Post #1 (Lexxy) - note that the original post has a couple more paragraphs at the end which were edited in later that clarify stance on commissions; I’m not sure how much later this will happen.

No Selling MSPA Stuff Without Andrew’s Permission I just got finished updating the MSPAF rules, but since this is SUPER relevant to a lot of people who follow my tumblr, I thought I would post this here as well. Andrew has informed me that his official stance on the selling of any artistic products or services related to MSPA is that it may only be done with explicit permission from him himself, and only him. This includes everything; prints, commissions, plushies, stickers, buttons, cosplay items, everything. I’m not posting this to call people out. I’m not posting this to look down on you or scold you if you have done or are doing these things. Up until now this has been a HUGE grey area, so I don’t think anyone should feel persecuted or targeted by this. However, I think the fact that Andrew has had to step up and make an official statement means that it has become a problem one way or another, and I think from here on out everyone should do their best to respect his wishes. If you wish to use Andrew’s IP for any sort of profit-turning endeavor, you’ll need to contact him directly. I know he’s busy, and I know he’s been super hard to get a hold of lately, but this is what he has requested. Also, please don’t ask the modmins or members of the creative teams to appeal to him on your behalf either. That really puts them on the spot, and it’s not a fair thing to ask of anyone (even your friends). This doesn’t prevent you from making fan art or plushies or costumes for your own personal enjoyment, you just need to have his permission to sell it, which I think is perfectly fair and right.

This is a really big, really clear sign of a changing relationship between Hussie and their fans. Obviously this change hasn’t happened overnight, and there are a huge variety of factors that have slowly influenced this shift - increasing size of the fanbase, complaints about updates slowing down, fan behavior at conventions, any number of other things. But in their 2-year anniversary newspost, Hussie said ‘I've kept Homestuck's fire hot; its gaping furnace was hungry for coal so I got goddamn shoveling. But you have been responsible for breathing life into this monstrous organism which surrounds me, and now in its breadth transcends my work entirely’ and goes on to express unambiguous gratitude for the contributions of fans and the way their work has contributed to Homestuck’s rise. Six weeks later, they’re drawing a firm line between themself and fans, they’re making a statement they know will be unpopular, and they’re rescinding this overt support of fan creations.

I saw some speculation that Hussie’s new statements are in response to Gaia Online putting Homestuck items in their store, but that’s categorically not the case – at least one fan has already reached out to Hussie for permission to sell small-scale, bespoke items and been told no, so this is targeting individual fans, not just large companies. So if I had to pinpoint one thing that happened during those six weeks that might have caused this, it’d be this.

In mid-May of 2011, the Homestuck fanbase on 4chan tracked down Hussie’s current girlfriend online, publicly exposing her Tumblr and Twitter profiles despite the fact that she was trying to stay private and engage in Homestuck fandom without the reputation of dating its creator. She’s been handling it extremely well all considered; she hasn’t gotten angry about the stalking and has even opened up a Formspring to take questions and answer the ones she’s comfortable with. But, I think a group of people stalking her online and taking away her privacy was unacceptable. And I can see why Hussie would feel personally upset by that in a way they haven’t about other fan behaviors, since it targets someone they care about, and why it might lead to a shift in their relationship with the fan community at large. Notably, they haven’t commented on this at all, despite being generally willing to comment on drama that affects them. Whether or not I’m right about this being the trigger, I still don’t support this copyright crackdown, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

Post #2 (Lexxy)

The best way to get in contact with Andrew… …is by e-mail, which is linked through his name on every single newspost on the front page of mspaintadventures.com! I think it’s readily available enough that I don’t need to go propagating it further via tumblr. I’m sorry guys, I know this is not what most of you wanted to hear at all :c

Post #3 (Lexxy)

These things aren’t forbidden, guys. He’s just asking you to ask first. Is that really such a big deal? And what’s all this about lawsuits? No threats are being issued here. No one is being persecuted. I don’t think anyone in their right mind with any knowledge of the way the internet works would even pretend to think they can actually enforce something like this. It’s just the honor system, y'all. A matter of respect. He makes this comic for you to read and enjoy, I think you can do him the courtesy of asking if you’d like to sell something featuring the content he’s created.

After some confusion, questions, understanding, uproar, and a variety of other reactions, Lexxy clarifies a couple things – first, where to direct inquiries about potentially selling MSPA merch, and second, a clear softening of the original post. The stance has gone from a firm ‘this can only be done with Hussie’s permission’ to a vague ‘it’s not going to be enforced, but asking would be nice’. The second post definitely implies that an email will be answered, and the third implies that it’ll be answered with a yes in most cases. But by two days later, May 30, at least one fan has reached out and been told they’re not allowed to sell plushies. So, while it may well be completely unintentional on Lexxy’s part, there’s definitely a miscommunication here, which is where Hussie themself has to step in.

