HOME | DD
IvoryAlmonds — She IS Cannon, but not to the games
#sallyacorniscannon
Published: 2017-06-12 17:37:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 1713; Favourites: 36; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
EDIT 1: This stamp is going to face a serious make-over if not replacement!This seriously was haunting my mind for the longest and I wanted to submit something that doesn't include drawing because my digital pen is STILL lost sadly. Oh, and before someone goes all keyboard warrior on me, I acknowledge Sally isn't canon to nor present in the games. I've never claimed that she was. My point is that doesn't make her a fan character nor not 'canon' to the Sonic franchise in total. Read the description and you'll know what I'm talking about.
before
In response to fans, specifically Sally haters, that attempt to call Sally 'a fan character' and ''not canon at all to the Sonic franchise*''...
An official character is not and will not be the same as a fan character. Sally Acorn was and is a character WHO OF WHICH was approved, given permission, and starred in official sources regarding Sonic the Hedgehog. She is also owned nevertheless and can be used/mandated at the whims of SEGA themselves and their branches.
"She starred in comics/satam!11!"
Oh, so she is a 'fan character' for being starred in a spin off/comics? Then so is Amy and Charmy! Let's add them in that case! Amy and Charmy were both firstly seen, originated, and starred in and on a manga that was not created by SEGA. Does that make them fan characters?
Unlike most fan created and based mangas, these mangas were APPROVED by SEGA OFFICIALLY, and the characters, Eimi and Charmy Bee, were later adapted and debuted in games. Eimi was debuted in Sonic CD 1993 and became what we all know as Amy Rose, whilst Charmy Bee 1995, Knuckles' Chaotix. The difference is that Amy and Charmy were made into mainstream game counterparts while Sally remains more of a character used in the Sonic comics.
"Well, isn't she a fan character...?"
If you wanted a definition of a fan character, than take a look at my profile picture or my FC 'Opal The Okapi'.
Do you see my character in official sources and or permitted material? Do you see her in remotely ANY official material or SEGA mandating it or permitting it? Do you see her in a game? No. Instead this character is a fan character who was created in the fan perspective and stays in the fan perspective.
Related content
Comments: 82
It actually works! 
It's too bad we can't see the whole manga since according to the article, the manga pages are rare and hard to find. :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yey!
I know right? Especially since the rare pages we actually DO FIND they are in Japanese. I don't speak Japanese xD.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XD
I cannot read nor write in Japanese(wouldn't mind learning it though since I want to travel there someday) to save my life so reading it won't do me any good. Learning to read and write Japanese is really hard and even the Japanese have trouble wit their language.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? They have trouble with their own language ?
Same, I wouldn't mind learning and traveling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More of when it comes to writing than speaking it(they have 2,000 words in kanji or whatever they called it when they used it to write). XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry for not responding lately. Lost motivation to keep up on Deviantart for some time.
Really? Wow. Never knew that
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Honestly, that word gets thrown around so much it's beginning to lose its actual meaning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If only these unilateral Sonic fans would learn that the Sonic universe has more than just one canon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, Sally Acorn right now is not canonical for a very simple reason.
As of Dec. 28, 2016, SEGA of Japan (or SEGA Corp.) sent a cease-and-desist order to Archie Comics to stop printing current and future issues of the comics until they renew their contract with SEGA of America.
As it stands right now, Archie comics has lost their licensing rights to Sonic related products and therefore their products are no longer supported nor permitted/acknowledged by Sega.
Because Sally´s (And all of Archie Comics, really) canonicity depends, as you said yourself, from the fact that they are an official and licensed product by Sega and as of december 2016 they no longer are, the archieverse is by default, not canon.
And considering that Jon Goldwater, CEO of Archie Comics, said that the company wants to eventually “get away from Sonic” because it’s not exactly “Archie material”, and that Archie isn’t inclined to fight back for the license because they had “one foot out the door for a long time for a number of reasons,” including low sales of Sonic comics in recent months and the extreme cost of the license, it will probably never be again.
So yeah, no, Sally is not canonical as it stands now.
By the way, the word is canon, not cannon.
