[ SECRET POST #5052 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5052 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #723.
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

[meadowphoenix]

IP law is such an interesting creation to me, because it absolutely has to do with a certain type of capitalism, and was straight up not how art was understood even at the beginning of the 18th century.

anyway, I think this is an issue of value system. if you think you should follow the law and avoid pecuniary harm, then yea making money off selling derivative stuff that is insufficiently derivative is not great don't do it. but imo any harm in general to derivative work is going to be from the corporations you so insist is distinctly gray because they have the money to fight even when they're wrong.

there are philosophical concerns I have with the distinction between defendable IP and derivations of the same (mainly that the issue is abstract in nature and involves social cohesion that the law is not equipped to regulate), but I assure you that prohibitions against money is to make suits easier on AO3 (it's much easier to show harm when you can point to numbers). It's not because you can't make money for derivative work or even that it is ethically shitty to do so, if the work is sufficiently derivative.