Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Galas wrote:
I'm the definition of a fan author that writtes a ton of stuff for Warcraft.

If I was making money with any of this stuff I would absolutely expect Blizzard to come down on me.

I'm all for bashing our trademark policies and how copyright is too invasive and many times used by big conglomerates to just stop everyone else to do something until they, maybe, in some point in the future, make it.

But is easy: As a fan you can do everything. But the moment you gain money with it, or it affects something the proper company is gonna do (All the nintendo fan remakes ,etc...), you are told to stop. Is not computer science.

Doubly so if you use assets that don't belong to you to make your work. Helsreach for example used models from Space Marine. Honestly the fact they're being hired is the best case scenario and the conspiracies about being C&Ded with more steps are ridiculous.

 Galas wrote:

But is easy: As a fan you can do everything.

this is the main problem of this thread, with US law you can not, while in most EU countries you can

making money from it is not the main point, but the basic copyright law of the US does not allow fan-fiction by default were for example German law does allow it

the main point in the US is fair use, which is decided case by case rather than a generic guide that works for everyone (fair use vs derivative work)
and with YouTube being a US company they enforce US law

chaos0xomega wrote:

lol, those companies are ultimately a bunch of parasites that would collapse overnight if GW and 40k ceased to exist. It amazes me how so many in this "fandom" seem to think that 40k, etc. are self-created and self-perpetuating, i.e. the game, lore, and minis just will themselves into existence as if flowing from a well-spring or crowing from a tree, and GW just so happened to be the lucky corporate entity that found it and took ownership of it. Newsflash: if you want more stories and books, more minis, films, artwork, game rules, etc. etc. etc. you have to feed the beast. All of this takes money and resources, none of it comes from nothing, none of it is free. Every penny you direct to companies like Kromlech or Artel or whatever is a hit on GWs ability to provide you with more of the content that you profess to love, ultimately you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by supporting them. And no, if GW were to go out of business and the game were to disappear, the community would not somehow "keep it alive".

And how exactly is it that I'm hurting myself by purchasing 6 packs of Kromlech cacti & some scenic bases this evening?

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

In my previous post I mentioned an independent panel that could act as judge in contentious cases, it might even be some form of judicial unit, just one that has the appropriate expertise and clearance to make a meaningful conclusion.

So I can have an original IP that I created and developed myself and have complete control over that I worked hard to build up to some nebulous, poorly defined level of success until I wake up one morning to find the right to decide what I want to happen with that IP has been taken out of my hands and given to some faceless body of people who have no idea about the IP in question.

WTF?

You previously admitted that the choice of setting boosted the popularity of Astartes so it's just really weird to me that you're acknowledging the importance of the setting to the popularity and success of a fan creation but not willing to allow the people who created that success and popularity any say in how it's used because the person using it is so creative and beloved by the community. It just comes across as a really naive example of "corporations bad, little guy good".

Slipspace wrote:
So I can have an original IP that I created and developed myself and have complete control over that I worked hard to build up to some nebulous, poorly defined level of success until I wake up one morning to find the right to decide what I want to happen with that IP has been taken out of my hands and given to some faceless body of people who have no idea about the IP in question.

This is a misunderstanding, I do not propose transferring any rights from creators away to some committee or the like. What I intended with the panel is that the some form of expertise will be needed in borderline cases of fan content and abuse. Such a panel would do research to the content in question independently of both parties. I only intend for such a panel to be called upon in a rare number of situations, preferably new laws should make the distinction between fan content and unlawful action quite clear.

Again, I'm no lawmaker or an expert on the existing laws, so I am not able to give you the specifics you might ask for. All I have is a belief that it is desirable for fan content to broadly exist undisturbed, I don't think that is an outrageous standpoint.

You previously admitted that the choice of setting boosted the popularity of Astartes so it's just really weird to me that you're acknowledging the importance of the setting to the popularity and success of a fan creation but not willing to allow the people who created that success and popularity any say in how it's used because the person using it is so creative and beloved by the community. It just comes across as a really naive example of "corporations bad, little guy good".

