NO ONE UNDERSTANDS CLOSED SPECIES
It seems that on the modern "art community" there are two groups of people. The first would say "CLOSED SPECIES ARE STUPID AND I HATE THEM U DON'T OWN THE CONCEPT OF A CAT WITH HORNS" and the second "This is my original species: CATSWITHHORNS. IF YOU CREATE A CHARACTER THAT RESEMBLES A CAT AND SEEMS TO HAVE HORNS I'M HARASSING YOU. ALSO THEY'RE A MILLION DOLLARS".
This black and white view of the topic has been driving me insane for years. So i'll write about it. First, what is a closed species?
A closed species is essentially a design a person creates and gives its own identity. If someone wants to create/own a character using the specific rules of the design and claim it's official, they have to buy it or otherwise gain access to it by the species creator.
What people assume this means is: Person A creates "felicorn"1 species. Felicorns are creatures that resemble cats and have horns. 1 horn is common, 2 horns is uncommon, 3 horns is rare. And similar rules. Person A now believes they own the concept of a cat with horns and is within their right to harass anyone that makes something remotely similar.
The thing is, that's not really how closed species work, if you look a bit deeper. It's true some closed species creators were (and are, allegedly) problematic and would harass people for, in this case, having an unofficial Felicorn.
But let's see it from another perspective. Disney owns the rights to Mickey Mouse 2. This means you can't draw cartoon mouse wearing pants and claim it's Mickey Mouse. Makes sense, right? You are free to draw the mouse, you just can't claim it's an official Disney product, because well, it isn't.
So by that logic it seems more reasonable to say i can't draw a horned cat and call it a Felicorn. Because it isnt! Person A can make Felicorns as unique as they like, add lore, add more rules, but ultimately what makes a Felicorn a Felicorn is that person A created the species, owns the creative rights and by extension decides what a Felicorn is and who owns one.
Obviously, this doesn't mean person A can just harass people for making a character that just happens to be a cat with horns. It's just wrong, and honestly, ridiculous. Harassment doesn't even serve person A's interests. It makes the whole community look bad, it becomes the thing people remember. Person A becomes the story, not the actual species. And then one bad actor doing this poisons how everyone perceives closed species as a whole. No one deserves to be harassed just for drawing and not hurting anyone. And beyond being wrong, it's just self-defeating.
It does not help that the general public's view of closed species is so uninformed. "It's dumb", okay, but that doesn't sound like you know what closed species actually are beyond having seen some drama about them. "It limits creativity", it really doesn't? You can draw whatever you want. You just can't claim it's something it isn't. "You don't own the concept of a cat with horns", correct, and nobody is saying otherwise. Person A owns the rights to a specific design, not the concept of horned cats as a whole. And "they're too expensive" is the one i'll give you the most ground on, but art is not a necessity. It ultimately doesn't matter if someone prices a character design at 300 USD, especially when there are people who are completely willing to pay for it, people who are aware of what they're buying,not manipulated, and in full control of their own money. That's their choice to make.
In the end, the real villain here is misinformation. A few bad actors taint a whole community, people don't bother researching the thing they're criticizing, and social media does what social media does: "everyone is hating on closed species, their owners apparently doxx people, It must be true so i'll repeat it!" And look. We've all done this. I've done this. It's embarrassingly easy to do. But there's something genuinely worth practicing in questioning the takes you see before you adopt them as your own. Even if you end up exactly where you started, even if you end up agreeing that closed species are stupid, at least it'll actually be your conclusion. And you'll have real arguments to back up your opinion.
Reply via email
Felicorns are made up specifically for this example and any resemblance to a real closed species is coincidence.↩
Let's keep it simple and not mention the Steamboat Willie situation.↩