Post #4 (Hussie) – I’ve numbered some paragraphs so they’re easier to refer back to, because it’s a pretty long statement.

Formspring question of the day: What have you wanted to do for years but haven't gotten around to yet? I am using the Formspring "Question of the Day" to field the issue that has come up about other people selling Homestuck stuff. Word about this was kindly spread by Lexxy, here: http://lexxercise.tumblr.com/post/5923809387/no-selling-mspa-stuff-without-andrews-permission [1] Here is a thing to understand first. If you accept a commission to draw a Homestuck character without my permission, does that mean I will file a cease and desist order? Or if you sell an HS sketch at a convention, will I hunt you down, kick over your table, and then muss up your hair and stomp on your glasses? No, that would be silly. [2] I just clarified what the official position is, which is that you shouldn't attempt to profit from my work, or anyone else's for that matter, unless you have permission. It's not that I'm suddenly outraged people are doing HS commissions and stuff. I've previously taken an ultra passive attitude to all this. But the result of that, as well as the result in HS's growing popularity, has been a surging culture of casual copyright violation, which though seemingly harmless case by case, in totality is starting to look problematic. In particular, it seems to be leading to increasingly flagrant violations here and there, things which are more serious than a simple commission, and which I would be inclined to take measures to stop. It's easy to see how this trend develops. Someone notices wave after wave of HS artwork being sold by others, and presumes it's ok to take it a little further. And then further... [3] I think it's better to address this before it turns into a bigger problem. Honestly, the theoretical money I am losing is not what is motivating me here. When you do an HS commission, I can't really imagine how that translates to dollars leaving my pocket, other than projecting losses in the very big picture if stuff like that goes unchecked. It's mainly a little unsettling to watch so many people at once act so casually about profiting off another's IP without asking, and even more unsettling to imagine it spiraling out of control. [4] It may be the case that a sketch of a Pokemon sold to your friend is an unenforceable violation, and Nintendo will never get involved, but it is still technically a violation. Please understand the fact that it is unenforceable does not make it less of a violation. You have profited from Nintendo's property, without permission. Which is not to say there are not degrees of violation beyond this which are more flagrant, but we should be clear about it. Knowing that, you might decide to do it anyway. Or you might decide to ask Nintendo permission. (They would say no. I might not, though.)

[Formatting break since this site won't allow too long an indented section.]

[5] Requiring you to ask permission isn't much of an imposition. But I hesitate to guarantee satisfaction even if you do, because for one thing, your email might slip through the cracks and I might not get back to you. It's happened before. I've had requests like this, and some I've responded to favorably, while others I didn't get around to replying to. Which I feel bad about, as I generally feel bad I can't answer all my mail, but that's how it goes. All I can say is, if you're wondering, ask. I may say yes. I may say no. I may not respond. If I don't, then you may use your discretion, while understanding the position I have taken. If you cross a line, there's a good chance you'll hear from me eventually. [6] I'd rather this not be about finding out exactly what I do or don't allow, and then just getting down to furiously attacking that wiggle room I give. I'd rather it be about respect for the property of artists. Everyone who this affects is an artist as well, presumably. If you're an artist, you should care about this topic and evaluate your standards, because you are undoubtedly hoping others will respect your work and your rights as well. Imagine you are at a convention, selling Pokemon drawings or such. If you knew one of Nintendo's most aggressive lawyers was lurking nearby, would you still do it? Is it fear of being prosecuted that motivates you to stop? Or is it the fact that you do not own Pokemon, and though it belongs to a multi billion dollar company that won't feel the slightest hardship because of you, it doesn't seem right, because these aren't your creations? Or maybe it is less about respect to the original creator, and more about taking pride in selling what you have created yourself, or at the very least, that which you have been given the right to? [7] And if the idea of selling black market Pokemon stuff makes you feel uncomfortable, where the owner has millions of dollars applied to a legal staff interested in crushing IP violations no matter how well intended, then why would you feel better about selling stuff owned by a guy without a tiny fraction of those resources, who has heretofore shown not even the slightest interest in taking action against his enthusiastic fans? [8] These are things for you to think about, and then act according to your internal compass on the matter. I am not going to TAKE YOU DOWN if you sell a sketch of a troll to a friend or whatever. I'm just letting you know my position, and will be reasonably content to let the fans govern themselves, unless certain lines are crossed. Then we will talk. As for the Formspring Question of the Day... Eventually, before I die, I would like to somehow, some way, get my hands on that god damn fucking tiger.