When forming my opinion, I judge content like as Astartes in a holistic manner and it needs no saying that I belief Astartes to be awesome project. The setting is not the creators own, but the videos themselves are.
No piece of fan content would exist without the setting, but fan content in my opinion has a quality of it's own, the setting is part of that quality, often majorly so.

In the end it comes to if fan content is valued as something desirable or not. I believe such a judgement is not just for a setting holder to make. Lots of contemporary western laws exist to protect communal interests from private ones. And lots of laws are designed to ensure that the individual/smaller/less well of party is legally better facilitated.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Lots of contemporary western laws exist to protect communal interests from private ones. And lots of laws are designed to ensure that the individual/smaller/less well of party is legally better facilitated.

I think this is where the heart of the problem lies. The 40k setting is not some publicly owned piece of community property. It belongs to the company that built it up over decades and their right to control its use is one of the things that encourages the sort of creativity required to produce it in the first place. Treating IP as communal property leads to some weird outcomes, like trying to adjudicate how popular something has to be before its creators lose control over it.

ccs wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

lol, those companies are ultimately a bunch of parasites that would collapse overnight if GW and 40k ceased to exist. It amazes me how so many in this "fandom" seem to think that 40k, etc. are self-created and self-perpetuating, i.e. the game, lore, and minis just will themselves into existence as if flowing from a well-spring or crowing from a tree, and GW just so happened to be the lucky corporate entity that found it and took ownership of it. Newsflash: if you want more stories and books, more minis, films, artwork, game rules, etc. etc. etc. you have to feed the beast. All of this takes money and resources, none of it comes from nothing, none of it is free. Every penny you direct to companies like Kromlech or Artel or whatever is a hit on GWs ability to provide you with more of the content that you profess to love, ultimately you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by supporting them. And no, if GW were to go out of business and the game were to disappear, the community would not somehow "keep it alive".

And how exactly is it that I'm hurting myself by purchasing 6 packs of Kromlech cacti & some scenic bases this evening?

Talk about a strawman. You know damned well the point of discussion was about Kromlech et. als. alt-GW kits free-riding on their IP, and not about their "generic" products like bases.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

This is a misunderstanding, I do not propose transferring any rights from creators away to some committee or the like. What I intended with the panel is that the some form of expertise will be needed in borderline cases of fan content and abuse. Such a panel would do research to the content in question independently of both parties. I only intend for such a panel to be called upon in a rare number of situations, preferably new laws should make the distinction between fan content and unlawful action quite clear.

But you *ARE* transferring rights away from the creator. A creator has exclusive rights to their own work, and exclusive rights to the creation and distribution of derivative works, and the right to pursue action against those who infringe on that right. By appointing your panel of wise men to act as arbitrators with regards to when a fan is subjectively entitled to utilize something they don't own, you have stripped the creator of their rights to exclusivity and control over their own creation.

Again, I'm no lawmaker

Thank the gods for that.

All I have is a belief that it is desirable for fan content to broadly exist undisturbed, I don't think that is an outrageous standpoint.

It absolutely is. Fans are not entitled to fan content. Especially not when it comes at the expense and against the wishes of the original creator.and ownership granted to their creators against infringement by both well-meaning fans and malicious free-riding parasites who would otherwise view it as "communal" property.

The setting is not the creators own, but the videos themselves are.
No piece of fan content would exist without the setting, but fan content in my opinion has a quality of it's own, the setting is part of that quality, often majorly so.
In the end it comes to if fan content is valued as something desirable or not. I believe such a judgement is not just for a setting holder to make.

So you admit and understand that fan content is reliant upon the product of someone elses investment and labor and cannot stand on its own two feet? Why then, do you feel that a fan-creator is entitled to free-ride and piggyback - parasitically I might add - upon someone elses work? You might enjoy and value fan content, but not everyone does, and if a creator doesn't then they should *absolutely* have the right to render judgement on whether something that belongs *to them* is available for someon uses it use - plenty of creators are fine with it, which is why you have things like the Open Game License and Creative Commons. Others *want* to control their own work, who its used, and how its used, and are entitled to do so - because they fething created it in the first place. Advocating that a fan should be entitled to the use of someone elses property isn't far removed form arguing that an employer is entitled to their employees labor (aka slavery).