A cannon is a piece of artillery that uses gunpowder or other usually explosive-based propellants to launch projectiles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your comments.
www.seganerds.com/2017/05/16/i…
Oh, thank you for bringing that to view. I wasn't aware of this but only aware of comics being stalled, put on hold, and canceled. Yet in still I still don't categorize Sally is 'not canon' and or not an official character because of license disputes between SoA/SoJ and Archie. All I see is SEGA and Archie disputes and temporary stall/fiction until things gets sorted out and renewance is put into motion. From what I see this only shows that SEGA will no longer go behind or authorize any further newer issues until the contract's renewal. Though I see what you are speaking about how the archieverse is debateable and arguably not necessarily an official permitted canon as in the means of right now because of this.
Do you know that Sally appeared and was approved as a character in other ''canons'' like the fleetway Sonic Comic and SatAM, who of which are still said to be different spin offs of Sonic the hedgehog that were approved or permitted to exist? She's also technically property of SEGA of America as well as other characters such a freedom fighter they are using, (they aren't only relevant solely in archie... Characters like Julie-su would basically be because they aren't cannon in anything else but archie comics.), and they can still pull back. All I see is them pulling back and restraining until further notice. Not denouncing the canonicity of the characters they use. Then again I can be wrong. (Sweet Bunnie picture by the way <3. I had one just like that but now I have a black and white one with blue eyes named peri-winkle!)
Thank you for giving me that! I am aware 'cannon' means that, though I confused the spelling and wording with canon and cannon. I always was confused on how to put it because I thought 'cannon' had double meanings/was the right way and furthermore no one really called this out/checker always rerouted to 'cannon', so I suspected that it was another way to say it or right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, the only correct word is "Canon" and nothing else.
It was the Spanish community that began saying "cannon" the very same way they use the word "Roll" for "Role"
The TLDR is that in Hispanic countries, English was not taught ´til relatively recent times.
This caused a lot of Spanish people to incorporate popular English words "by ear", thus causing all these issues with commonly used words.
And i am sorry but a licensed product can only be considered canonical as long as it maintains that license.
The only difference between fan-art and canonical by-products is literally the license.
For instance, if Sega (for some weird reason) suddenly decided to allow you to purchase a license, then Opal would automatically become canonical within the realm of your license and as a licensed by-product of the sonic series.
But this is a double edged sword, because the second you lose the license, you also lose all rights and thus the canonicity of your work.
And no, this is not only valid for future issues, what you have done in the past is still tied to the license and runs by the same rules.
What you are doing right now is little more than technical gymnastics.
Just because Sally may have starred or been a guest character in some official Sega product, it does not mean that the character is no longer Archie Comic´s property and it does not mean that it suddenly gains an elevated status when it comes to canonicity.
Sally Acorn is still an Archie product and it is still self-contained within the Archieverse.
The second the Archieverse is no longer licensed, the entirety of it loses all of it´s canonicity.
If i win the annual Japanese fan-art contest for Sonic the hedgehog and they feature my drawing in Sega products or on their website, it does not mean that my character is magically "more canonical than others" because it has been a guest to Sega.
Everything is still tied down to legal concepts and licensing contracts and therefore Sally suffers the same fate as the rest of Archie.
And finally, i am sorry but this whole "But they may get it again later / i think they are just stalling / they are just restraining for now" is nothing but even more gymnastics.
The simple fact is that right now there´s no license and so long as it is not restored there´s no canonicity, the end.
Your personal opinion on what Archie or Sega of America is doing or thinking matters not.
Truth is held by facts, not by hopeful thinking and unbased opinion.
Especially when the CEO of Archie comics has already expressed that they are not going to renew under the current conditions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am a bit lost on what you were trying to say. You could have just stuck to the fact that it was canon instead of cannon and leave it there as a typo and or spelling mistake that I need to correct. Then again I should have just took it instead of explaining why I used 'cannon' accidently instead of canon. :'^)
Hmm. I agree and see your point.
''Just because Sally may have starred or been a guest character in some official Sega product, it does not mean that the character is no longer Archie Comic´s property and it does not mean that it suddenly gains an elevated status when it comes to canonicity.''
