Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ogdibus]

Sorry about doing this after the thread got re-railed.  At least the top part might be of some use when we get in to "how severe is this problem?" arguments.

This is where I take issue. Never mind that a black man is also a man,

The point is not to separate "black men" from "men".  It is intended to point out that they are disproportionately affected.  If you aren't aware of the disparity, it makes it very difficult to determine the cause, and an effective way to reduce the rate of homicide. 

This isn't just important for murder statistics.  There are huge disparities in income, the draft, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.  In all cases, having darker skin means having things worse, but often white, or lighter skinned groups will use statistics including all races in order to make their own situation seem more urgent.  When there are racist intentions, you'll then see the the separate statistics for different races, and the difference will be used as "evidence" that one race is better than the other because they have more favorable numbers.

but it's a bit presumptuous to take all of this data and dream up the motive for each of those crimes.

I said "because" not "motive".  Cause and motive are not the same thing.  The distinction is important because "cause" is a much broader concept.  I did not dream up any motives.  Cause is also potentially much more complex in this case, but it is something that is studied, and my claim is based on the reporting of the outcomes of those studies, and sometimes seeing the actual study.

Just to clear it up before it needs to be addressed specifically, I probably shouldn't have used the term rivalry.  I was looking for a single word that means "this person is in the way of me getting something that I want" or "this person is a threat to my well being or interests".  In both cases it is a person that is known to the perpetrator.

[DJ]

How about sorting by socioeconomic status? Black people might be disproportionately affected because of a high poverty rate.

[Neonivek]

Her other possible examples are the Dinosaur Planet / Star Fox one. But it's already been covered why, even if it had been made, Dinosaur Planet would have triggered other things that Anita hates, so her "sounds cool, right" line rings hollow

It also doesn't count because it doesn't exist. Also she was speaking more of how female characters get replaced by male ones.

People tend to refute her claim by saying that Fox's inclusion wasn't because "Eww women", it was remade for brand recognition. It wasn't about gender

To cement this She also forgot that Dinosaur planet has two protagonists and the other was male.

---

This is actually frustrating. She really has no real example of her ideal in any of her videos, essays, even a blog post?

[Reelya]

A new topic I discovered. Apparently Anita has stepped on all sorts of toes. Not by calling out sexism., but by plagiarizing artwork (and video footage) uncredited from youtubers' Let's Play videos and feminist gamers/fan artists. Actual feminist gamers.

http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

Which is the icing on the cake with the Kickstarter money. She has all that money, yet she gets continued to use stolen artwork afterwards and won't answer any inquiries by the content creator.

I made a point of never picking any bones about her getting that money as donations (it's a free world and people knew what they were donating to). lifting entire passages from wikipedia is one thing, that's public domain and a legitimate research resource. Let's Play videos are another grey area: the "let's player" doesn't own the original artwork, but arguably adds some creative element.

But the above, it's a case of blatant plagiarism of someone else's artwork. Another woman, and a geek feminist presumably. So we have this faux geek feminist literally ripping of actual geek feminist's cool original artwork:

So… I just found my old Dragon’s Lair fanart is being used without my permission in advertising for a very successful Kickstarter project… since 2012.

I don’t know how to approach this. On one hand, the project had a message I can identify with. On the other, no credit was given, my signature was removed, and they made $150k+

(To be fair: My memory is fuzzy, but I don’t remember giving permission and haven’t found any e-mails yet reminding me that I did. :/ )

Silliest Part: they stole my fanart (drawn by a me, a woman and freelance video game artist) to use in marketing material to illustrate sexism in video games. Was it assumed that a man had drawn it, and so it would be ok to use without permission to illustrate a point?

So, basically, if something is sexist, Anita thinks it's ok to violate copyright, for commercial gain. Effectively her position is that if she doesn't like something it's fair game to appropriate things illegally.

[Neonivek]

Anita stealing things to make her videos isn't anything new though.

[penguinofhonor]

This is where it was brought up last I think

[Reelya]

Yeah sorry I hadn't kept up with the info so this was news to me. Hmm they did get some follow-up with Anita. But it was pretty dismissive. Then her producer basically tweeted that they had no case, completely in the third person, like this artist doesn't even deserve to be personally addressed. Anita's male producer mansplaining to a feminist in a passive-aggressive manner, why the appropriation wasn't illegal or unethical.

[Neonivek]

Their defense is that the video series is non-profit I believe.

Mind you it is kind of a Jerk move...

But as I said Anita stealing things to make her videos isn't unusual. She does it with letsplays as well.

---

Hey did you know my Schools actually have to pay a licensing fee just to show videos in school?

[lijacote]

Oh, yes, thank you XXxXSephurlolxxXx for Mario, it is the best game series! Your property, right? Cool.

[Neonivek]

Oh, yes, thank you XXxXSephurlolxxXx for Mario, it is the best game series! Your property, right? Cool.

If you make a remix for a song, you own the remix... you don't own the original.

The owner of the original cannot, for example, start using your Remix.

[Reelya]

That's correct. The creator of a Let's Play is actually using "fair use" legitimately: they acknowledge what is copyright, but they own the unique footage they create.

In the exact same sense that you own whatever unique content YOU created with any piece of software. Games are not treated differently to other bits of software, in a legal sense - it is the content within the game that is subject to copyright and fair use , not how you use it.

But appropriating someone else's Let's Play video and claiming Fair Use extends to the entire work without referencing the creator of that video is actually illegal. It's only "grey" in the sense "these poor schmucks won't have the money to sue me".

[Neonivek]

Lijacote is saying that she cannot own that picture of the Female Princess in Dragon's Lair (goodness I cannot remember anyone's names in that game... Dirk Danger and... Princesswhatshername?)  because she doesn't own the character.

Thus using her picture is perfectly valid.

[Reelya]

I think he was sticking to the Let's Play videos, which are a murky area.

Someone's original drawings or paintings, even if based on a trademark character (princess Daphne btw), are a different matter - there's no "grey" there. Don't steal peoples artwork.

[DJ]

Their defense is that the video series is non-profit I believe.

How is it a non-profit when it got so much money? Since that money is obviously not going into covering expenses of the project (if she steals art like that, chances are the games she needed for research came from the Pirate Bay), where the hell is it?

[Reelya]

That seems to be the question the artwork creator is asking. You can't just say "non-profit fuckers!" then no laws stick to you, and you can just sit on massive wads of cash.

You actually have to register as a non-profit organization with the tax office in your country and get the legal paperwork, and there are strict requirements of how you account for inflow and outflow of cash.

http://www.feministfrequency.com/donate/

If you look at the donation page they claim to be tax-deductible. So I presume that's all legal. It would be jail time if you defrauded that.

But, you know what? I kind of doubt that copyright laws don't apply to non-profit charities. It just doesn't work like that, and Anita's lot are just giving that artist the run-around because they know she's in no position to sue them. You have to actually acknowledge the creator for "fair use" to apply.