Archive of Our Own

We’ve heard from users concerned about many recent laws and their potential to impact AO3. We want to reassure you that while this continues to be a challenging time with a number of troubling laws under consideration around the world, AO3 is not currently affected. AO3 is run by a noncommercial, nonprofit organization, and it does not implement infinite scroll, offer recommendations to users, or use other techniques with which many regulators are concerned.

While these bills should not directly impact AO3, they are a reminder to stay alert for potential legal issues affecting fans in your area. Where applicable, the OTW encourages people to contact their local representatives and voice their concerns. You can read more about the OTW's Legal Advocacy work on our website.

Chinese Obscenity Laws and Danmei Authors

We have received a number of inquiries from concerned users regarding the arrests of dozens of danmei writers in China. As an organization, the OTW wholeheartedly shares these concerns. We stand firmly in support of free expression and we are closely monitoring the situation.

Age Verification Laws

Age verification laws have been proposed in multiple states and countries around the world. These laws create barriers that prevent open access to information, hamper the right to freedom of speech, and threaten users’ privacy. The OTW continues to strongly oppose these laws and we want to assure you that we do not intend to introduce age verification on our projects. We continue to monitor for opportunities to make our voice heard and encourage fans to do so as well. Local voices are often the most important for policymakers to hear from.

We've filed two amicus briefs on age verification laws already this year. One, filed with Wikimedia (who runs Wikipedia) and other organizations, in Netchoice v. Brown, urged the appellate court to uphold a block on the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act which requires online platforms to verify users' ages before allowing access, restrict certain content for minors through strict controls, and actively monitor and edit content in order to remain compliant with these restrictions.

In a second amicus brief filed with Wikimedia in Netchoice v. Fitch, we expressed concerns with Mississippi House Bill 1126, which threatens platforms’ ability to distribute free knowledge by imposing broad, sweeping restrictions that encroach on free speech rights.

Copyright

We also filed another amicus brief with other organizations in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, where we discussed the importance of internet access as a practical necessity of daily life, and argued that holding service providers liable for users’ copyright infringement based only on accusations of infringement, rather than actual proof of infringement, would threaten innovation and creativity by creating an incentive for service providers to deny service to creators without requiring evidence or providing due process.

UK’s Online Safety Act

We are monitoring how the Online Safety Act is being interpreted and enforced by the authorities.

Russia’s LGBT Ban

Russia’s restrictions on LGBT-themed content have escalated from a 2013 law aimed at protecting minors to a sweeping ban on all positive depictions of LGBT relationships. In 2023, the Russian Supreme Court labeled the "international LGBT movement" as extremist, effectively criminalizing LGBT advocacy. We strongly condemn this and continue to monitor the situation.

Game Storefronts Delisting NSFW Content

Recently, gaming storefronts Itch.io, Steam, and Valve have begun removing or restricting adult content, citing pressure from payment processors like Visa and Mastercard. These moves are obviously concerning for freedom of expression. The OTW remains committed to both fans' privacy and freedom of imagination. We will not change our policies on explicit or queer media.

KOSA

We continue to monitor the progression of KOSA, which has been reintroduced in the United States Congress. Although AO3 is not a covered platform under this bill, the legislation, if passed, is likely to have serious freedom of speech and privacy implications for all internet users. OTW Legal has already communicated its opposition to this bill to Congress and continues to encourage U.S. users to voice their opposition to it.

Australian Online Safety Act

While we do not believe that this law as-is applies to AO3 or any of our other projects, this is a developing situation that we will continue to monitor. Read more about this in our earlier post: Social Media Bans and AO3.

With regard to all the above legislation as well as any in the future, AO3 and the OTW will do whatever we can to preserve access to AO3 and inform users if anything changes. We remain committed to freedom of expression and will defend it as necessary to ensure that AO3 remains a safe, open space for creative expression.