I have quite a lot of issues with this post. The first two apply even if I accept that copyright law is legitimate and that Hussie is morally justified in enforcing it (which I personally don’t, but if you’re reading this and you do, consider these two things anyway).

First, there is a complete lack of clarity over what exactly the issue is and what exactly the consequences will be. The whole post is very vague and self-contradictory, which is categorically not appropriate when discussing the law. In paragraph 1, Hussie states that they’re not going to be filing any cease and desist orders against people taking commissions or selling at conventions, but in paragraph 2 they mention that there are things they ‘would be inclined to take measures to stop’. They reiterate this in paragraph 8, where they say they’re ‘not going to TAKE YOU DOWN […] unless certain lines are crossed’.

But, they NEVER state what those lines are, or what exactly they would be inclined to stop. In fact, they outright state ‘I'd rather this not be about finding out exactly what I do or don't allow’ and that it should, instead, be about a nebulous concept of ‘respect’. Respect is not a legal term, nor is it quantifiable. It’s a term that keeps the ball in Hussie’s court, because they’re the one who gets to decide whether or not they feel like they’re being respected enough, as opposed to making a clear list of ‘here are some things that are okay, and here are some things that are not’ which gives fans parameters to operate within. Increasing this confusion, Hussie says ‘If I don't [respond to your request for permission], then you may use your discretion, while understanding the position I have taken’. So, fans are allowed to use their own discretion, but will have a constant, potential threat of legal action hanging over them, in the event that they cross an invisible and potentially ever-shifting line.

One problem with this is bias – Hussie doesn’t have to apply the same rules equally to all fans. They could easily use this to, for example, target fans with a history of criticizing them while being permissive with fans who defend them. Any other conscious or unconscious biases they might have, such as racial biases, could come into play too. But even more than that, this comes across as a huge power play. Someone who is worried they’re losing control, who is extremely and painfully aware that they cannot keep track of the majority of what happens in the massive fandom they sparked, and is making a statement like this because it gives them at least the theoretical possibility of exerting that control if and when they need to. I don’t know if the lack of clarity is intentionally calculated or just not well thought through, but that’s the effect it has.

My second problem is that for fans who are on board with the new rules and willing to follow them, there’s a complete lack of formalized process for getting approvals or rejections from Hussie on selling fan merch. In paragraph 5, they discuss how they might respond to emails with requests to sell fan merch, and how they feel bad that they can’t respond to all the emails they get. They state that ‘[r]equiring you to ask permission isn't much of an imposition’, but suggest that responding to those requests IS an imposition. That’s a double standard, and just like the power dynamic created by the vague statements, it’s creating a firm divide between what’s acceptable for Hussie and what’s acceptable for fans.

And the framing of this is implicitly ‘there’s just nothing that can be done about this!’ And that’s unacceptable in my book. If they are going to require people to ask permission, it’s entirely their responsibility to design a reliable method for people to get those acceptances or rejections. That’s something that absolutely can be done, and isn’t even that hard – a designated email address specifically for this purpose and a (paid) moderator to keep an eye on it, someone who’s authorized to approve or reject the majority of requests based on a series of guidelines, who can then go to Hussie with any complex requests that might be borderline or unexpected. That’s pretty simple to implement and manage. In my opinion, if you can’t even be bothered to respond to an email, you have no business enforcing copyright violations.

So, copyright law. Lexxy has made a fourth post here outlining the facts of the law as they understand them. Which is at least helpful, factual guidance, in contrast to Hussie’s statements, and I appreciate this post despite disagreeing with it. My personal opinion is that copyright law will only ever concentrate power and money in the hands of people who already have it, and that in the vast majority of copyright cases taken to court, the winner won’t be the person who had the original idea, it’ll be the person who can afford better lawyers. All art is inspired by other art, it’s not always possible to keep perfect track of those inspirations, and it’s reasonably possible for multiple people to independently come to incredibly similar ideas. Copyright law dictates that ideas are first-come, first-served, even if the next person to have that idea has never even heard of the previous, which is very limiting to creative possibilities.