Of course not. First of all Sally is not Archie Comic's ''property'' or character. Julie-su, Scourge, and ect would be an example of their own created/produced character who they have the rights to take and would be irrelevant to the official continuum if the license are revoked, but not Sally. Sally Acorn ultimately belongs and was created from my acknowledgement, by DiC entertainment under the cooperation of SEGA of America. SatAM Sally/freedom fighters and Sonic Comic Sally/freedom fighters ARE indeed still relevant even if Archie Sally becomes separated and licenses are taken away. Thus those forms of Sally Acorn are canon in it's own way and canon to those given universes. Even if Archie!Sally seems of the not; it doesn't erase all of the Sally's forms and versions' canonicity. I stand by that fact that yes she is canon in different forms and officially given permission to withstand in official Sonic spin off canons. If Archie!Sally withers away there still is SatAM Sally, who is the produce of co-production between DiC and Sega of America.
It would suffice if you said Archie Sally Acorn wouldn't be apart of official cannon, because other Sallys still would even if Archie ends and cuts tie ins with SEGA and the license revoke is permanently situated.
The point of the stamp is to just say that yes Sally is owned by SEGA and was permitted in official sources/spin offs, therefore she technically is cannon, but to those universes.
''The simple fact is that right now there´s no license and so long as it is not restored there´s no canonicity, the end.''
They never cleared up the fact nor said to renew or not renew. Until I have officially confirms that they will and the official cancellation, then I'd draw that conclusion. Right now the ties are cut and issues are being stalled and they barely are vocalizing the issue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What a nice story, only....
-DiC lost it´s license to all Sega products back in 2011
-Sega of America only dealt with the licensing/marketing part of the DiC products, they did not "Own" Sally Acorn and the other characters.
-Sega of America as the company it once was has been shut down and the legendary San Francisco offices are closed.
-Sega of America is now just a publishing branch for American digital/smartphone products
-Sega of America is just a mediator for the license fees of Archie Comic vs Sega Japan/Corp as requested by the U.S laws, but has no say in it, this is why the cease and desist comes from Japan, not America.
-Sega of Europe now leads the western operations of SegaCorp, basically Sega of Europe is the new "Sega of America" (As in the main western company)
You need to understand that a lot has changed since the 80/90´s and that the majority of licenses for older products are expired by a great number of years.
This is not exclusive to Sonic, by the way, there´s tons of Nintendo related products that are off-license at this point as well.
So no, Sally is not "owned" by Sega (it never was, Sega just did licensing and a limited amount of Marketing) and all of the golden age western Sonic products starring her are off-license.
And are you even reading what you say?
Does Archie have a license RIGHT NOW?
-No
Then RIGHT NOW the Archieverse is not canon, the end.
What will happen in the FUTURE is for the FUTURE to deal with, but we are discussing the canonicity of the materials NOW and NOW it´s not licensed or canon.
It DOES NOT MATTER WHATSOEVER what Archie will decide or decide not to do at a later date.
We live in the present, not in 2021.
If in 2021 Archie decides to re-acquire the license and thus restores their byproducts to licensed canonicity, then feel free to come back to these comments/stamps and claim that Sally is now once again canonical to the licensed products contained within the Archieverse, but so long as it´s not....well....deal with it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I still stand by what I say and what I said previously. Sally can and is technically owned by SEGA, SEGA has the rights to them, and can dictate what they do with those characters overall. She is still canon in different official or pass by canons of Sonic the hedgehog such as fleetway comics, SatAM, and Archie comics (Though facing license revoke.) who of which were given permission to set course and be relevant to Sonic franchises and to produce things containing them nevertheless from what I know. I may need to look back and recheck sources, but I'm pretty sure of these things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sega does NOT have the rights to them.
And Archie Comics and the rest have ALREADY lost the license, they are not "Facing revocation", the license is already gone.
This is why Sega has sent the cease-and-desist, because they are producing material they no longer have the legal right to produce.