Is there a new law that might affect fans or fannish activities in your country or region? Send us a message about legislation you think we should know about. (Submitting a concern doesn’t guarantee that it will be included in a future Spotlight on Legal Issues post.)

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan-run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Copyright is the legal protection granting the owners of creative works (such as books, music, artwork, and so on) the authority to control their use, distribution, and sale. Copyright is a limited right, with key exceptions such as fair use. Fair use allows people to use copyrighted works for transformative purposes, such as commenting, reporting, and criticizing. Noncommercial uses are particularly favored as fair uses.

For Fair Use Week 2025, we want to spotlight recent discussions about Fair Use and highlight its importance for transformative works, because fair use makes fanworks legal under copyright law.

OTW’s Legal team is currently keeping an eye on site-blocking legislation, which has the potential to be overly broad and has been reintroduced in the new US Congress. We're also watching some interesting cases, like one against Jimmy Kimmel for his videos mocking George Santos' Cameos. Legal’s Rebecca Tushnet submitted an amicus brief in that case, defending Kimmel’s right to make fun of Santos. Another recent legal dispute saw tattoo artist Kat Von D sued by a photographer whose photo she used as a reference for a tattoo—she won a jury verdict that some of her uses of the photo were fair uses, and the tattoo itself was not an infringement. The Authors Alliance, which supports the interests of authors in strong fair use rights and strong protections against publishers’ attempts to make authors surrender their rights, submitted an amicus brief in support of fair use.

The US Copyright Office also recently released a section of a report on AI and copyright focusing on when AI-generated works are copyrightable. The Office concluded that human involvement in creation is required for copyrightability and that merely providing a prompt—even a detailed prompt refined over multiple attempts—does not represent enough human involvement to satisfy that requirement. As a result, the Copyright Office will accept works with AI-generated components, like the credits in a live-action film, but purely AI-generated works will not be considered copyrightable human creations. The Office is also expected to issue a report on AI training and fair use in the coming months. However, the Copyright Office does not decide most issues of fair use and its recommendations will not be binding in courts.

Another set of fair use developments comes from the US Copyright Claims Board, a small-claims proceeding set up by the Copyright Office. It was started in 2020 to handle some copyright claims more cheaply than litigation in federal court. Although there are some serious problems with the setup, the Board is not a rubber stamp for copyright owners – they do not always side with them. One example comes from a recent decision which found that a YouTube feud, where one YouTuber brought a claim against another for using clips of her work, involved fair use and not infringement.

It’s absolutely critical that fair use remains a robust exception to copyright, as it’s the foundation of transformative works’ existence—including, but not limited to, all types of fanworks.

As the OTW, we are committed to defending the right of transformative works to exist. Our Legal team works hard to stay on top of recent developments involving copyright law. And we want you to know your rights: exercising fair use rights and reminding people that copyright is not absolute keeps fair use healthy. In light of this, we wish you a happy Fair Use Week and hope we could help you catch up with some of the latest developments regarding copyright!

Is there a new law that might affect fans or fannish activities in your country? Send us a message about legislation you think we should know about. (Submitting a concern doesn’t guarantee that it will be included in a future Spotlight on Legal Issues post.)

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan-run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Recently, the Australian Parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill as part of the Online Safety Act of 2021 amendment. Starting in late 2025, the bill will prevent teenagers under 16 from using social media platforms including Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter/X. The bill plans to apply enormous fines to tech companies that don’t take measures to prevent minors from creating social media accounts.

Despite its intentions of protecting minors' mental health, the ban has sparked debate over digital censorship and privacy – raising notable concerns related to identity verification, digital access, and freedom of expression. One frequently cited concern is that this ban separates young people from any information and online support networks they may have: many young people primarily receive news on current events from social media and have cultivated online communities where they connect with other young people.

Others critique that setting a ban will lead to problems going unreported by teens who successfully circumvent it. In addition, social media companies have raised further concerns that this bill lacks guidance or advice on implementation.

Experts also comment that the bill lacks input from the group it impacts most – young people. The Australian government has said that they will solicit further expertise from young people, but critics argue that it's too late.

