this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
93 points (94.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54500 readers
371 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is how I understand it: the 3 main alternatives for the author were:
None of them are ideal and, although (from what I understand... IANAL) you are right that with the 3rd one DC can do whathever they want, companies don't like when anyone can make any kind (gore, porn, furry porn...) of fanart with their products. If Fables ends up being identified with not-safe-for-monetization stuff, it could be dangerous for them. Imagine the possible "won't somebody please think of the children?" juicy headlines about it.
But I think the main reason is that this makes it a problem only for DC instead of it being a problem for the author.
EDIT: As pointed in other comments, they would also loose the exclusivity over the product and merchandising. They would need to compete with very cheap legal-knockoffs.