As a creator of digital arts, I don't want others to steal my work and claim they have created it, or try to profit from it. That's what concerns me.

I am personally ok with derivative works, or works based on mine, as long as proper credit is given. I understand that not everyone feels like I do.

I think if I were to ever find some fans taking my work, I would contact them and tell them I own the copyright and they need to either put "Copyright 20XX Company X", or be shut down. You can still add your name to the credits, but must list my copyright and maybe some of our credits (like creator/designer of whatever assets were used).

What we, the copyright reformers, need to do is get a ton of money and lobby the people who write laws. Or, alternatively, we could turn on the politicians to alternative consciousness, and hope the psych studies play out.

I still think that thinking of it as "stealing" is misguided. What your really are basically saying is "Hey there is money being made on something I worked on that isn't going to me!". That isn't the same thing as "stealing" by any stretch of the imagination, unless you take the view that you already own that money, which I also disagree with. But I have spoken till I am blue in the face about how "stealing" and "copyright infringement" are two totally different things that are mushed together by people who just want a label they can plant on infringers to make other people take notice, but sadly too many people are invested in the lie of calling it theft.

Anyway, fans are usually very careful about doing stuff like you mentioned for fanworks. Just most copyright lawyers don't care, because giving credit has nothing to do with copyright. In fact I am pretty sure giving credit has no legal reason for it what so ever, it's just something people do out of polite common practice (though unions may have a lot to do with it in film/tv). The law and our creative cultural practices often have very little to do with each other a lot actually.

Best way to reform copyright I think Is to destroy the support base of the companies that rely on it by refusing to buy their crap whenever possible. Something which has become easier and easier given how much free amateur material there is everywhere on the net that anyone can access. Why go to a book store when there is so much good fiction written by random people who just want to write a story? Old Media is dead, time to embrace New Media.

I’m cool with most derivative works, but this is basically why I’m not totally on board with fan games:

          - Most fan games do a poor job of representing the characters/settings/events. (This is not limited to games only, and I repeat: most.) This is rarely intentional - it’s just a natural consequence of working with material you aren’t experienced with. At its absolute worst, this comes off as insulting the source material rather than paying homage to it.

          - At times, the ideas in fan games overlap too much with those of the company. Take Pokémon Uranium, for example. I highly doubt it, but say Nintendo had had a similar idea in progress when Uranium had started getting big. That whole concept would’ve had to get thrown out, lest they be accused of stealing that Uranium's ideas. As well, any future attempt at that concept would also be looked upon as theft. 

Don't get me wrong, I 100% understand the appeal of making fan games. Not only are they great teaching tools (you have characters, setting, etc. from the start) - they also allow you to add onto a story you're passionate about. It's just the problems for the copyright holders that I don't like.

Most official games nowadays do a poor job of representing the characters/settings/events too. I mean the fan project that inspired this blog was a fan remake of Metroid 2 which is just fantastic, and I challenge you to say it represents the franchise worse then, say, Other M. Say what you want about crappy fanworks on the internet, at least they are made by hobbyists that often have no idea what they are doing. What's Nintendo's excuse? Or Capcom's? Or heaven forbid Konami's?

And that's kind of the thing. Big companies actually DO kinda have to fear that fanworks will steal their thunder, because fanworks don't have to worry about making money. They don't have to worry about catering to investors or an audience. They have every reason to be paranoid about what happens when their "property" (lol) gets out of their control. Because in a truly free market, they would not be able to compete with their fans.

If a lot of the fans that worked so hard at this sort of thing really wanted to file the serial numbers off so to speak and make their fangames into original properties... well anyone remember Freedom Planet? Isn't it interesting how that game was so much better then just about any Sonic game in existence despite being originally just another Sonic fangame. Heck just look at just about every indie game ever, most of which could practically be fangames themselves.

In an ideal world, they wouldn't have to do that though. In an ideal world, fangames and official products could exist side by side when the official products are good, and fans would have the power to "take" their favorite franchises back when it became obvious that no one at the company cared anymore. Right now we only have two choices, to try and futilely prop up dying franchises, or to move on and let the corporations in charge slowly die after they run out of nostalgia to feed them. 

Haha, like I said, there are always exceptions. And, if you don’t think Nintendo is doing a good job representing their own character, that’s ultimately just your opinion on the matter (though *ahem* I completely agree about Other M). If it’s their character, and they’re choosing to represent them a certain way, then that’s an official representation unless stated otherwise. Our opinions/preferences as fans (sometimes unfortunately, sometimes thankfully) don’t make something canonical. 
 

