[ SECRET POST #2868 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2868 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #410.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[visp]

No, it's not legal. But in case you haven't noticed, lots of illegal IP infringement goes on around the internets.

[esteefee]

I have commissioned stories from writers I love in the past. For charity auctions or directly if the mood struck me. I see absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. They are artists. I am a consumer of art. Call me the Pope. :D

And I'm not sure about it being illegal. The OTW has already made headway in establishing fanworks as transformative works. Still actionable, sure, but I don't think it's likely that, say, Marvel would come after a writer personally for making chump change on some AOS stories. Imagine the bad publicity.

Campbell's soup was an active copyright/trademark when Andy Warhol profited quite a bit from his soup cans.

[(Anonymous)]

Campbell's probably didn't sue because the paintings were mostly straightforward, like a giant ad for soup. The fact that they didn't is less about trademark law and more about Campbell's being smart enough to realize that the publicity wasn't hurting them, so they let it go. How a copyright holder will react to what, in their view, would be derivative works depends on the individual copyright holder.

[esteefee]

Right. See above in re: bad publicity. I really think at this point going after a fan fiction writer would result in some bad mojo, depending on the fandom.

Campbell actually wrote a very nice letter to Warhol. And sent him tomato soup. <3

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I would also say that Andy Warhol only painted pictures of Campbells soup, not produced his own soup and put it in Campbells labels. On fanfic, at least with canons that are from books, it's staying the same medium - written stories.

[(Anonymous)]

Good point. If Warhol had done that, Campbells and their lawyers would've been alllllllll over him in a hot minute.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a sticky gray area since the work is their own. They do all of the work, after all. It's only the characters that are not theirs, and it makes it a gray area for most people. I guarantee you, a lot of fanart would disappear or stop happening in, it certainly wouldn't be in the same volume that exists, without paid commissions because so many use it to supplement their income and... They wouldn't have time otherwise.

[(Anonymous)]

And it gets even more complicated when you're dealing with e.g. book fandom where a character doesn't actually have a set visual representation, but is still someone'e else's copyrighted character. It'd be feasible to claim said image was only loosely based on the canon character.

The written word is different because the vast, vast majority of characters exist in that form in some copyrightable way, be it as prose, manga, script etc. thus the "challenge" to the original is more direct.