Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

Let me come at this from the slightly different perspective of a community art gallery operator:

As a practical matter we get very few complaints from big business. Quite simply, it's not worth their time to complain about people producing products they'd never sell themselves - in part because bringing attention to its existence (plus the ensuing drama over its removal) might well be worse for their reputation than just ignoring it. Cases like Studio Canal and Paddington are the exception rather than the rule.

The other key exception is when a product competes with licensees. If someone paid a great deal of money in order to be able to make official statuettes or pillow-cases, for example, they'll likely ask Big Mouse or Auntie Barbera to stamp out the competition.

In our case we have a provision against selling fan-art on our site, and although that was primarily for when we sold prints or digital downloads, it's still in force. Since lawyers tend to only tend to reach out in such situations, it's very easy to keep them happy. Such cases are rare, though - it's happened only once that I can recall, regarding a statuette, and that was clearly in violation of that policy, so I was happy to take action (and the member in question didn't complain). I suspect in practice this would be true for MFF as well.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.