Howdy yall!

Random question, do people draw fanart of NSFW OC's?

it's common for people to draw other's sonas on the SFW side of the art realm, but I don't really see fan art of others people's NSFW ocs, maybe I'm just in a bubble, or is there an unspoken rule that it's rude?

Just curious cause I'd definitely draw fanart of a couple of characters I've see around here lmfao (with permission of course!)

Also sorry if this should've been in questions/tags or off topic, I'm still trying to get a hang of the site lmao

Everything should be done with the character owner's permission and blessing, especially if it is a private/personal OC.
Though this is often overlooked for more "popular" characters that are part of a large media franchise (e.g., helluva_boss).

SFW artwork is mostly fine, but NSFW artwork of other people's OC tend to lean towards the "do not ever touch my OCs" or "please ask first" territory.
Nobody wants to see their private/personal OCs being engaged in sexual acts/fetishes that they themselves are not comfortable with.
This becomes especially problematic if they don't engage in that particular fetish and people approach or confront them for it.

Ask first. Sometimes you'll see someone give blanket permission on their reference or profile. Otherwise just ask.

Also like. If it's a matter of species, body type, or color scheme, taking inspiration isn't illegal.

While I agree you shouldn't do it without permission, I do have to question just where the line is. Nobody thinks twice about Kirk/Spock, Nick/Judy, etc, ok, fine, owned by corporations. Even though they may have have individual creators that technically don't "own" the character but put a may not be particularly happy seeing things like Young Nick/Koslov. Then you have things like Redwall porn. Huge media franchise now, but still the work of just one person, even if they're no technically his OCs (ok, fine, original author is RIP, insert a newer started-small-got-huge franchise here). Web series R34? Webcomics with self-inserts? Why is it only OK if it's something huge and popular? What if there's multiple creators and one says yes and the other says no?

I'd say that, explicit depictions of real people or 'sonas/personal avarars in any form should be strictly off-limits, unless the person directly states that they're okay with it.

for the most part, everything else is fair game, unless the creator states that they don't want that type of fanart.

kevsnowcat said:
While I agree you shouldn't do it without permission, I do have to question just where the line is. Nobody thinks twice about Kirk/Spock, Nick/Judy, etc, ok, fine, owned by corporations. Even though they may have have individual creators that technically don't "own" the character but put a may not be particularly happy seeing things like Young Nick/Koslov. Then you have things like Redwall porn. Huge media franchise now, but still the work of just one person, even if they're no technically his OCs (ok, fine, original author is RIP, insert a newer started-small-got-huge franchise here). Web series R34? Webcomics with self-inserts? Why is it only OK if it's something huge and popular? What if there's multiple creators and one says yes and the other says no?

Big media and artwork of someone's personal avatar have different expectations for audience engagement/interaction as well as different degrees of separation from the artist. It's like how there's different 'rules' for eating at a restaurant versus a friend's house or taking pictures of a singer's concert performance versus taking pictures of strangers on the subway. In short, We Live In A Society.

kevsnowcat said:
While I agree you shouldn't do it without permission, I do have to question just where the line is. Nobody thinks twice about Kirk/Spock, Nick/Judy, etc, ok, fine, owned by corporations. Even though they may have have individual creators that technically don't "own" the character but put a may not be particularly happy seeing things like Young Nick/Koslov. Then you have things like Redwall porn. Huge media franchise now, but still the work of just one person, even if they're no technically his OCs (ok, fine, original author is RIP, insert a newer started-small-got-huge franchise here). Web series R34? Webcomics with self-inserts? Why is it only OK if it's something huge and popular? What if there's multiple creators and one says yes and the other says no?

There is a fixed line on what is and not allowed. People can pretty much draw whatever they want without much control from the character owner/copyright holders.
Of course, proper etiquette requires you to ask for permission from all the creators. No matter it being a solo artist or group of artists, indie projects or major franchises.

The problem with not asking beforehand or assuming it is okay due to a the lack of an official response/everybody is doing it, you place yourself in a spot where you are obligated to remove all of your hardwork if they request you to do it.
Otherwise, you may face legal action from the copyright holder should they no longer want such content circulating online (e.g., see Paddington Bear DMCA or Nintendo's stance on fan content / topic #45404).

regsmutt said:
Big media and artwork of someone's personal avatar have different expectations for audience engagement/interaction as well as different degrees of separation from the artist. It's like how there's different 'rules' for eating at a restaurant versus a friend's house or taking pictures of a singer's concert performance versus taking pictures of strangers on the subway. In short, We Live In A Society.

