained in published books for example children books, then no that is not fan art.
if you are drawing something based on a description from a book that is copyrighted
Every published text is automaticly copyrighted. It's the same if you publish it on paper and sell in bookstores as if you publish on the internet.
no matter how you might redesign it
How can I redisign something which doesn't exist? If you write something, you own the copyright to the text, the order od words as it were. You can't copyright an idea or a vision, only the manner of expression may be subject to protection. You own the right to the text and that's it. If I decide to draw something inspired by a text, it's my own creation, it's original work and it's copyrighted to me. Polish copyright law states: The work which has been created under the inspiration of another author's work shall not be deemed the derivative work.
If you are referring to the art that is contained in published books for example children books, then no that is not fan art.
So if it's published in books it's illustration but if it's, say, a painting on canvas it's fan art? I'm not sure what you meant.
In order for it to be an illustration it needs to be either made up entirely by yourself (not basing it on anything)
An illustration not based on anything is something of a contradiction in terms, don't you think? The purpose of an illustration is to illustrate. Wikipedia says: An illustration is a displayed visualization form presented as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that is created to elucidate or dictate sensual information (such as a story, poem or newspaper article) by providing a visual representation graphically.
So, I'm going to keep my opinion on this. If you create a graphical work of art which is ispired by a written work, you create something original and you own the copyrights. And it's not fan art, it's illustration.
You didn't get a single word of what I said or at least what I wanted to convey .
I'll explain again.
If you read Harry Potter's books, and you read for example, Hermione's description and you decide to make a drawing of your vision of Hermione, that is fan art. Even if you have never seen an image of her, and even if you are just taking your inspiration from the organized letters of her description, if your finished work is meant to be Hermione, your work IS fan art, and there's no avoiding it unless you go and call her something else.
If you read Harry Potter and it inspires you to create a character that is also a wizard but has nothing to do with Harry potter or anything related to it (be it the school they study in, the name of the spells, the name of the families etc) then that IS NOT fan art, that is a complete original illustration that you own copyright to (meaning that you can sell it freely, fan art shouldn't be sold without the author's consent, though not many people do it).
Next point "If you are referring to the art that is contained in published books for example children books, then no that is not fan art.
So if it's published in books it's illustration but if it's, say, a painting on canvas it's fan art? I'm not sure what you meant."
I think this is the part where you understood the least from all I said.
If you are hired or you are working on a children's book because you want to (whatever the case) and you make the illustrations without basing them on something that is copyrighted (or that is in Public Domain), that is not fan art, unless you go and make a children's book with visual representations of Harry Potter's content, that would still be copyrighted and you'd need permission from J.K. Rowling in order to publish it. Note that everything is copyrighted nowadays but the content of said copyrighted books might not be property of the publisher but someone else, meaning they had to ask for permission in orther to use said material in their now copyrighted books (in this case said material is not copyrighted to them but still to the original author, for which you'd have to ask permission if you too wanted to use those materials) or else they took said materials from a previous work that is in the Public Domain.
What is a good sample of what I'm trying to clarify? Disney. Disney's movies well known by everyone aren't fully original either, they were based on stories created by other people whose copyright expired and therefore were in Public Domain, these can be used freely without being considered fan art nor needing to pay any royalties for their use. Disney took these stories and redesigned them, creating their new material which IS copyrighted. What does this mean? IF you make a drawing based on the original story of Alice in wonderland by Lewis Carrol, which is in the Public Domain, your work is NOT (necessarily) Fan Art, BUT if you make a drawing based on Disney's take on Alice in wonderland, which is copyrighted, your work IS fan art since the material you are basing it off is copyrighted to someone else.
If you are hired by Disney to make an artwork based on their take of Alice in wonderland that is NOT fan art.
Being inspired by a work is not the same as actually basing your artwork on said work. The first is not fan art, the second is. If you're inspired but you create something new that has no obvious connection to the source of the inspiration, it's illustration. If you take obvious elements and descriptions and include them in your artwork, that is fan art.
I hope I managed to clear things a little, but I wouldn't really use Polish law as an argument because this is deviantART and deviantART is based on the USA Laws not on Poland's so what deviantART considers fan art to be and what Poland, or you in this case, consider to be fan art might differ. (I'm from Spain so my own laws might differ as well, but I am abiding by deviantART's since I am working as a volunteer for their fan art Gallery).
Let me know if you'd like me to try and clarify something else
This article provides a clear distinction between original art and fan art. I think this needs to be read by everyone in this community. It's definitely a topic that should be voiced out in a larger fashion.
You're tone in this article is surprisingly uplifting! Usually these sort of topics are written as rants with an arrogant tone that detracts from the overall the purpose. Good job.
On the subject of education, and I know this will come off as very know-it-all and anal, but the word /till/ means to plow the earth. You used it improperly in your tutorial. The word you were looking for was /'til/, which is the abridged form of until.
Now that you know this, you're going to see it everywhere.
Sorry, just had to say something. That drives me nuts. However, this was very enlightening. Thank you.
Lady Gaga is a difficult term in Fan Art She's a celebrity so artworks of her wouldn't really be fan art, but then again the lady isn't called lady gaga for real and all she does is like 'interpreting a character' so it could be debatable whether Lady Gaga art is or not fan art, to our standards that is.