You can read more about the Australian Act here.

Outside of Australia, other countries have put forth or are discussing similar ideas:

• In Norway, the prime minister has announced plans to raise the minimum age to use social media from 13 to 15 in order to better protect young people from the "power of algorithms."
• Meanwhile in Turkey, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority announced plans to ban users under 13 from media applications; however, following news of Australia's ban, they adjusted their direction and are now considering a ban of all users under 16.
• In the UK, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has also said that a social media ban for people under 16 is "on the table" in the name of online safety.

Understandably, bills like these have raised concerns regarding what counts as "social media" – more directly, whether this bill will affect OTW projects. While the Legal committee is keeping their eye on these and other bills that may affect us, we do not believe these bills will affect any of our projects, including AO3.

While bills like these may not affect AO3, they are a reminder to stay alert and aware of legal changes in your jurisdiction. If applicable, you may also want to contact your local representatives and submit concerns regarding how legislation will affect fans in your country.

Is there a new law that might affect fans or fannish activities in your country? Send us a message about legislation you think we should know about. (Submitting a concern doesn’t guarantee that it will be included in a future Spotlight on Legal Issues post.)

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan-run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

As many of you are aware, H.R. 9495—also known as the "nonprofit killer"—passed in the U.S. House of Representatives last Thursday, November 21. OTW Legal has received a number of comments from understandably concerned users, and we'd like to take this opportunity to provide more information about this bill as it makes its way to the U.S. Senate.

Section 4 of H.R. 9495 would give the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury unilateral power to revoke the 501(c)3 status of any nonprofit, with minimal due process, simply by claiming it is affiliated with terrorism. The bill allows the Secretary to limit the disclosure of evidence against an accused nonprofit and places the burden of proving its innocence on that nonprofit—meaning a nonprofit could be forced to defend itself without being told why it has been accused in the first place.

You can read the text of the bill here.

While this bill is unlikely to pass in the current U.S. Senate, many organizations anticipate its return under the incoming presidential administration and U.S. Congress. If H.R. 9495 is ultimately passed into law, there is a danger that it could be enforced biasedly or used to further political agendas.

This bill poses a direct threat to the nonprofit sector as a whole, including many fannish nonprofits. Concerned U.S.-based fans can and should contact their senators and urge them to vote no on H.R. 9495. If you live outside the U.S., you can help spread the word by sharing this, our posts on social media, or resources from other organizations fighting for internet freedom, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Action Center.

Our Legal committee is keeping a close eye on this bill. Based on where it stands right now, we don't see an immediate risk to the OTW or AO3 but we will inform you if this changes.

Is there a new law that might affect fans or fannish activities in your country? Send us a message about legislation you think we should know about. (Submitting a concern doesn’t guarantee that it will be included in a future Spotlight on Legal Issues post.)

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan-run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Governments around the world have sometimes introduced legislation that tries to regulate online platforms and limit access to "harmful" content, instead of regulating bad behavior itself. However, not all proposed internet legislation thoroughly considers the challenges of living in the digital age and the risks of government regulation.

We have covered some of these proposed laws in the past, and we're still keeping an eye on a number of proposals. You can follow the ones we're watching at Bad Internet Bills.

The most recent development in the US is that the US Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), but the US House of Representatives is unlikely to take up the bill this year. This is good news for now, but fans should stay vigilant. There is no firm timeline for this particular bill to progress further, but it's still possible for KOSA or bills similar to it to be brought to a vote in the future. If you live in the United States, you can contact your local congressperson about your concern.

We have called on AO3 users to oppose KOSA and other bills like it in the past because these bills often have vague definitions of what's considered harmful to children, leaving it open for interpretation and abuse by various government entities or officials. Further, enforcement of bills like these hinges on age-verification technology. Such technology is currently unreliable and, even if it improves, will pose extreme privacy and security risks to users. In addition, these kinds of laws encourage affected sites and platforms to self-censor any information they believe governing bodies will consider inappropriate in order to avoid liability.