But where is the cutoff point to where unauthorized OC fanart becomes acceptable vs not? If someone's OC blows up in popularity since some celebrity retweeted it out of boredom one day, should we still tolerate the creator demanding control of their character's image? Is the said character starring in a video game/TV show/movie the only "correct" way for the fanart etiquette coin to be reversed?

protogeneration said:
If someone's OC blows up in popularity since some celebrity retweeted it out of boredom one day, should we still tolerate the creator demanding control of their character's image?

yes, absolutely.

dba_afish said:
yes, absolutely.

In theory.
In practice: streisand effect

snpthecat said:
In theory.
In practice: streisand effect

I know, but if the goal is to not be an asshole, just don't draw stuff that the creator specifically states they're uncomfortable with.

if it's something owned by a corporation and the corporation says they don't like certain stuff I don't think you should really care ethically, though. in these cases you can reasonably assume the objections are probably more to protect brand identity or whatever than anything reasonable.

like, if Nintendo said they didn't like people drawing Pokémon porn I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with continuing. if Kazuyuki Kurashima said that he didn't like explicit art of greavard and houndstone, I think there sould at least be some consideration there.

protogeneration said:
But where is the cutoff point to where unauthorized OC fanart becomes acceptable vs not? If someone's OC blows up in popularity since some celebrity retweeted it out of boredom one day, should we still tolerate the creator demanding control of their character's image? Is the said character starring in a video game/TV show/movie the only "correct" way for the fanart etiquette coin to be reversed?

I agree with dba afish in that it OC wishes should be respected regardless of popularity.
But after a certain point you just lose control anyways then it snowballs from there. Especially if the OC becomes a meme in some capacity.

It's the consequence of internet fame I suppose.

protogeneration said:
But where is the cutoff point to where unauthorized OC fanart becomes acceptable vs not? If someone's OC blows up in popularity since some celebrity retweeted it out of boredom one day, should we still tolerate the creator demanding control of their character's image? Is the said character starring in a video game/TV show/movie the only "correct" way for the fanart etiquette coin to be reversed?

If a guy's selfie blew up as a meme and he did a guest appearance on a tv show it'd still be weird to take pictures of him without his permission. Now, it's a bit less creepy with OCs just because there IS a layer of separation, but it's still like. Leave people alone if they ask.

popoto said:
I agree with dba afish in that it OC wishes should be respected regardless of popularity.
But after a certain point you just lose control anyways then it snowballs from there. Especially if the OC becomes a meme in some capacity.

It's the consequence of internet fame I suppose.

I think a lot of OC protectionism stems from the fear of someone else doing their character "better" then them.

Take, for hypothetical example, someone creating a comic strip or a fanfiction of the OC that becomes the core fan canon for that character, and then people look back at the original artist's work and retroactively think the artist didn't "do enough" with their creations. i've seen quite a few OCs with genuinely interesting potential that are just used for pornography, and any lore that's added is ultimately filler that never gets paid off.

protogeneration said:
I think a lot of OC protectionism stems from the fear of someone else doing their character "better" then them.

Take, for hypothetical example, someone creating a comic strip or a fanfiction of the OC that becomes the core fan canon for that character, and then people look back at the original artist's work and retroactively think the artist didn't "do enough" with their creations. i've seen quite a few OCs with genuinely interesting potential that are just used for pornography, and any lore that's added is ultimately filler that never gets paid off.

I disagree. You greatly undervalue making something that's yours and having autonomy over it. There's a joy in that all by itself for many artists. A character becoming a communal OC takes away from it. Especially if the owner has specific ideas or intentions behind their OC. It's rare for someone to look at a popular OC and go "what a waste." Though that itself might simply be a prerequisite of popularity. OCs often get popular because they're used well.
But that also alludes to another very good reason to want at least some semblance of control: legal issues and drama. You wouldn't want some company or individual profiting off your OC or someone else stealing it.

Most of the greatest porn OCs I've seen have come with personality, which often includes some amount of lore.
I'm curious what you mean by paying off. Lore doesn't need to pay off. It's there to enhance & supplement pictures(or vice-versa). To stimulate the viewer's imagination.

protogeneration said:
I think a lot of OC protectionism stems from the fear of someone else doing their character "better" then them.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

protogeneration said:
Take, for hypothetical example, someone creating a comic strip or a fanfiction of the OC that becomes the core fan canon for that character, and then people look back at the original artist's work and retroactively think the artist didn't "do enough" with their creations. i've seen quite a few OCs with genuinely interesting potential that are just used for pornography, and any lore that's added is ultimately filler that never gets paid off.

