I find your petition insulting, both in its intent and its lack of apparent research effort.

As a content creator I find 'Fan-work' to be disgusting. Seriously, go create your own setting and use your own imagination to make something new. So much time and effort goes into ripping off other people's work directly rather than letting that work influence the creation of something completely new.

@Luckless: For myself, there are circumstances and types of fan-work that produce works that I find to be quite worth my while.

Consider modern Sherlock Holmes stories (which are effectively fan-works): are stories like Neil Gaiman's A Study in Emerald or games like the Frogwares adventure series all worthless, for example? Additionally, there are also cases in which fans either produced enhanced versions of old games (see AGD's King's Quest and Quest for Glory 2 VGA remakes, for example), or continue largely-dead series (as in The Silver Lining; while King's Quest has subsequently been officially revived, I believe, it seemed pretty dead for much of the Silver Lining's development, as I recall).

Note that I'm not commenting on legality or IP dilution; I'm simply saying that not all fan-works are vacuous and worthless.

As an IP holder, I want to be able to control how my IP is viewed/used.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

@conq

I can't speak for everyone, but copyright does have its limits, and the definitions of fair-use are rather vague (I'm speaking from the perspective of someone in the US, this varies from country to country). I can't speak for the OP, but I haven't seen anyone else argue that an IP holder shouldn't be able to control how their IP is viewed/used. But, I think the definition of "control" is what's being discussed here. I don't think an IP holder should have "total" control over their IP. There are plenty of examples of egregious IP claims (and I'm not referring to trademark protections),

I think it's a little unfair to paint it as a black and white issue, Seeing and supporting the benefits of fair use doesn't mean negating an IP holder's right to their own works. There are gray areas, to be sure, and I'm not defending some sort of free-for-all against copyrighted work, by any means. But, there are always going to be works that brush up against IPs in the wild. Whether it's fan-made, satire or parody, similar IPs. etc. Personally, I don't think it would be healthy for IP holders to have total control, with ideas and works being isolated islands with nothing else touching them.

@Luckless: For myself, there are circumstances and types of fan-work that produce works that I find to be quite worth my while.

Consider modern Sherlock Holmes stories (which are effectively fan-works): are stories like Neil Gaiman's A Study in Emerald or games like the Frogwares adventure series all worthless, for example? Additionally, there are also cases in which fans either produced enhanced versions of old games (see AGD's King's Quest and Quest for Glory 2 VGA remakes, for example), or continue largely-dead series (as in The Silver Lining; while King's Quest has subsequently been officially revived, I believe, it seemed pretty dead for much of the Silver Lining's development, as I recall).

Note that I'm not commenting on legality or IP dilution; I'm simply saying that not all fan-works are vacuous and worthless.

I view reworking things from past generations to be different. I'm more referring to people who are making their own derived work from something the original creator is still working with, or a reasonable chance that they'll potentially be returning to. It is usually creative effort that is wasted because they haven't bothered to develop something they can claim their own solid rights to.

I view reworking things from past generations to be different. I'm more referring to people who are making their own derived work from something the original creator is still working with, or a reasonable chance that they'll potentially be returning to. It is usually creative effort that is wasted because they haven't bothered to develop something they can claim their own solid rights to.

No creative effort is wasted. It might not bring you financial reward, but that doesn't mean it's wasted.

While I absolutely agree that a content creator should have reasonable rights over their IP (especially in terms of financial reward), I think a more nuanced approach is warranted.

There are plenty of great fan made creations on youtube, etc. I don't think it's fair to tar them all with the same brush. What about machinima like Freemans Mind or Red Vs Blue, etc?

I think fair use applies here. Ultimately it should be up to the content creator as to whether they want to allow the distribution of fan made content, but I think it's ultimately self-defeating to be overly harsh with it.

What about young kids filming their own Star Wars or Avengers movies? It's obviously not in competition with the genuine article and shutting it down only generates negative publicity.

I find your petition insulting, both in its intent and its lack of apparent research effort.

This.

As its already been said, please do your research on IP. If any of my games were to be copied using my trademarks and infringing my patents, I would also consider law suit because it effects my company as a business. Keyword: business, because it all boils down to profits.

As much as I liked the Streets of Rage Remake by Bomber Games, SEGA was well within reason to shut it down. Fortunately for them, they always sought permission from SEGA before taking action.

Shogun

There are plenty of great fan made creations on youtube, etc. I don't think it's fair to tar them all with the same brush. What about machinima like Freemans Mind or Red Vs Blue, etc?

Honestly (and presuming that there isn't already something in place to this effect), I think that I'd like to see remixes and "transformative works"--works that take another work and, without destroying the original, use it to build an end result that is to a significant degree something new, as in Let's Plays, First Impressions, Machinima, etc.--being made an explicit exception to IP infringement.

The problem here is that one is very unlikely to change anything with a simple petition.

That said, I do think that some of the comments are unfair - it isn't all about ripping people's ideas off or the same as pirating games. This isn't black and white; few people think there should be no copyright at all, but that doesn't mean that copyright should always be as strict as it is. Many companies themselves have "ripped ideas" off, whether it's cases they've got away with it (e.g., the entire RPG industry spawned from Tolkien, or I remember one time when someone asked if they could make a game about Space Marines, and they were told this would obviously be Games Workshop IP violation until it was pointed out the idea far predates their usage), or cases where companies raid the pre-Mickey Mouse era for ideas, characters and stories only to then campaign for ever-increasing copyright terms (most notably Disney).

"Fan game" itself is very broad, covering things that definitely are covered by copyright (e.g., characters, levels) or trademarks, and those that aren't (rules) - e.g., FreeCiv seems to have managed fine (in practice, I think people tend to use the word "clone" for something that is based on something but otherwise legal, to avoid the negative connotations of "fan game", but not everyone may make that distinction).

Excuse me if I don't get out the pitchforks because someone decided to write a story/game/video about something, and we need to defend people's right to make as much profit as possible (even when the argument of lost profit seems dubious anyway). I would play the world's smallest violin, but that'd be ripping off someone else's idea.

Are games different? Interesting point - on the one hand, obviously C&D orders can do apply to all sorts of media, including music and videos on Youtube. I imagine the OP is referring to the vast numbers of things like remixes and samples on Youtube, it's unclear whether the music industry cares less about non-commercial derivative works, or that there's just so much of it out there (where as games tend to be smaller in number, it's easier to pick off the ones that gain any popularity).

I agree with Misantes, check out organisations like the EFF.

@luckless: "I view reworking things from past generations to be different. I'm more referring to people who are making their own derived work from something the original creator is still working with, or a reasonable chance that they'll potentially be returning to."

So when you say fan work is "disgusting" because people should make something new, you're still okay with it if the original creator isn't still working with it (even though that may still be copyright infringement, even if the creator is dead)? It also seems to me this could include fan games of games that are long abandoned. This is what I mean, it isn't so black and white.