I know I say this once a year, but it seems like it needs to be repeated once a year, you do NOT own the copyrights to fanworks.
Poprageous may or may not be shitty, but they are under no obligation to obtain permission from purplekecleon to use Pokemon characters on leggings. They only need PCI’s permission. Even if PCI granted permission for purplekecleon to make the fanart (unlikely) in the first place, poprageous would almost definitely still need to obtain PCI’s - not purplekecleon’s - permission to sell it in another form.
Fanartists - you have zero rights to works involving non-original characters.
And, as always, I say this as a fanartist.
This is dead wrong. You should either be ashamed of your ignorance or admonished for purposely misleading artists.
Fan artists, you have 100% of the control over who gets to use your artwork in cases where fair use does not apply.
Nintendo owns Pokemon. PurpleKecleon owns the fanart she created.
Nintendo owns the rights to Pokemon. PurpleKecleon owns the rights to the fanart she created.
What is wrong with you? Why do you think fanartists own the rights to works with copyrighted characters? They don’t! Please don’t lie to artists - it’s this misinformation that sends them into idiotic rages. The only instance in which a fanartist MIGHT be able to claim rights is
1) if it’s an obvious work of parody - and even then, the originality still needs to be in the majority (e.g. I’m honestly not sure whether 50% off would lose a suit or not)
2) If it’s a transformative, not derivative, work. Transformative means to make it into something new - making it a part of a larger whole. Not just drawing it in your own personal style.
If one person creates a character and claims copyright, that is it. When another person draws that character, they don’t suddenly get a piece of that copyright.
Please don’t spread this misinformation.
There are some fandoms you cannot publish fanfic for. You literally will get sued just for writing fanfic. Because you, as a fan, own ZERO portion of the copyright, and the original creators exercise their RIGHTS to restrict content creation. Even if the derivative work you created was done with your two hands, it doesn’t mean it’s not derivative, and it doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Again, I’ve made fanworks and I’ve bought fan-produced materials, but don’t kid yourself and pretend it’s actually legal.
You are absolutely 100% dead wrong. There are very few circumstances in which the rights to your own work are automatically owned by someone else. In fact I can only think of one, and it’s when you have a written contract saying so.
If you made it, you own the rights. If it’s a derivative work, then yes, the owner of the source material can try taking you to court, and you might lose and be forced to stop selling or showing your work. That doesn’t mean you don’t own it. The owner still can’t take your work and share it or sell it or even re-derive from it without your permission, because it’s your work.
You’re mixing up the rights to the source work, the rights to the derived work, and the “legality” of the derived work. They are not the same thing.
Where did you even get this idea? Your list of exceptions, too, is a really distorted version of what constitutes fair use.
eta: this is, of course, based on US law; i don’t know how other countries may differ. the berne convention tends to mean everyone’s pretty similar though.