I don't think I've ever seen anything like what you're describing. while I have seen instances where a fanwork, adaptation, remake, or derivative is seen as an improvement (in some ways or all) over the original, usually the creator is cool with it or is even willing to work elements in to their later works _{(ex. Gary Wolf; "Who Censored Roger Rabbit")}. in cases where an adaptation is generally seen as an improvement and the original creator dislikes it, it isn't out of jealousy but rather that the story, characters, or message had been changed in a way they disliked _{(ex. Roald Dahl; "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", Robert Heinlein; "Starship Troopers")}.

My point was not "do it anyway" but "why do we all expect people to respect it when some small furry artist asks you not to do it but everybody ignores it if Nintendo asks you not to do it and the fandom even gets bent out of shape when big companies start sending C&Ds?" OK, "big corporation" "nobody really owns it", so let's go smaller. If someone made Redwall porn within 30 minutes of the first book being released and he said don't do that we should respect it, but now that it's a giant franchise that's outlived the author, it's more OK to do it? I don't think there's an easy answer here.

I also it's very important to wait and see what the original creator feels before reacting. Back when Night in the Woods came there was an artist who went on a huge Twitter rant for days about people selling "NitW-style" icons and badges, that it was stealing money from the creator, that it's copy right theft, that it's offensive to all artists.

The original artist came out and said it was fine. That shut them up fast. Same thing with anti-repost artists. They don't have the right to speak for other people (and plenty of artists don't care seeing how many never post their own art here but aren't DNP), but they all do.

kevsnowcat said:
My point was not "do it anyway" but "why do we all expect people to respect it when some small furry artist asks you not to do it but everybody ignores it if Nintendo asks you not to do it and the fandom even gets bent out of shape when big companies start sending C&Ds?" So if someone made Redwall porn within 30 minutes of the first book being released and he said don't do that we should respect it, but now that it's a giant franchise that's outlived the author, it's more OK to do it? I don't think there's an easy answer here.

One of the biggest differences between a random OC owner and Nintendo is that Nintendo isn't a person. Another big difference is that Nintendo could sue you into bankruptcy for fun and then sue you some more.

popoto said:
I'm curious what you mean by paying off. Lore doesn't need to pay off. It's there to enhance & supplement pictures(or vice-versa). To stimulate the viewer's imagination.

It was a poor choice of words, ngl, In this case, actually making a difference in how the lore about their occupation and personality influences the character in their artwork and **actually seeing the said lore element be visually depicted in their art**. If you say x character works as a radio host and has a large community influence, you can't just have her act like a pornstar in every single piece she shows up in.

protogeneration said:
It was a poor choice of words, ngl, In this case, actually making a difference in how the lore about their occupation and personality influences the character in their artwork and **actually seeing the said lore element be visually depicted in their art**. If you say x character works as a radio host and has a large community influence, you can't just have her act like a pornstar in every single piece she shows up in.

A lot of those characters are used in roleplay which is where their bios and personality stuff comes into play. You're not going to see that stuff in action unless you rp with them. Commissioned art isn't the best place to see it largely because a single character in a simple gradient void background is significantly cheaper than a full scene.

kevsnowcat said:
My point was not "do it anyway" but "why do we all expect people to respect it when some small furry artist asks you not to do it but everybody ignores it if Nintendo asks you not to do it and the fandom even gets bent out of shape when big companies start sending C&Ds?" OK, "big corporation" "nobody really owns it", so let's go smaller. If someone made Redwall porn within 30 minutes of the first book being released and he said don't do that we should respect it, but now that it's a giant franchise that's outlived the author, it's more OK to do it? I don't think there's an easy answer here.

That question pretty much applies to any scenario comparing between small-time artists/small businesses and big-time artists/major corporations.
I have recently saw a post on Reddit where a shopowner stuck a notice on their store shelves that said something along the lines of "Please don't steal from us, steal from Walmart instead." when in reality you shouldn't be stealing from anybody at all.

The point is new and upcoming artists have much more to lose and would like to retain more control on whatever character/intellectual property they have, especially if it is their personal OCs.
On the other hand, popular or accomplished artists that have successfully gotten their stuff published worldwide or turned into a media franchise are more or less in a comfortable position that unauthorised fanarts of their characters are not going to have too much of an impact (unless they have an ethical obligation to stop certain kinds of art from being made).

So I ask you, which do you think will cause the most inconvenience to the artist?

• New artist starts a small series of artworks with characters they made and has gotten some attention, then some random artist creates a series of fanarts with the same characters and have gotten even more attention.
• The assumption is that attention now shifts to the second artist, and the opportunity has been lost for the first artist. Thus, the whole "copyright theft" and "anti-repost" sentiment.
• An artist does the same but has managed to turned it into a major media franchise instead (e.g., visual book series, web series, movie, etc.), then some random artist made fanart of it.
• The assumption is that the original artist already has a lot of attention for their franchise, and the fanart just takes a small part of it away.