This is true! But you seem to be under the impression that until these works fall into public domain, nobody can do anything with them. And that’s not true, because fair use provisions exist. Do you not know what fair use is? Are you ignoring it? Are you insisting that we do or should live in a world where fair use doesn’t exist? The work in question falls under fair use provisions, so it is not a violation of copyright.
No, it’s not. It’s fair use. And again, whether it’s for profit is not relevant. If you create a derivative work that falls under fair use provisions, it is not a copyright violation, regardless of whether you sell the derivative work. If you create a derivative work that does not comply with fair use provision, or simply copy something you do not have the right to copy, it is a copyright violation, regardless of whether you sell the derivative work. Profit from the derivative work has nothing to do with the determination of whether it violates copyright.
Well, no, I’m not. I’m explaining it. But the law is the point, since we are discussing a legal ruling that determines the legal status of a work.
Are you? I still don’t know what principle you’re trying to explain, because you’re contradicting yourself, presenting false statements as fact, and not making much sense. I think the principle you’re trying to explain is that you believe that no derivative work should be legal under any circumstances because you believe that any derivative work negatively impacts the financial reward to a creator. But that’s not true. It’s not true in this case, and it’s not true generally. Financial impact isn’t the issue (copyright violations with no financial impacts on the copyright holder are still illegal), and some derivative works are perfectly legal (and perfectly ethical).
So either that’s not what you’re trying to explain (and you need to do a better job explaining it) or that is what you’re trying to explain (and you’re wrong).
What you’re railing against isn’t actually a problem for anybody, though.
But nobody is suggesting that that should be the case. I’m not suggesting that. Cory’s not suggesting that. Geigner’s not suggesting that. Sammartino’s not suggesting that. There is a very great difference between fair use (which this work is) and republishing a duplicate of somebody else’s work as your own (which this work is not). Again: are you choosing to pretend that difference does not exist, or do you genuinely not understand it? It’s not a subtle distinction, legally or ethically.
They are not infringing copyright, because fair use does not violate copyright. Profit is irrelevant to that determination.
I’m not! Because that’s not what this is.
This is new work inspired by previous works. It doesn’t duplicate prior work, it doesn’t “rip off” prior work, it doesn’t violate copyright of prior work. It takes prior work, adds something original, makes a new thing. Which is what all artists do all the time.
At whose expense? Not Roddenberry’s, because he’s dead. Not Geisel’s, because he’s dead too.
What expense? When somebody buys “Oh, The Places You’ll Boldly Go!” they don’t think “Oh well this book is now exactly functionally equivalent to both “Oh, The Places You’ll Go!” and all three seasons of ST:TOS, so I need no longer purchase either of those things”. That’s absurd, and you know it’s absurd.
That’s true! Because neither Seuss nor TOS Trek are in the public domain. (Now, I think they should be, but that’s a different discussion.) Public domain is irrelevant to this discussion, though, because nobody is claiming Seuss or TOS Trek to be public domain, and the legal status of “Oh, The Places You’ll Boldly Go!” has nothing to do with public domain. It’s fair use. Fair use is also real, and also good, and this is exactly how it works.