Sonic is a good example for what you’re talking about, yeah. I think many fans out there could do (and probably have done) a better job than the company is capable of (or willing to) at the moment, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he’s their IP. As the owners, they shouldn’t have to give up being seen as “real Sonic games†or “true Sonic games†for wanting to explore different gameplay styles and interpretations. Because then, and let’s cross our fingers that Sonic Mania will be an example of this, actually good titles they come out with won’t be taken as seriously. 

I feel pretty similar about this, really - I would love fan works and official products to be appreciated on the same level. I think the difference for me is that I’d prefer people to take inspiration from the game or franchises they love and create something new out of it, rather than use what's already been made. I guess I'm more of a fan of spiritual successors, lol.
 

Anyway, that’s my two cents on the matter.  

Well I am of the opinion that abstract ideas like characters/settings/etc. cannot be owned in the first place and that something being "canon" has no real meaning, but I recognize I am in the minority on that point. To me it's not about being a “real Sonic games†or “true Sonic games†as you put it, it's about if it is "good" or "bad", and is about if the people behind it actually care about what they are doing. Just because you happened to have manipulated the broken copyright system so you are seen as the "owner" of a "IP" (gag) means absolutely nothing in my eyes.

I could go on and talk about the numerous franchises where the original creators have basically been kicked out long ago and are shambling along as shells of their formal shelves and are "owned" by people who have no caring or understanding of the original and are only interested in the name. What right do the people who happened to buy up the rights to something have over it's fans? Oh right, they have the right of having the money. I forgot.
 

Regardless, the only way to actually change anything is, as I said, to just let the franchises we love be mismanaged to the point where the greedy parasites that own them don't fond them profitable and leave the industry all together.

Sorry, had to sleep a bit!

I don't think the idea of a character/setting should be owned, so I'm with you there. I'm more inclined to think the specifics can be owned. I'll clarify:
 

Going back to that last example, I don't think anyone should be able to own the name Sonic, the idea of a hedgehog as a main character, or a game based on running fast, but the title Sonic the Hedgehog (as attached to the character/design), sure. Pretty much the same thing, but as a non-character example: I don't think anyone should be able to own the name Hyrule Castle, the idea of it being a castle town, etc., but the specific maps/artwork/what have you, sure. 
 

It's a brand-recognition thing. You see those names, you associate them with that company/that game. And I think that's why a lot of companies fear fan works so much - the more that's out there with those names, the less likely a customer is to strictly purchase their product. So yes, it’s absolutely about the money. 
 

And yeah, "real" or "true" really weren't the words I was looking for, and honestly the correct ones still escape me. "Authentic experience" is about the closest I can come up with, and that still sounds wrong lmao. Anyway, I think you understood what I meant in that regard. (＾＾)ｂ
 

As far as things being canon/non-canon, I have a bit of an odd view of things. I think games directly linked to each other (in the same series, continuity, whatever you want to call it) should stick to the same interpretation of a character/event/setting. Things can change due to plot, but they should stem from the same basic premise. Once a game isn’t directly linked to something (whether it’s a reboot, spinoff, what have you), I think interpretations can be a bit less stiff. I get where you’re coming from, though. 
 

As far as a solution, I see yours as a possibility out of many. We could let things be mismanaged, or we could start making those games we want ourselves as new series. Maybe a fan can’t make a Sonic the Hedgehog game, but they could take that inspiration and create something new from it. 

Well, I can agree with you there. I do believe it's important to be able to tell where a work came from. Even if there is no effective difference in my mind between a fan or an "official" source, it's important that each are distinct enough that they can't be mixed up. I kinda think it's better to tie it with actual people then companies though. People have a right to be able to tell at a glance which creators are which. Trademarks are pretty important for exactly that reason. At the same time though, when ownership of a brand can change hands and be taken over by people that use that brand simply to make money, you have to question how valuable the brand is.

I see canon and non-canon as like parallel connected universes that may share the same "root" but diverge somewhere along the way.

Anyway, I see no problem with taking inspiration form something to make something new, but it's won't save the old things. The most it can do is replace them in a way. Sonic can't be saved by Freedom Planet, not unless the success of the inspirations in turn inspires people that own the brand, which certainly has happened before. It's still the same solution I offered. Let the old brands die and come up with new ideas. If the old ones are resurrected later by people who have the money, that's great! But we shouldn't cling to them I think.