The campaign has been ended.

[Paul Franzen]

Whoops, sorry about that! Guess I have an itchy posting finger.

[Chicky]

Please read all the posts please.

Like how you read the IndieGoGo T&C before trying to rip us off with your campaign?

[Ali]

I just wanted to chime in and add my two cents to the commercial debate and just say that you can technically raise money for a fan project that uses copy-written materials as long as you release it for free upon completion and don't charge for the item itself or list it as a reward for backing.

I think this is 'can' in the sense that you probably won't get into trouble. But it still isn't legal to use other people's material whether you profit from it or not.

[amateurhour]

I just wanted to chime in and add my two cents to the commercial debate and just say that you can technically raise money for a fan project that uses copy-written materials as long as you release it for free upon completion and don't charge for the item itself or list it as a reward for backing.

I think this is 'can' in the sense that you probably won't get into trouble. But it still isn't legal to use other people's material whether you profit from it or not.

Yes and No. Copyright law has a lot of holes in it, in particular is has two popular defenses in fair use and the first amendment, which contain sub-defenses like parody and implied consent (I.E. if the team from Valve say "we love the way people make all this fan generated content", it's implied consent that they allow it and does hold up in court)

While someone could be taken to court over a free distribution of fan works based on copy written material, they'd be likely to, and have often won based on the above defenses.

Interestingly, the guy who is the resident IP attorney for deviantart gave a speech on this at SDCC (San Diego Comic Con) 2012 that recently hit the interwebs. It's an hour long, but an amazing listen.

http://www.webcomicmarketing.com/fan-art-panel-at-sdcc-2012/

I will agree with you that technically it's illegal in a broad stroke that all works based on derivative pieces are a breach of copyright law, but there's several upheld in the supreme court defenses to that law.

I only argue it because I don't want to see great potential artists, musicians, or developers learning their craft turned away because of the threat of a lawsuit by a company that owns the rights to the inspiration for wanting to learn those crafts.

Having said that.... If you're a good artist, writer, musician, or developer and you've been one for years, having honed your skillset, stop using other people's shit : )

[m0ds]

Interestingly it's also territorial when it comes to copyright law. For example, a UK business is likely to get a break (leniency) more than a US business. But I agree with amateurhour, "Copyright law has a lot of holes in it" - it's worth looking into. It's worth doing it by the book, because the book is really skew-if and gives you quite a lot of leeway, rather than not doing it by the book and making yourself vulnerable.