The OTW and AO3 would not be directly impacted by KOSA because we are a nonprofit and KOSA's current draft only applies to for-profit institutions. However, many other sites and platforms fans use regularly for their fannish activities would likely be affected. More generally, bills like these may have the inadvertent effect of exposing internet users to greater security risks. We will continue to highlight upcoming regulatory changes that may affect fans online and offline.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Internet bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, aims to protect Canadian youth but instead could drastically alter Canada’s online landscape for everyone.

Like various proposed US age-verification laws, it would not affect the Archive of Our Own (AO3) because AO3 is not a commercial website. However, it would introduce serious risks to Canadians’ ability to securely access content on the internet, regardless of their age or of whether or not that content is sexually explicit.

S-210 creates liability not just for providers of adult content, but for internet service providers (ISPs) as well. Age verification requires providing personal information to an ISP, where it can create security and privacy risks. Separately, ISPs would also need to view content passing through their services. The latter task is mostly impossible because internet traffic is often encrypted for security purposes. To comply with potential orders issued under S-210, ISPs would need to reject encrypted traffic, which would leave Canadians either cut off from large portions of the internet or exposed to significant security risks due to unencrypted data. Internet Society has a detailed breakdown of how all of this would work in practice.

If you live in Canada and are concerned about this bill, you can email your MP to voice your opposition via OpenMedia’s pre-drafted campaign form, or you can contact your MP directly. You can also check out the text of the bill for yourself.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan-run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Tennessee's proposal of the ELVIS Act might sound like something fun for fans, but in fact has the potential to create problems for fans engaging in a variety of fannish activities. This legislation is moving forward next week under pressure from Tennessee Governor Lee, but there is still some time to voice concerns and message the governor about how this act will hurt the public interest.

A number of organizations including the American Society for Collective Rights Licensing, Authors Guild, Copyright Clearance Center, National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are sponsoring this act. The proposed legislation creates a new right of publicity “in any medium in any manner” for life + 10 years.

OTW Legal is concerned about the potential impact of this Act, and believes Tennessee fans should be aware of the profound risks posed to both RPF and fictional fanworks that invoke an actor's image. One part of the law is relatively minor: it adds “voice” to the existing right of publicity, which covers commercial uses. But it goes further. There is new, broad liability for anyone who knowingly “publishes, performs, distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to the public” content that includes someone's voice or likeness, with no limitation to commercial uses. This could potentially harm artists, authors who describe an actor (or a character played by a particular actor), vidders, and other fannish creators. There is also broad liability for anyone who “distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service or device” whose purpose is to make the replicas.

Because the ELVIS Act establishes liability for both the “user” and the “developer/platform”, it means that – without clear definitions – there could be a legal free-for-all on social media. The act's wording could mean that anyone clicking on an infringing document could be at legal risk. One of the OTW's partner organizations, NetChoice has more information about why the ELVIS Act could put fans at risk just for posting concert photos or for being associated with violations. As their post points out, there could be better laws passed instead to ban deep fakes.
The ELVIS Act is unnecessary as Tennessee law already adequately handles fraud, deception, and misappropriating someone’s likeness. If you are also concerned about this Act, let Tennessee officials know.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has been much in the news lately, and OTW Legal has been receiving inquiries from understandably concerned users. We thought it would be worthwhile to provide some information on KOSA and also a rash of other bad internet bills that have been proposed around the U.S. It’s been, unfortunately, a busy summer – and now that Congress is back in session it’s time to take action!

The tl;dr is that the OTW and AO3 are not currently implicated by KOSA and many of the other bills because of our nonprofit status (most of the proposed laws only apply to for-profit institutions). This means the operations of the OTW and the AO3 wouldn’t be directly impacted by these bills. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t reason to be concerned just generally about these bills and the internet environment they would create, so, if you’re in the U.S., you can contact your elected representatives. More information below!

