I was going to but now I don't think I could get the money together so I backed out. Although Margie indicated that if I could get the money together I'd still have a place.

Which, I expect, is what your IP friend will say.

Nope. She demurred from making any larger judgment, but when other people compared it to a standard political fundraiser, where people are given food or performances or whatever as a thanks for their contribution, she didn't object, either.

In a standard political fundraiser people have the right to own, manipulate, and transfer ownership of the stuff they are giving away.

There's no transfer of ownership of the fic, though. It's being posted.

I don't think that's a direct analogy, though (if I understand the issues correctly). If a political fundraiser gave away copies someone had burned of Britney's new album, it'd still be a violation of copyright. No one's claiming they own it, but you're still not allowed to do it.

I do think fic is more of a gray area, as it always is, and everyone's got their own particular moral line. Personally, I'm not stressed about it, but then again, I'm not participating. Nor am I a lawyer, so what do I know?

(I'm reminded of a conversation I saw on a Nikita board, where the person who was selling burned CDs of series composer Sean Callery's original music claimed that it couldn't possibly be illegal, because otherwise why would CD burners exist?)

That's not a good analogy, though, because in that case you're creating direct duplicates of copyrighted material, and giving it to people for their individual use. Neither of those apply here, at least to the fic.

I'd have thought that if you couldn't sell it for your own profit, giving it away in such an exchange scenario would also be on the darker side of grey.

Hmm. So a closer analogy would be a remix using parts of the song?

Closer, but as Rivka has noted, there's still a good argument to be made that paragraphs from a Harry Potter novel are more protected than the idea of "the Potterverse" in which you might tell stories. You're still using someone else's actual physical production in a remix.

Also, if we are going to use it as an analogy, you have to stipulate that the remix is available for free download to all REGARDLESS of whether they paid the remixer to do the work. It's not a true exchange scenario.

I tend to agree with Rivka there's a lot of grey area. No court has spoken on this direct issue yet.

However, in this particular instance, the recipients of the funds don't appear to know that the funds are transferred in exchange for production of derivative work without the copyright-holder's approval. I think this is problematic, and could cause problems for the recipients.

And yes we can quibble about "exchange". I think that's what it is. t shrugs