introducing other panelists in "The Money Question"
Copyright law is designed to incentivize creativity, "to reward authors for being creative."
Lawyers think about financial repercussions of creativity/copyright, but fans tend to not focus on finances as reason for engaging in fanac, esp. fic.
Copyright law suggests that people require the financial incentive to be creative, but fans demonstrate there are many other motivations.
If we know people will be creative with motivations other than financial, then what is copyright law accomplishing if the incentive assumption is flawed?
Is copyright blocking creativity because it is too restrictive?
If $ enters a space where previously it wasn't part of the motivation/incentive structure, how do copyright considerations change once $ is introduced to the space?
When fans demand compensation, it gets stickier because they are creating within the world of somebody else's creation. Fanworks, however, are protected by fair use, "a really messy doctrine," with market harm as one of the explicit factors evaluated to determine if it's fair use.
We want to protect public good with copyright, not private gain. If you're making $, you can presumably afford to license intellectual property.
Copyright exceptions for news reporting & education, for example, promote the public good.
Fair use doctrine doesn't provide ability to exploit EVERYTHING, some things are reserved for creator.
If you aren't making $, copyright holder has a harder time arguing you're affecting their market/bottom line, but if you are charging, now it looks like you're siphoning $ from copyright holder.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN EVERYTHING DONE FOR FREE IS OKAY UNDER FAIR USE DOCTRINE. Some free stuff is still copyright infringement! eg music & video piracy
But also NOT EVERYTHING DONE FOR $ IS NOT FAIR USE.
"Keeping things noncommercial is the safest way that lawyers can see for protecting fan activities." & this is why AO3 has lots of rules about noncommercial use.
$ attracts attention, so copyright holders are more likely to sue if $ is involved.
We are seeing more ways that fans monetize their creations & Stacey is curious about non-lawyers' thoughts.
[quick disclaimer, Kimberly Hirsh is not A lawyer and Stacey Lantagne is not YOUR lawyer.]
What about when copyright holders claim that they own rights to fan work? Platforms that are monetizing fan labor?