I understood what you stated. But while I do agree that its more tricky than those other cases, I just don't consider it to be so vastly different. Fan art in general can be considered derivate work, but plenty of it can still fall under the scope of "fair use" protection. By simply saying that fan art in general doesn't have that protection, you are removing that protection from a lot of work that has the same reasons to be protected by fair use as those other more clear examples. "Fair use" doesn't have objective limits, its a broad notion that relies more on a case by case analysis than an general set of cases. As such, its certainly possible for a court to consider a particular fan art to not be protected by "fair use", especially if doesn't have obvious parody elements or isn't highly transformative, but its just as easy for a court to consider it protected by fair use upon analyzing it. It will depend much more on the work itself than on the fact that its fan art, and pretty much all fan art can make an argument that its intent is parody by imitation.Adamant wrote:
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Quoting other people's work for the purpose of educating a paying audience or making a referential joke to someone else's work to an audience paying to hear your jokes is one thing, and definitely falls under fair use. Making significant profit from drawing fan art of other people's creations and selling them is another. The difference between a bootleg Dragonball poster and a poster print of a piece of Dragonball fanart is mostly just the scale of the production and the level the artist likes the franchise.
Also, the difference between a bootleg Dragonball poster and a poster print of a piece of Dragonball fanart, is that the first is an illegal distribution of the original material while the second is just the use of designs that might be copyrighted and that depending on the case, can be perfectly acceptable.
In any case, Abridged is quite clearly a parody.