Seriously, to me it looks like you do not completely understand how canonicity and legality works, but because you just WANT Sally to be canon, you will stick to any straw you can grasp for it to be so.
Oh well, in the end your delusions do not change what is true by law and license, so for all i care you can claim that the one-off McDonald´s Happy Meal Box "Sonic Character" is canon.
But that won´t make it so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What do you mean with Sega doesn't have the right to them?
Of cause there have when ever Sonic was out licensed by Sega is part of the licensing contract that everything create it this product would be owned by Sega this is why the Freedom fighter were allowed to be in the comic in the first place after all did DIC for SatAm made this Characters first and licensed them according to there contract to Sega same happened to every Post reboot Archie Character.
The reason Ken even could get away with his lawsuit was because Archies Legal team lost this contract that would declare everything this writers created to be owned by Sega.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Whatever you say. I stated what I stated. You stated what you stated. I still stand by the fact that Sally is canon, simply not to the game canon. I still stand by the fact that yes SEGA ultimately can say what to do and what not to do with those characters as long as they fall under the category of Sonic the hedgehog; in which they own and the DiC, Archie, and fleetway had the permission to contribute to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am sorry, but you not understanding how the law works does not change how the law works.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never said it did.
You don't have to apologize. I admit though I probably don't fully grasp the concept. We can speak further in notes. Though I still don't see how she is suddenly not canon or how SatAM/other spin offs containing her suddenly isn't apart of the Sonic franchise or lost it's license and relevance all together.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Some people accuse Sally of being a fan character? That's a new one on me.
Yes, Sally does not appear in the games. But, as you pointed out, she (and associated characters like Bunnie, Rotor, and Antoine) has appeared in comics and TV shows that were produced with the blessing and/or oversight of SEGA. At the very least, I would consider those characters deutero-canon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed. Thanks for commenting!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How does it not make sense dear? May you explain? I cannot answer your question by you simply leaving me with 'How does that make sense' as a comment. Did you read the description? If you have trouble understanding my point of the stamp...
For a clearer clarification:
Sally Acorn, the female sonic character you see in the stamp, is technically a Sonic/SEGA owned character. If you didn't know, SEGA is the company that officially owns Sonic the Hedgehog and it's franchise. This stamp is reinforcing the fact that simply because she isn't in the game cannon (I.e in the sonic games you may play.),doesn't mean she isn't property of SEGA. Sally Acorn is still cannon in and to Sonic sourced material(I.e spin offs like Sonic Comic fleetway, Sonic comic archie, and SatAM.) in which SEGA supervises, owns, and gives permits officially.
She is no fan character.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is a misleading stamp. By canon I get you mean to other media but at first glance it looks like you're saying she's canon to the games, which she isn't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm aware. I'm constructing a new stamp however to furthermore explain and give more detail. Some people don't bother looking at the descriptions but majorly the stamp.
Thanks for pointing this out~
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well to put it another way, I believe Sally was actually a character originally created by DIC Entertainment for Sonic SatAM and also had a joint ownership to Archie but in general Sally is actually owned by the American branch of Sega so in essence Sally is an official character that is canon in the material she appears in. I don't get why people would think otherwise? I think it would be cool if Sally and the Freedom Fighters (and Fiona Fox) were in the video games but it would never happen simply because Sonic Team (the game developers owned by the Japanese side) doesn't want them.
Didn't know Charmy started off in the mangas?
Your Opal is cute, I'd love to put her in my fan fiction. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree.
Some people, by that I mean mostly technically haters, love to use this cop-out excuse that simply because she isn't relevant in the games doesn't mean she is owned by SEGA nor cannon. They say this reduces her to a 'FC'. The fact of the matter is that she is cannon and owned by SEGA, especially SEGA of America end of.
True.
Yes, he did. The same manga Amy started out in. Surprising, is it not? What's even more ironic is that unlike Amy, who kind of had a minor name change, Charmy was always his name. Charmy Bee was what he went by.
Daww, really? Thx chu I'm working on a redesign as well as your gift, contest, and a friend's gift. Sadly I lost my pen...
Sure. Note me and we can discuss after I hop in the shower.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0