/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2665436
Dis
Having people talk about your IP only makes your brand known. There is no such a thing as bad publicity
Second,
>>2665422
>>2665440
You are fucking stupid. Fair use is unrelated to the profit or respect of a brand. You can sell stuff that gives it a bad name, but you can't give for free stuff that doesn't fall under it.
>use a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself and satire, or comment on something else.
That means that you can use intellectual propriety names and alike even tho they do not benefit in some way to the owners. That's how they got away with stuff like pic related, they do fall in the category of fair use and still to this does not have changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_QWuyX8U18
PORN PARODIES can also be published legally thanks to this, regardless of the subject or the targeted audience of the original IP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmAmbS8cWS0
TL;DR: they can publish porn of nintendo legally
Third:
Acording to Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. case:
>copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
That means that until proven wrong, doxy does not have the obligation of deleting his artwork and neither Nintendo has the right of Deleting it (even under the DMCA: "fair use is classified as an 'affirmative defense,' we hold—for the purposes of the DMCA—fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses. We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is “authorized by the law” and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)").
Fourth:
He is stupid for deleting it if he did, and stopping doing artwork. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWqx8goqSY (14:06 and 27:09)