>>4911172It puts restrictions on creatitivty. If an artist has a good idea that uses a pre-existing fictional setting or character as a framework, they should be allowed to make it.
Moreover, say an artist creates a character while under the employ of a major company. Under contract, that company retains all of the rights to that character, and if that artist breaks away from the company, he is no longer allowed to use that character for anything. Say the artist isn't happy with the direction the company is taking the character. In that case he just has to grit his teeth and bare it, because he is not legally permitted to show his own version of the character, his own vision for the character he created.
And, if you're worried about an idea being stolen, that is something that can ONLY happen so long as copyright laws are in place. Say an artist creates a character, but doesn't date or publish the creation. Another artist working for a major company sees that idea and copies it, and that character gets published under the name of that company. The original artist is now no longer allowed to publush his own character, because a company he never even worked for published it first, effectively stealing the idea away from the artist. Again, this is only possible while copyright laws are in place.
>limitation improves creativitySELF IMPOSED limitation improves creativity, censorship stifles it.
Take Inktober, for example. One of the rules of Inktober is that you can only use ink, and artists that participate in it can come up with interesting concepts and images because they willingly imposed a restriction on themselves. But now imagine that instead of a fun thing people can do, this restriction is now a law. From this day forward, all art must be done only with ink. This stifles creativity.
cont.
