Also, the fact that, unlike patents and trademarks, copyright law does NOT require the holder to defend the IP at every turn means they can choose to ignore derivative works such as fan-films/fan-fic.
They may even be selective in their enforcement, such as when J.K. Rowling (if memory serves) sent C&D to those fan-fic which put HER "teenage" characters in very adult scenario, but left the family-friendly fan-fic alone.
I don't think random piecemeal censorship regimes are really the best solution. For example, the Star Trek Fan Film Guidelines actually forbid things that have actually been in Star Trek episodes and movies.
The dude tried to counter-sue claiming that since she didn't shut down ALL fan-fic, she effectively put her work into the Public Domain. Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way.
Arguing that she'd already granted an implied license would have been a better defense. Still a bad one, but a better one.
Since it isn't our property, should we be free of all repercussions?
Not all of them. Just those that would apply to properly-attributed non-commercial fan works.
Yes, because they violate an understanding and used someone else's property for profit.
You misrepresent the facts. For example, Trek Continues was a 501(3)(c). Many other projects that were series or full-length were also not operated as for-profit ventures. The ones that could be truly said to make a profit represent a small minority that would not be protected by the fair use provision I propose.
But, this isn't one collection, nor has every business responded the same way.
Exactly. It's entirely non-uniform. There's no accepted common approach to fan works, which is exactly what a fair use exception would create.
In point of fact, it is rather unfair to take "all fans" and lump them in one big category. That is largely unfair when different fan bases respond differently and IP owners also respond differently.
Most fans are not fans of a single franchise. If that were actually the case, mash-ups wouldn't be nearly as popular. What you suggest is that somehow having negotiate all the various copyright fiefdoms, each with their own vaguely-defined "guidelines", is good for fans, which is nonsense.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. It is the IP owners property, and I see no reason thus given to weaken their ability to protect their property, profitable or not. It's the same as hunting on private land to me. Does it benefit the land owner to say "Yes." Not really. But, it's their property, and they are allowed to decide.
In this metaphor, the best equivalent to hunting would be making profit. Fan works are more like people growing crops on your land, which is something that happened a lot during the Great Depression.
I cannot sue them to increase my access to their property.
Meaningless metaphor. You can't sue under fair use. It's a defense if you get sued.
TL: DR-fans have no rights to IP owners properties, from CBS, all the way down to the Deviant Art artist that I enjoy.
They have whatever rights are granted to them by law, ergo if you change the law, they have the right.
In some states, land owners may charge a fee to hunters wanting to use their land. How would such a concept apply to copyrights? Oh, yes, that's right: license agreements.
I've already covered this. It's not going to happen, at least for large commercial media properties. In their eyes, the liabilities outweigh the potential profit.
And you can thank Sonny Bono for some of this.