KOSA

KOSA is presented as a bill “to protect the safety of children on the internet,” but that’s not what it accomplishes. Instead, the bill would basically make “covered platforms” liable if they fail to design their platforms to prevent users under the age 18 from exposure to a wide amount of content designated as harmful to children. The AO3 is not a covered platform under this bill, but lots of platforms relied on by kids and fans are for-profit and would be affected by KOSA.

There are a number of concerns about the bill:

First, the content that must be kept away from minors is often vaguely defined. This will inevitably lead to censorship as platforms will err on the side of blocking information to avoid liability.

Second, because platforms only have to avoid exposure to minors, this encourages platforms to verify the ages of all of their users – conduct that would detrimentally affect the ability to be anonymous or pseudonymous online.

Third, it isn’t actually the platforms who get to decide whether the content is harmful to kids; rather, the bill would leave this decision up to the Federal Trade Commission and the individual states. Given that many states have begun advancing theories that information about racism, sexism, sexual and gender identities, and reproductive health is all harmful to children, this could result in widespread censorship of such information under this law.

Sponsors and supporters of this bill have stated publicly that they see it as an anti-LGBTQ+ measure and that if it passes,they intend to use it to discourage online communication that would help young LGBTQ+ people.

Finally, it’s likely that the censorship this bill encourages would affect not just minors but all internet users, as age verification is notoriously difficult online and covered platforms might therefore strive to be cautious and censor all such information to avoid liability.

OTW Legal has directly communicated its opposition to this Bill to Congress. But there is more you can do. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has more detailed information about this bill. It also explains how you can oppose it. Teen Vogue also has a good write-up of the bill. You can also read the text of the bill for yourself.

Other Bad Bills Around the Country

This summer has unfortunately been a really active one for states quickly passing a number of troubling internet laws, and there are still more in the pipeline. There are also some other bad proposed federal laws floating around. Many of these laws are briefly summarized below. If you’re a resident of one of the states below, you can also make your voice heard to your state representatives. Bad Internet Bills has a lot of great resources to help you get involved in protesting these bills. Further information is provided below.

1. Federal EARN IT Act and STOP CSAM Act: The EARN IT Act isn’t really new, in that it first showed up in 2020. It wasn’t popular and it was dropped but now it’s back. The bill claims to be about the sexual exploitation of children, but it is worded broadly in such a way as to threaten online privacy and encourage censorship of marginalized communities. In this way, it is very similar to the STOP CSAM Act. Both bills would impose liability on websites for containing certain material, even without that websites’ knowledge, the acts will encourage the same sort of over-policing and censorship that KOSA would promote, probably aimed at speech about reproductive health, gender identity, and sex and sexuality. Also, since the liability could be imposed even when the websites didn’t know any material was there, it encourages websites to proactively scan all content, creating an atmosphere of surveillance on internet platforms and driving platforms out of business if they can’t afford to do that kind of monitoring. Here, too, OTW Legal has communicated our opposition to these bills, but you can help. You can read more about the EARN IT Act’s problems; the STOP CSAM Act’s problems from the EFF; and you can read the texts of both bills. There is also some information on how you can oppose the EARN IT Act and the STOP CSAM Act.

2. Federal RESTRICT Act: You may have heard the RESTRICT Act referred to as a “TikTok ban.” Among other things, it provides the executive branch with broad powers to take actions to mitigate national security risks posed by internet services with any ties to foreign adversaries. While the OTW and AO3 do not fit the definition for such a service, fans may be interested in the statute because of the free speech implications on their continuing use of TikTok, for instance. Because the statute is vaguely worded to permit executive prohibition in poorly defined circumstances, its future impact beyond TikTok could be great. Find out how to oppose the RESTRICT Act.

