[Spivak]

Selling fan-art should honestly just be allowed at this point. There are a lot of rules that should be in place like not being able to directly use the official assets or labeling that it's 3rd-party and not endorsed but these kinds of things should be able to operate above board.

The current system of "don't get on the copyright holder's bad side" is silly.

[jplayer01]

> Selling fan-art is just a copyright loophole that should honestly just be plugged at this point.

Or we should stop letting companies monopolize markets and become insanely rich off of that thing they came up with 30 years ago. Plug it? Tear it wide fucking open.

[Spivak]

I don't disagree with you but I think perfect is the enemy of good in this case. Changing copyright a little bit to allow fan-art is a much smaller problem than dismantling copyright in it's entirety and we can work on both.

[kevin_thibedeau]

There is no loophole. Infringement is infringement even if you're small potatoes and haven't been sued yet. This isn't a fair use issue when you're engaged in commercial sale of appropriated works.

[Spivak]

Okay sure, maybe loophole was poor wording but my point is that this really shouldn't be considered infringement and that you should be able to sell fan-art.

[kevin_thibedeau]

It shouldn't be infringement... because you don't want it to? There is nothing special about fan art that lets you break the law even if some copyright/trademark holders have a benevolent attitude toward it.

[Spivak]

Yeah, I mean that pretty much the gist of how most laws work. The market for fan-art is absolutely massive which operates in a weird limbo of being de facto licensed as long as the copyright holder likes it or if there would be public outcry if it was taken down.

The current system is kinda stupid. Copyright holders have no incentive to license because reserving the right to sue but not suing is used instead. This is the problem that needs to be addressed.

I want to live in the universe where the resolution is that fan-art is not considered infringement and doesn’t need licensing compared to the universe where the resolution is that all not explicitly licensed art disappears.

[wool_gather]

> It shouldn't be infringement... because you don't want it to?

Well, yes. That's how laws like copyright work; it's an agreement that we've made to try to achieve some result, with bonuses and tradeoffs. If we decide some part of it isn't working out, then we tweak it to alter the outcomes.

[kevin_thibedeau]

That's not how copyright works. All unauthorized copies are infringing. In the US the only exceptions are "fair use" and home audio recordings. Neither of which apply when selling things owned by another party.

[dragonwriter]

> In the US the only exceptions are "fair use" and home audio recordings.

No, there are lots more.

Fair use is the first of over a dozen limitations and exclusions to the otherwise exclusive rights under copyright in Chapter 1 of Title 17 [0]; fair use and home audio recording aren't the only two exceptions.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1

[wool_gather]

We are explicitly talking about changing the law.

[Nasrudith]

Serious question - what is the purpose served in closing that loophole? What damages are averted or gains realized to society?

I agree the current system is silly but I don't think going more restrictive is the answer.

What if anything should be permissible? Would say for instance - you can commission a Master Sword copy or make one and sell it but manufacturing them enmasse be verbotten?

[Spivak]

I'm saying that we should be less restrictive -- that producing and selling fan-art and related merch should not be infringement.

[Nasrudith]

Ah - usually when I see things referred to as a loophole it means "legal as a result of a flaw" unless it is spelled out as a good thing.