Lots of contemporary western laws exist to protect communal interests from private ones.

Slipspace put it more directly and succinctly than I could (have an exalt Slipspace, very well put). 40k is not communal property. Fiction, franchises, etc. are not communal property. You don't have a communal interest in it, you don't have ownership in it. You are a consumer of someone elses product and nothing more.

The simple truth of the matter is that the franchises and settings you seem to value so much as a "fan", like 40k, Star Wars, and Star Trek, etc. exist precisely because of laws which advantage their creators and owners and allow them to have "iron fisted" control over the IP and to seek restitution and damages from those who infringe on it - which includes passionate and (often) well-intentioned fans producing work which disrupts the creators own ability to keep creating. These things cost money and resources to create, produce, maintain, and grow, and those laws exist to allow their creators the exclusive economic advantages needed to ensure that they are able to access and acquire the money and resources needed to allow that to occur.

There is a reason why major media franchises and pop culture commodities (and really the "industry" as a whole) are centered around places with very strong pro-creator IP and copyright protection laws, like the US, UK, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and not in places with historically weak and lax IP and copyright laws like Russia, China, or much of Eastern Europe. Its because they give creators ownership and control, which in turn allows these creators to profit from their intellectual creations in a manner which is conducive to encouraging further development of them, unlike the "communal" approach you are advocating for. The "communal" view of IP is precisely why China - a nation of a billion plus souls which has produced some amazingly talented and skilled artists, designers, and creatives - has largely struggled to develop any sort of meaningful domestic media franchises or pop culture fixtures and largely imports its pop culture from abroad (principally the UK, US, Japan, and Taiwan, even in spite of the geopolitical rivalries that exist between it and these nations). Not only do lax protections harm the ability of a creator to develop their creation, but it encourages creators to travel overseas to other places where stricter protections exist so they can pursue them more effectively - China in particular has had quite a bit of a "brain drain" in this sense as talented creatives have largely traveled overseas for better opportunities that arise in connection with these IP protections.

This isn't really hyperbole, its a well studied and researched topic, and IP is increasingly being viewed as the next "gold rush" with major geo-political and strategic implications (moreso in the sense of technology, but media is also relevant as a way of exercising soft power and influence on a global scale). China is increasingly aware and understanding of this this and has spent the last few decades drastically improving their IP and copyright laws and encouraging stricter enforcement of them to give primacy and exclusivity to creators - this has coincided with a growing rise of Chinese based media franchises and pop culture commodities, etc. Likewise, as various eastern european nations joined the EU and tightened their copyright and IP laws there has been a growth in creative output and the slow development of domestic media streams (books, novels, games, films, etc.) attributed to protections and ownership granted to their creators against infringement by both well-meaning fans and malicious free-riding parasites who would otherwise view it as "communal" property.

No matter how well-intentioned you think you are, the reality is that your "system" basically dis-incentives the existence and development of properties like 40k, Star Wars, etc. There wouldn't *be* a 40k for people to make fan content of if you took away GWs rights to exclusivity over its creation.

Slipspace wrote:
I think this is where the heart of the problem lies. The 40k setting is not some publicly owned piece of community property. It belongs to the company that built it up over decades and their right to control its use is one of the things that encourages the sort of creativity required to produce it in the first place. Treating IP as communal property leads to some weird outcomes, like trying to adjudicate how popular something has to be before its creators lose control over it.

To clarify, I do not believe 40k or any other setting should be communal property. What I believe is that communities have a large numbers of desires and needs, fan content is an expression of that, hence I want it to be legally recognized and protected as such. De facto fan content already does exists undisturbed in large number so it wouldn't practically entail a situation so different from the status quo.

Chaos, I'll again decline to comment on your points individually, rest assured I disagree with the vast majority of them, as well the mindset I sense behind them.

Instead allow my respond by posing a series of questions: What is it you desire of me? Are you trying to dissuade me of my views? And can you fanthom me having a different set of beliefs than you do?