There obviously are cases where a person, for example, knowingly takes a digital painting someone else made, prints it directly on a T-shirt and sells it without giving the original artist a cut of the profits. I do think that sucks, but I think it’s bad morally, and shouldn’t be illegal. Again, a major company will get away with this under the existing legal framework. So I would feel zero discomfort over selling the black market Pokemon merchandise Hussie discusses, and in fact, I’ve been to a few dozen conventions in my life and I’ve probably bought copyright-violating merch at all of them. My exact moral stance will vary a lot based on the details of individual situations, but in general I make a clear distinction between morality and legality, and Hussie in their statement doesn’t seem to make that distinction. They’re basically working on the assumption that the law is morally correct, and that their readers either will or should share these views. And they’re bringing Nintendo into the argument specifically so they can portray themself as more reasonable and relatable in contrast, like they’re trying to displace fans’ potential anger towards a bigger corporation, even while Hussie’s threats of copyright law enforcement would be completely in line with Nintendo’s recent behavior.

But I think Hussie is promoting these views now because they have enough power that copyright law benefits them, because they don’t want people to infringe on their rights, not because of any true, deep-seated belief in the concept. I can’t help but note that Hussie doesn’t pay their art team or music team, despite directly profiting from their work – indirectly through ad revenue and the increased traffic to the site that flashes always bring, and also directly, because (according to music team member Tensei) Hussie gets the largest cut of album profits. I’m not sure if Hussie receives a cut of the art team tip jar profits, but even if they don’t, they’re still relying on fans to pay their own staff. The same staff who they then rely on as middlemen to deliver the first tidings of bad news such as this copyright crackdown, who then directly receive the initial backlash.

At New York Comic Con in October 2010, Hussie took simple sketch commissions from fans who came to visit their table. One fan requested a drawing of John’s hammer alchemized with Vriska’s dice and the board game Trouble, leading to the sketch shown below. About seven months later, Hussie draws John wielding a hammer that’s been alchemized with Vriska’s dice, and posts it publicly to the website they make money from through ad revenue. Now, I obviously can’t prove that Hussie didn’t have the idea of alchemizing John’s hammer with Vriska’s dice before NYCC – this could have been planned for a long time. And if this were taken to court, the courts may say that because the fan’s idea uses the pogo hammer and the actual panel uses the Warhammer of Zillyhoo, those are different enough that it’s not a copyright violation (or, that Hussie owns the rights to the fan’s commission anyway because it features their original characters).

But the timing of it rubs me the wrong way. Hussie cracks down on fans profiting from their ‘IP’ just days after they’ve stolen an idea from a fan, whether accidentally or on purpose, and they don’t see an issue with this. And even if they don’t remember doing this specific sketch, this is just one stark and poorly timed example of a long-term pattern of behavior. The Midnight Crew were originally created and paid for by a fan, and are now used to create direct profit for Hussie through the Midnight Crew: Drawing Dead album. ‘WV: Become the Mayor of Can Town’ was a fan command that fundamentally shaped the exiles’ storyline. Hussie has acknowledged that the fan video ‘Terezi vs the Sun’, among other speculation, influenced the backstory of how Terezi went blind in canon. The kids and trolls were all named by fans, and the troll names are certainly weird enough that Hussie probably wouldn’t have come up with them otherwise – I think the name’s originator would be morally justified in saying ‘if I can’t sell my fan merch, you can no longer use the name Vriska Serket’.

And those are just specific examples that I can directly source right now. I recall Hussie saying they’re regularly taking inspiration from forums for plot developments in general, although I can’t for the life of me find that quote. And before now, I’ve generally liked this, because I like the idea of a radically collaborative story with a director keeping it on the rails. But this new statement from Hussie completely changes my opinion.

In April 2009, Hussie seemed excited about starting a new MS Paint Adventure with music that would be ‘reader-created, through a collaborative process’ (Blogspot). In April 2010, they were similarly excited about the MSPA Community Portal, which is hosted on the MSPA website but is entirely run by fans. These things don’t mean Hussie doesn’t feel a sense of ownership over Homestuck, but they’re not talking about it. Their focus is always about celebrating what other people can bring or have brought to the table.

In April 2011, Hussie is still celebrating fan content, but ownership of Homestuck is on their mind in a way I don’t think they were overtly expressing before.

What does is it truly mean to have something, to... own something? Why is it so important to us? Does its importance lie in safety in knowing you are part of a system that exists so that an object cannot be taken from you? Or is the the [sic] comfort in knowing that when something belongs to you, you can do with it what you wish? Sometimes the limits of ownership must be tested in order to be truly appreciated. Sometimes the things we love must be destroyed just to remind ourselves they belonged to us, and that they are precious. This shirt represents impermanence.