[CaptainFever]

I'm glad someone brought this up. Artists, especially fan artists, will only hurt themselves if they advocate for classifying transformative works as infringing. Fan art has been so normalised that people have forgotten that it used to be considered legally dubious. Better to advocate for reskilling and social safety nets; automation affects everyone, not just them.

[pclmulqdq]

Fair use has 4 factors. Transformative is one of them. Recently, courts have gotten much more interested in a different factor, the "commercial intent" factor. While fan art is less transformative than AI training, it's not commercial and it's not competing with the original work (if anything, it enhances the market for the original work). Generative AI models are both commercial products and very successful competitors with the original works they used for training.

[stale2002]

> it's not commercial and it's not competing with the original work

Yes it is and yes it does.

"Fan art" is "fan" in name only.

If you read back on my original post, you will see that I am talking about almost the entire online professional art commissions market.

From online, to convention centers, and more.

All of this is commerical and all of this competed with the IP owners.

People just sell other people's IP in all of these places.