If nothing else we can at least agree to disagree.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I think this is where the heart of the problem lies. The 40k setting is not some publicly owned piece of community property. It belongs to the company that built it up over decades and their right to control its use is one of the things that encourages the sort of creativity required to produce it in the first place. Treating IP as communal property leads to some weird outcomes, like trying to adjudicate how popular something has to be before its creators lose control over it.

To clarify, I do not believe 40k or any other setting should be communal property. What I believe is that communities have a large numbers of desires and needs, fan content is an expression of that, hence I want it to be legally recognized as such.

Fan content is recognized as fan content (unless the fans in question are running a scam). But it doesn't give fans any rights to profit off it, or any measure of control over it.

Voss wrote:
Fan content is recognized as fan content (unless the fans in question are running a scam). But it doesn't give fans any rights to profit off it, or any measure of control over it

For clarification I've added *protected* to my earlier post.

See, I believe fan content to have a complementary value, it is the setting as well as the dedication and craftsmanship that constitute the whole product. It is that wholeness gives me the opinions I expressed in this thread, and why I believe creators of fan content should deserve to be protected by law.

"I don't believe it should be communal property, I just believe the community should be able to use it as and when they please".
That just sounds like a distinction without a difference.

The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it.
If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it

I agree.

If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.

Again, I agree.

So what do we disagree on?

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Chaos, I'll again decline to comment on your points individually, rest assured I disagree with the vast majority of them, as well the mindset I sense behind them.

ooooh wow, the "mindset that you sense" - what, pray tell, is that?

Instead allow my respond by posing a series of questions: What is it you desire of me? Are you trying to dissuade me of my views? And can you fanthom me having a different set of beliefs than you do?

I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it

I agree.

If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.

Again, I agree.
So what do we disagree on?

If you agree on these two points, then why are you advocating for change in policy that would allow others to use something that is not theirs to use just because you or others like it?

I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

Really you think in order to have an opinion people have to explain why they are suppose to be allowed to have one ? Well how about this one. The good armies and the bad armies, and the armies that GW does not fix, all cost money, same with their rule , the rule updates etc. You don't get a bad army for free, you don't get paints to paint it for free. you don't get a pass to not pay for table time at the store just because your army is bad and you have a much higher chance to lose. And if they cost similar money, then what you get out of them should also be similar. If bad army costs 100$ and a good army cost 1000$, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Pay 100$, get 100$ expiriance. But if you pay 700-800$ and your army does not work, well then I think that people are very much entitled to voice their concern about the state of things. Specially if the state does not get fixed.

If Hyndai produced a car that would just not work, then just because people driving other models of Hyundai cars or BMWs are happy, it doesn't remove the right of the Hyundai owners to be rather upset about the state things. Specially if Hyundai way of fixing the problem, was something kin to hook up a horse to pull it or concentrate on making the hood more artsy, instead of focusing on the driving.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

All I can say is that I will not being satisfying your wish.

Really, my unanswered question sums it up well, it's not a matter of accepting but of understanding. Now, if that is absent, how is this exchange supposed to be anything other than a constant repeat of our convictions. Ironically as I see it, we both are compelled to post them over and over again. Despite our differences, we're alike in some ways.

chaos0xomega wrote:
.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it

I agree.

If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.

Again, I agree.
So what do we disagree on?

If you agree on these two points, then why are you advocating for change in policy that would allow others to use something that is not theirs to use just because you or others like it?

I agree with this sentiment.
Why advocate for the policy you do if you agree with my points?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I agree with this sentiment.
Why advocate for the policy you do if you agree with my points?

Isn't it clear by now though? I simply do not belief that my policies entail what you belief they entail.

Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining them properly, and if so I'd be willing to attempt to do so again if asked. If your response to that explanation will be broadly similar to our previous exchanges then I'd best to just affirm my point above.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

To clarify, I do not believe 40k or any other setting should be communal property. What I believe is that communities have a large numbers of desires and needs, fan content is an expression of that, hence I want it to be legally recognized and protected as such.

Your second sentence directly contradicts the first. You don't think anything should be communal property but you want people to be able to use IP for fan works. That makes it communal property because you've taken control away from the owner. Your argument seems to be getting less and less coherent.

