![]() ![]() ![]() Personally, I just think that unless an artist gives express permission for their work to be altered or represented in a different form, or used as a means to create other works as a launchpad/springboard, then a work shouldn't be touched by any one/party outside of the original artist/creator or those who have its direct blessing. What I do care about is artistic control and who exactly has the say in said artistic control. I don't even care for Super Mario 64 honestly lol. This doesn't make me a "corporate shill" or "bootlicker", I just genuinely feel that if a person/group/company creates a product/property/etc., then unless they give express blessing of community power over the product/property, then they should retain total control over how their product/property is edited, altered, and presented to an audience.Ĭlick to shrink.It's mostly a philosophical thing. In the relationship of creator -> consumer, I am very much more on the side of creator than I am consumer. The majority of video game players are 100% directly opposed to my stance on this, that the ability for the community to modify and edit a work is more important than artistic control held by the creator itself. That's why I came in the thread, not because I'm interested in the project itself, but I'm interested in the philosophical impact of things like this, people justifying their existence, and who truly owns the right to control/shape an intellectual property. In fact, I'm pretty philosophically against such things. ![]() You're right, I don't really care about fan re-appropriations of works/mods in themselves. How has the source code been obtained legally exactly? How does that work? Just because it doesn't contain any Nintendo crafted assets that were included in the original code, and they've been recreated, isn't it still essentially a duplication of their software/IP? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |