Well sure, but we can't go around making laws based on what makes people happy. Laws have to be based on what benefits society. Copyrights currently do the opposite of that.IndigoJoy wrote:I think everyone can agree that a lot of people are upset when someone takes their artwork and does something to/with it without their permission, and I think the artist has a right to be upset if he or she so chooses to be. I personally would not be happy if someone took my fanart and was making a profit off it, regardless of anyone else's ethics.
The "fair use" clause is great in theory but the trouble is that it's so subjectively defined that in practice it comes down to whoever has the better lawyer, and the whim of the particular judge.IndigoJoy wrote:And then there is always the argument of fair use,
Legally speaking, you're right it does matter, but only as a matter of degree. In other words, copying for profit and copying without profit are both crimes, and both the same kind of crime, just one is liable for more damages. Also, as I pointed out earlier, trademark and copyright are very different things. Making a copy of something (copyright infringement) is not at all the same thing as claiming authorship of it (trademark violation).IndigoJoy wrote:and it does matter if someone is making a profit off your trademark/copyright.