Your opinion still seems to boil down to "I like fan content so screw the big companies". What would be your position if, say, Apple decided to make a 40k Space Marine movie without permission. Should that be allowed? If not, why not? What if the writer and director were huge fans of 40k, effectively making this a fan project or labour of love?

Ideas aren't sandwiches.

If two people have a sandwich each, and they exchange them, they still leave with a sandwich.

If two people have and idea each, and they exchange them, both leave with two ideas.

It's not rocket science. IP is a modern (and relatively unnatural) invention that we needed at the beginners of the industrial age to force scientific research to merge with the economic system.

And, honestly, I don't really understand why all the third party miniature provider should be ashamed. They're doing derivative work, exactly as GW did. Maybe they are the next GW, who knows?
As long as it's not recasting, is legit. The example of a Lamborghini painting is pretty clear.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Voss wrote:
Fan content is recognized as fan content (unless the fans in question are running a scam). But it doesn't give fans any rights to profit off it, or any measure of control over it

For clarification I've added *protected* to my earlier post.

Your 'clarifications' are making your position far less clear.

See, I believe fan content to have a complementary value, it is the setting as well as the dedication and craftsmanship that constitute the whole product. It is that wholeness gives me the opinions I expressed in this thread, and why I believe creators of fan content should deserve to be protected by law.

What?

Complementary value to what?

How does 'dedication' become a constituent of a product? Fan work isn't part of the craftmanship of a product. It is, by definition, something that comes afterwards.

Your opinion seems more and more to be made of pieces that shift around. There's no wholeness to them or to your definitions- it certainly makes your arguments difficult to follow.

I'm not sure why fan creators need legal protection. Or who they need legal protection from. The owners? Does a pickpocket deserve legal protection from me if he takes cash out of my wallet?

Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining them properly

It definitely is. Editing older posts piecemeal after people have responded to them makes you much less coherent.

Cybtroll wrote:Ideas aren't sandwiches.

If two people have a sandwich each, and they exchange them, they still leave with a sandwich.

If two people have and idea each, and they exchange them, both leave with two ideas.

Except, of course, that isn't the relationship being discussed.
Party #2 isn't interested in _exchanging_ ideas, and doesn't have any ideas of their own.

They're using the idea of Party #1 and offering nothing in return. They're, metaphorical speaking, nibbling on someone else's sandwich and wandering off.

Slipspace wrote:
Your second sentence directly contradicts the first. You don't think anything should be communal property but you want people to be able to use IP for fan works. That makes it communal property because you've taken control away from the owner. Your argument seems to be getting less and less coherent.

I've reiterated this point multiple times, I don't intend to remove all creators' right on intellectual creations, just to institutions leniency with regards to fan creation (that evidently already exists in practice) in a legislative manner. Now the exact conditions and terms will have to be described specifically in the legislation, in instances that it doesn't suffice experts should be available to form an opinion on a case by case basis.

In the end creators will lose some rights to the community, which I deem to be acceptable. Especially because for the most part it will be rights they don't seem to have much interest in exercising how. (Again the evidence of this abundantly available on the internet on this very for. Hell, part of my user name is lifted straight from a 40k videogame)

I used 'crumb cases' earlier to refer to the ventures I wish to protect, such a concept exists in certain Dutch laws. It's by no means a perfect comparison, but there is a reason why companies don't go against pieces of fan art why the have the practical ability and legal right to do so. In fact there must be creators out there who don't know that the instant they draw an imperial aquila they are committing a civil offence. I don't want that burden to exist, once again if properly demarcated in legislation.

Your opinion still seems to boil down to "I like fan content so screw the big companies". What would be your position if, say, Apple decided to make a 40k Space Marine movie without permission. Should that be allowed? If not, why not? What if the writer and director were huge fans of 40k, effectively making this a fan project or labour of love?