3. Federal Cooper Davis Act: This act would require social media platforms and other providers of internet services to report to the government certain transactions suspected to involve fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other counterfeit controlled substances. The reporting requirements, which would include user identity and location, kick in when the platform has a reasonable belief that a controlled substance transaction might be planned. In theory, this sounds good. In practice, though, this raises privacy concerns and also encourages platforms to monitor user communications to avoid possible liability for failure to report. Such monitoring would likely place disproportionate attention on the communications of people of color and other marginalized communities. You can find out how to oppose the Cooper Davis Act.

4. New Jersey A5069: New Jersey is considering a KOSA-like bill prohibiting practices by social media platforms that cause harm to children. While the law would not affect the OTW because of its nonprofit status, it carries similar harmful implications as KOSA. The bill has passed the New Jersey Assembly but is still under consideration in the New Jersey Senate. If you are a New Jersey resident, you can voice your opposition to the bill by contacting your state senator..

5. Maryland’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act: Maryland is considering a law that would require businesses providing online services not to do anything detrimental to a child. As has been noted, such a vaguely-defined term can be wielded as a censorship tool that stifles online communication. It doesn’t apply to nonprofits like the OTW. If you are a Maryland resident you can contact your representatives about this bill.

6. California’s SB-680: This proposed bill is similar to KOSA, in that it makes social media platforms liable for designing services that cause harm. Again, this law would not affect the OTW because it doesn’t apply to nonprofits. The bill is currently being debated and has not yet passed. If you’re in California, you can voice your opposition to the bill by contacting your local representative.

7. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act: This bill passed last year but has not yet gone into effect. Similar to the Maryland bill described above, it requires businesses providing online services not to do anything detrimental to a child. Like Maryland’s bill, this bill does not affect the OTW as it does not apply to nonprofits. The bill, has been challenged in court.

8. Utah’s Social Media Regulation Acts: Utah has recently passed a bill that requires social media companies, starting next year, to enact age verification on all accounts, require parental consent for minors under the age of 18 to be on social media, provide parents or guardians full access to all social media accounts held by a minor, and block access by minors to social media between 10:30pm and 6:30am, among other requirements. Obviously this bill has a number of troubling implications, and it can be interpreted to apply to the AO3 (although we would argue that it shouldn’t). The bill has already been passed but Utah is accepting input so that may be something concerned users can participate in.

9. Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act: This recently passed bill would require social media companies, starting next year, to require parental consent for any user under the age of 16. Like the Utah bill, there are arguments that this bill, if passed, could apply to the AO3. (The bill text starts at the bottom of page 622).

10. Arkansas’s Social Media Safety Act: Arkansas has recently passed a bill that requires social media companies, starting in September, to require age verification and the consent of a parent or guardian if the account holder is a minor under the age of 18. The OTW is not covered by this bill as a nonprofit. However, it has the same troubling implications as the other age verification bills. A trade association for internet companies including Meta, TikTok, and Twitter has sued in federal court to block this bill from going into effect. The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed a brief in support of blocking the law. (Read more about the lawsuit.)

11. A bill was proposed in Texas requiring age verification and the prohibition of any minor under the age of 18 being allowed to have a social media account. The bill did not define “social media platform” and so it was unclear who would be covered under this bill. The bill was introduced and referred to committee, but it was not acted upon before the legislature adjourned. Therefore, it has not been passed. We will continue to monitor if the bill becomes active again. (Read the text of the bill.)

You might be wondering why the OTW doesn’t do even more itself to actively oppose these bills right now. As a nonprofit, there are severe limits on how (and how much) the OTW is allowed to engage in lobbying. What we can do is encourage people to oppose these bills by voicing their concerns to their elected representatives! When appropriate, the OTW also participates in amicus briefs, which are briefs in support of positions in lawsuits that would benefit fans and fan creators.

If these bills do pass –- and we hope they don’t! -– we would look for opportunities to work with allies to file amicus briefs and launch other challenges to them. You can read more about OTW Legal’s work, including amicus briefs we’ve filed on our website.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

With ChatGPT's rapid growth since its launch in late 2022 and many other text, graphic and video AI generative services gaining popularity, AI and copyright has become a heatedly debated topic. The U.S. Copyright Office is now seeking public comment to assess the need for legislative or regulatory steps in copyright law issues raised by the rapid development of AI.

