Potentially super unpopular opinion ahead...
I know what you're talking about, and I expected someone to respond with that kind of sentiment. Don't worry, I'm not upset at you. I'm not one to take these casual stances and just let things happen slowly, but I'm just looking at things objectively, and through a different lens. While it's not exactly Pekora, a case can be made that she too closely resembles Pekora, and unfortunately, the character's appearance
does give the anime extra marketing using a HoloLive IP. Cameo bunnygirl may not be Pekora, replace Pekora, or even try to be Pekora, but it
does affect the performance of the anime, even if didn't translate to financial gain. It's a subtle impact, but Pekora fans or anyone with related interest to Pekora or those associated with her will have some amount of extra interest in the anime now that there is viral news of a Peko-like character appearing for a few seconds as a cameo. This results in that bit of more interest in the anime and potential sales (because yknow, the anime gets bought/licensed/whatever'd for money), which is still non-zero.
Let me just make it clear: I don't endorse the removal of the cameo character. The best-case scenario would be that, upon this discovery going viral, HoloLive impulsively condoned or even endorsed the Peko-like character in some way, and everyone got the message that it was a one-time pass for the laughs. For example, imagine if HoloLive just said: "Oh yeah, we saw that Pekora-like character! We talked to Peko and she was okay with it, so we will actually endorse the inclusion. We think the inclusion is funny, so go watch the anime! Thank you for your support." That's what we all want to have happen, but that's not what happened. Everything is so uptight now, so I don't blame you for having that attitude. But we have to look at it from the perspective of the animation studio and then think about what new creators do going forward, because that's not the way things work in the legacy industry. Again, I understand your frustration, but even if the ideal thing happens where HoloLive condones the Peko-like cameo, it opens a floodgate of potential for other companies or businesses to cameo HoloLive characters, and then the legal headaches will come into play when someone makes a bunch of money off of HoloLive's name or legally owned personas. They condoned it once, so why not again? Now, HoloLive could make it explicit that they endorse this one cameo and will handle them on a case-by-case basis, but executives are
not stupid. They do stupid things, but because they've done the analysis on what saves or makes them the most money (unless it's the Western industry with some companies in particular like Disney; they've been duped by politics and rightfully deserve to lose money and die off). I'm willing to bet the HoloLive execs decided it would take significantly more money to handle lawsuits of future Peko or other HoloLive girl cameos they don't want, and such stopped it at the first. It's not my mentality or anyone else's mentality that lead to this. You can't root-cause like that, because truth of the matter is, it's just business and playing the game. There will always be that asshole that games the system, so that's why we're in the situation we are in, and it's not your fault, nor is it my fault. And like you, I wish things were different.
I wish to provide an analogy to solidify my point. Think of it in this scenario: There are two artists that make money off their art (including OCs) and monetize all their art through Patreon or SubscribeStar or Pixiv Fanbox or whatever, and are high profile enough that they could file lawsuits against one another (just assume for the sake of the analogy). Let's say one of the artists, Artist A, cameos the OC of another artist in the back or side of one of his or her's pieces, and then fans come out sharing news of that artist using an OC that belongs to another artist, Artist B. This potentially causes the fans/audience of Artist B to subscribe to Artist A's (financial support) or share that art and say things like, "Hey we found <OC of Artist B> in Artist A's work!" (free marketing). Artist A has benefitted off of Artist B's property, whether you think it's significant or not. Like the Peko-like cameo, there are different choices available for Artist B with different consequences:
1) Artist B takes a moment to look over what Artist A is doing and doesn't like that his OC was included without permission. Artist B may or may not be excessively conscious of his personal earnings, but that's irrelevant. He asks Artist A to take it down, and if Artist A desires, they can sign a deal for each other to share sales if they include one another's OCs in the artwork, or as just an exclusive mutual agreement to allow use of one another's OCs (personally I'd do the latter if I was in this case, being an artist myself, and I think it fosters a happier community). This results in Artist B looking stuck up, but it legitimately resolves a lot of issues Artist A may not have been aware of in the future, who included Artist B's OC out of fun, and Artist A apologizes for "wrongly" using Artist B's OC. Artist A and Artist B aren't enemies, but Artist A may feel bad for not being able to use Artist B's OC, and Artist B may feel bad for not being able to let the funnies happen because he's trying to avoid headache scenarios. (This is basically what happened).
2a) Artist B looks at Artist A's work and finds the inclusion acceptable and funny. The fanbases/audiences of Artist A and B unite, and they have a good time. But they forget to declare that it was just a one-time thing between them, and another artist, Artist C (in the same market), then looks at this as permission to use Artist A and Artist B's OC's in a monetized artwork. Artist A and Artist B have to inform Artist C and then every other artist that it was just a thing between them, and request Artist C to remove the cameos, as it was not permissible. They then either have to make this very clear upfront so no more Artist C's pop up, or they end up handling monetized cameos on a case-by-case basis.
2b) Artist B accepts the inclusion like before, and the fanbases/audiences of Artist A and B have a good time. But lots and lots of Artist C's pop up and use whatever local, regional, and national laws they can to argue that Artist B endorsed the inclusion of his OC in other's artworks, and Artist B, having simply been someone that entered the existing industry as a complete outsider and with no influence on the way it was brought up, has to either fight lawsuits or retract his previous endorsement and go back to scenario 1.
This could have all been avoided if Artist A requested permission from Artist B in the first place. This does bring the question...why did the animation studio for
How Not to Summon a Demon Lord make an apology if this was the obvious first step? Maybe they didn't? Regardless, I hope the point was made.
Don't take this the wrong way, and please understand that I also don't like how all the fun stuff is being removed, but if we -as in you, me, and everyone else tired of the way things work now- want to see the ideal situation occur as outlined above without the legal headaches, you have to search for it in a different industry. Dedicate 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, or even 50% of the amount of emotional and financial investment you spend in the mainstream to new creators that uphold the culture you want and actually promote/endorse them. We
have to fight the current business culture with a newer, smaller (but not insignificantly smaller), insider one if we want to have these good things to happen. I'll acknowledge a bit of hypocrisy right now; I have not sorted out my situation regarding monetization of myself and my peers, so I have yet to financially endorse the creators I want (because I need to do it safely; it's money, you know). But once I do, you bet I'll be putting my money where my mouth is. And I already have been, as I primarily support indie creators. For example in the video game space, I support one or two AAA because the IPs are good, like Monster Hunter, but mostly indie IPs like Hollow Knight, Skul, Risk of Rain, Hades, Deep Rock Galactic, etc. As of now, the entertainment industry's culture is uptight on laws and public image, and it's not very fun when cross-over content occurs such as this. It'll be hard to create a new industry because entertainment media is so concentrated on the big names right now, so there is this massive lull for new IPs/creators/industries. Unfortunately, this is key to changing the way things are, and it will be a very, very slow process that potentially blackpills along the way.
Again, the way things
should be are not the way they
are, so we have to vote for or create the industry that exhibits the traits we think it
should have. In some ways us migrating over to Varis is the start of creating new communities and potentially support for new industries. It all stems from the culture that brings it up. I do wonder if the animation studio did try to obtain permission, but... yknow, clearly things are different. I hope I was clear in my delivery, and please ask if anything was unclear or if I butchered my understandings of things. This situation sucks for everyone, especially us that just want to enjoy things.
ANN article