Well, I like fan content and I am distrustful of certain corporate entities. Yet I earnestly do not believe that is why I hold the opinions that I do. More likely both my general beliefs and the one expressed in this thread are downstream from a very fundamental set of values I cannot eloquently describe here. However I see the opinions I expressed here return in other beliefs I hold, maybe it is a form of David versus Goliath sympathy. Other returning motifs are 'craftsmanship', 'community's and 'fairness'. These words I've used repeatedly but everytime I see them interpreted in a manner In don't, in this with regard I approach the aforementioned words in an much more immaterial and a non universal sense.

This obviously won't satisfy everything, but I hope it makes it clear I don't form my opinions out just self interest.

Lastly, I don't think Apple should be able to make a 40k movie, even when it's free, qualitivly good and produced my genuine fans.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining them properly, and if so I'd be willing to attempt to do so again if asked.

Please don't. We understand what your PoV is well enough & we completely disagree with it.
I. E.; no one is buying the crap idea your peddling.

Well, I like fan content and I am distrustful of certain corporate entities. Yet I earnestly do not believe that is why I hold the opinions that I do. More likely both my general beliefs and the one expressed in this thread are downstream from a very fundamental set of values I cannot eloquently describe here. However I see the opinions I expressed here return in other beliefs I hold, maybe it is a form of David versus Goliath sympathy. Other returning motifs are 'craftsmanship', 'community's and 'fairness'. These words I've used repeatedly but everytime I see them interpreted in a manner In don't, in this with regard I approach the aforementioned words in an much more immaterial and a non universal sense.

This obviously won't satisfy everything, but I hope it makes it clear I don't form my opinions out just self interest.

It doesn't at all. It makes it clear that you aren't will to explain what your ideas are, or engage in an actual discussion about them.

It doesn't seem like self-interest as much as just being argumentative for the sake of it. Reiterating that you can't or won't explain makes it fairly pointless.

"I know I made 12 quadrillion dollars when I made Caradman Sturnn's creation into a film, your Honor. I'm just a devoted fan who wanted to further show off his work, and I'm flattered that my creation made it to the big screen. Of course, I don't owe him any money or royalties because I'm just that devoted of a fan, and much dedication and effort went into copying his designs and narrative ideas."

- Disney, probably.

Voss wrote:

Your 'clarifications' are making your position far less clear.

What?

Complementary value to what?

How does 'dedication' become a constituent of a product? Fan work isn't part of the craftmanship of a product. It is, by definition, something that comes afterwards.

Your opinion seems more and more to be made of pieces that shift around. There's no wholeness to them or to your definitions- it certainly makes your arguments difficult to follow.

I'm not sure why fan creators need legal protection. Or who they need legal protection from. The owners? Does a pickpocket deserve legal protection from me if he takes cash out of my wallet?

It definitely is. Editing older posts piecemeal after people have responded to them makes you much less coherent.

I'll apologize upfront if my posts' are lacking coherency, looking back I certainly can't disagree entirely.

I'll attempt to explain my position as concisely as I can:

Fan content displays varying degrees of craftsmanship and dedication in addition to the setting it uses (that is not of the creator's making). As such fan content is a product of two complimentary creators, the content creator and the holder of setting.

From my observations I have determined that fan content is broadly a desirable phenomenon, an enrichment of the setting as it were. I also observe that fan content thrives in large numbers, this despite the fact that the owners of the settings have broad authority to deny much if not all fan content from existing, they do not opt to so in many cases, though.

I see it as good thing if content creators were in a position in which their works are enabled to exist undisturbed, which is the status quo in many instances already, but not all as discussed in this thread. Doing this via democratic means that legislation with the precise demarcation of allowed content will be necessary.

I do not advocate for a complete butchering of copyright laws or a carte blanche for individuals to use third party settings for any purpose they desire.

The last paragraph exist because I noticed many posters have an 'all or none' attitude with regards to this subject. I do not believe well defined legal leniency for fan content is tantamount to an intellectual apocalypse.

Fan creators do have a place where their works can exist undisturbed, and that place is "for free and not for profit."

The moment someone starts making money off of someone else's idea is the moment IP law should kick in. Till then? Draw or write whatever you want.

My snide quote from Disney loses all of it's meaning if the work were free and Disney only lost money.

