[ SECRET POST #4911 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4911 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #703.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Two things give fan artists more leeway. First of all, each artist has their own style and that style is easily and undeniably recognizable as different from the original copyrighted work. So the argument that the fanart is transformative is much more easily made.

Secondly, if a fanartist allows their work to be viewed online, then the argument can be made that the customer is not paying them for the art. Because the art is there for them to experience for free. What the customer is paying for is a physical copy of the art, and what the artist is charging for is the work and cost of producing a physical copy of said art.

That's not to say no one could ever be sued for making money off of fanart. But unless they're making a whole wack of money, or harming the profitability of the copyrighted IP in some way, it's unlikely the copyright holder would bother trying to sue them.