Four main areas surrounding the use of AI systems are currently for public comment, some of these are more closely connected to fannish activities and have a direct impact on AO3 users.

1. Using copyrighted materials in training AI models, specifically, whether permission from copyright owner is needed, in what form (opt in or opt out), and if compensations is necessary; what type of system for permission and remuneration is feasible, whether records should be retained to identify training materials used, and if they should be available to copyright holders; if requests are not honored, what remedies should be available.
2. Whether materials generated using AI systems are copyrightable – namely what level of human involvement may be considered sufficient control over the output material for it to be considered human-authored.
3. Potential liability for infringing works generated with the use of AI systems: how the liability should be apportioned between the developers of the system and the user who provided the prompts.
4. How to deal with attributes not traditionally protected under copyright law, such as human likeness and artistic styles.

The comment period remains open until October 18, 2023, for written comments and November 15, 2023 for reply comments. Detailed instructions note that short written comments are limited to 5000 characters, longer comments can be uploaded in various formats. Please note that all information and files provided in the submission process will be publicly available.

Visit the comment form to have your say!

Given that the feedback being sought concerns an organization the OTW is not affiliated with, comments have been disabled on this post. Decisions made by the U.S. Copyright Office could impact the OTW and AO3's approach to AI generated works in the future. We thank concerned fans who wish to articulate their opinions on the matter directly with them.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

OTW Legal is tracking and participating in three current developments in U.S. law that could affect fans: (1) Fan-unfriendly proposals to change trademark law; (2) Attacks on LGBTQ+ expression online; and (3) Proposals to mandate technological copyright filtering on the Internet. We will keep advocating for fans in these areas, and in some cases, there are things you can do if you’re in the U.S.! If you want to know more, read on.

(1) Fan-Unfriendly Proposals to Change Trademark Law

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill with the misleading name of “SHOP SAFE” that would place barriers and restrictions on online marketplaces, including the sorts of marketplaces that fans rely on, like eBay, Etsy, Kickstarter, Patreon, Redbubble, TeePublic, and many others. Although this bill is presented as being about “consumer protection,” that’s not really what it accomplishes – instead, it would reverse long-standing principles of trademark law, would give enormous power to trademark owners to take down fan material from e-commerce sites, and would even force e-commerce sites to try to filter out fan material before it even gets posted. It would harm markets for memorabilia, resale, fanart, and more. Although the OTW is focused on noncommercial fanworks, and this law wouldn’t affect the AO3 (which does not do any commerce at all), it would be terrible for fans on other sites.

Although SHOP SAFE has passed in the House, it is still pending in the Senate. The OTW is actively participating in direct efforts to explain to Senators why this bill would do more harm than good. If you’re in the U.S., you can help by contacting your Senators to do the same! One way to contact your senators is using the EFF’s e-mail tool.

Here are some resources to learn more about SHOP SAFE:

• From the EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/02/shop-safe-will-stomp-out-online-sales-used-and-homemade-goods
• From Public Knowledge: https://publicknowledge.org/shop-safe-act-the-trademark-timebomb-masquerading-as-consumer-protection/
• From trademark law expert Eric Goldman: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/the-shop-safe-act-is-a-terrible-bill-that-will-eliminate-online-marketplaces.htm

(2) Attacks on LGBTQ+ expression online

We have heard from a lot of members about the (again, terribly mis-named) EARN IT Act, which has been introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill, like SHOP SAFE, claims to do one thing, but actually does something very different. On its face, EARN-IT appears to be about curbing the availability of visually-depicted Child Sexual Abuse Material (“CSAM”) online – and if it were actually a tool for doing that, we would support it. AO3 bans the posting or embedding of CSAM (photos of actual children), and bans users for posting such material.