Voss wrote:
It doesn't at all. It makes it clear that you aren't will to explain what your ideas are, or engage in an actual discussion about them.

It doesn't seem like self-interest as much as just being argumentative for the sake of it. Reiterating that you can't or won't explain makes it fairly pointless.

Actually, I have explained myself multiple times, not perfectly, mind you, which I was trying to address in the quoted post, but that was also to refute the argument that my position are give in by self interest.

Frankly, this discussion has been exhausting, In a nutshell I argue that fan content should be able to exist undisturbed, I got so much flak that we're now deep down in a discussion of legislation and technicalities. I was compelled to continue do so because I wanted to stand up for my ideals, but it has worn me out, in no small part due to ever aggressive tone of my opposition, even as I'm striving to be ever civil.

I'll attempt to explain my position as concisely as I can:

Fan content displays varying degrees of craftsmanship and dedication in addition to the setting it uses (that is not of the creator's making). As such fan content is a product of two complimentary creators, the content creator and the holder of setting.

Ok. Sure the fan creator is doing some work (at least sometimes, I've seen way too many fanfics where the author just runs through entire episodes with minor changes and 'fanart' that consist of just screen captures).

How is this helpful for the original content creator? (the phrase 'holder of the setting' is oddly passive and implies they aren't doing any work) In what way is it complimentary for the original artist? Most shows/writers/companies have a 'don't send us ideas' policy, because they don't want to get into legal wrangles about how they 'owe' someone who sends in suggestions.

From my observations I have determined that fan content is broadly a desirable phenomenon, an enrichment of the setting as it were.

Desirable for who? Is it anyone beyond fans that want more, but for free?

I also observe that fan content thrives in large numbers, this despite the fact that the owners of the settings have broad authority to deny much if not all fan content from existing, they do not opt to so in many cases, though.

That's a _really_ broad spectrum. From a twelve year old that doodles a logo on their backpack to someone trying to mass-sell t-shirts of IP material as quickly as possible before they get shut down. There isn't much reason to go after the former, and lots to go after the latter.

I see it as good thing if content creators were in a position in which their works are enabled to exist undisturbed, which is the status quo in many instances already, but not all as discussed in this thread.

Yeah, but why though? What's the reasoning?

Doing this via democratic means that legislation with the precise demarcation of allowed content will be necessary.

OK, but what is the precise demarcation? And how is legislation (and enforcement) magically going to turn into a democratic process? And an international one?

I do not advocate for a complete butchering of copyright laws or a carte blanche for individuals to use third party settings for any purpose they desire.

So where are the latter getting cut off, and how is the former surviving if its getting replaced by 'democratic' legislation with new demarcation for allowed content?

It really sounds like your argument boils down to "I like the stuff, so it should be allowed it ignore property rights".

The IP isn't theirs to use. It doesn't matter how much work they put behind it, it's not their IP and if the IP owner doesn't want them using it, that's all there is to it.

ccs wrote:
Please don't. We understand what your PoV is well enough & we completely disagree with it.
I. E.; no one is buying the crap idea your peddling.

I appreciate you being forthright with your disagreement even if I disapprove of your choice of words.

I am slightly disturbed you feel compelled to use 'we', in your disagreement but you can observe as well as I that I'm practically alone in the this discussion, so I am going to assume good faith here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss, I'll give a detailed response some time later, I've been on a tablet the last few days and it hasn't been an ideal platform for in depth discussion so far, it probably won't be before weekend until I have a normal PC to work on.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It really sounds like your argument boils down to "I like the stuff, so it should be allowed it ignore property rights".

No, I have vehemently denied that self interest is my motivator just a few posts ago and I'll do so again.

The IP isn't theirs to use. It doesn't matter how much work they put behind it, it's not their IP and if the IP owner doesn't want them using it, that's all there is to it.

Gotcha, it's this exact point that clashes with my sense of fairness and view of good policy, there should be an undisturbed environment for fan content to exist. I can't state my core position any more concise. This apparently disgusts may of my fellow participants here but it is my view in earnest and I do not feel tempted to readjust them by the given arguments.