So why does the OTW care? Because EARN-IT is an attack on section 230, which is the law that makes online platforms able to host user-posted material, and it does so in a way that allows U.S. states – many of which can be influenced by powerful anti-LGBTQ+ lobbying groups – to define what constitutes a visual depiction of CSAM. It is also a massive attack on Internet user privacy, that could result in users’ private material being searched. This sort of legal change could have dramatic impacts on fans, fanart, and freedom of expression for LGBTQ+ youth.

EARN-IT would not affect the AO3 directly. EARN-IT is specifically and explicitly limited to visual depictions, and AO3 does not host any visual depictions at all — the only user-posted material that AO3 hosts is text-only. Any and all images visible on AO3 are hosted elsewhere and embedded by users in works. EARN-IT would therefore affect those platforms where the images are actually hosted, not AO3, where the images merely appear as the result of embedding links (the technological difference matters for this bill).

However, the implications of the legislation for fan communities mean that the OTW is monitoring the situation closely, and will take direct action based on how things develop. If you want to get involved yourself, the best way to do so is through our allies at the EFF, which is also monitoring closely and organizing user action. For more information and action items, visit the EFF's EARN-IT action page.

(3) Proposals to mandate technological copyright filtering on the Internet

The U.S. Copyright Office is convening roundtables to explore the imposition of “Standard Technical Measures,” which could require online platforms — like the AO3 — to engage in filtering. Filtering could require platforms to attempt to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material, or monitor or search their networks for copyrighted material — things that do not account well for the sorts of fair uses that fans and AO3 rely on. OTW has long stood against copyright filtering, which is not only harmful to free expression, but also technologically impossible. We have submitted many comments over the years opposing proposals like those contemplated by the Copyright Office, and on February 22, 2022, Legal Committee Member Rebecca Tushnet participated on the OTW’s behalf in this most recent round. We will continue to fight this fight, and will keep you informed as things develop!

The EFF links above also include pointers to email forms that fans in the U.S. can use to contact their representatives to urge them to take a stance against SHOP SAFE and EARN IT.

Right now, Hong Kong is in the process of reviewing and proposing changes to its copyright law, and has put out a public call for consultation. OTW Legal will be submitting a comment in response to this request, recommending that Hong Kong's copyright law be made more flexible to allow more freedom for fans to create and share fanworks.

Here's where you come in! As we've done in many countries, including Canada, Australia, the U.S., South Africa, and New Zealand, we'd like our Hong Kong submission to include first-hand accounts from Hongkongers about the benefits of laws that promote the creation and sharing of transformative works.

If you're in or from Hong Kong and have expressed yourself, gained skills, been part of creative communities, or otherwise experienced the benefits of being able to create transformative works, we'd love to hear your stories. They can be long or short--just give us some specifics about why making and enjoying fanworks matters to you, so we can include those stories in our submission. If you can send your stories in English, that will be even more helpful, since the submission will be in English.

The deadline is approaching quickly! Please send your stories to us by January 30 using our contact form or e-mailing us at legal [at] transformativeworks.org. (Feel free to use a pseudonym if you don't want us to share your personally identifying information.)

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

We've been getting a lot of inquiries about tumblr's recent announcement that it would be beta testing a feature it is calling "Post+," which allows users to monetize posts by locking them to subscribers.

How does this interact with AO3 policies?

Don't worry, nothing's changing. As always, AO3 is dedicated to noncommercial fanworks, and has a policy against using the AO3 for commercial solicitation. So, linking to your blog or other social media from AO3 is fine. But linking to your Patreon, Ko-fi, Amazon sales page, or other commercial/fundraising site isn't. Letting people know how to learn more about you is fine, but soliciting financial support isn't. So how does this rule apply to tumblr? We know a lot of people link to their tumblr accounts from their AO3 profiles or works, and that's fine! But linking specifically to subscriber-locked material on tumblr isn't, and using AO3 to ask people to subscribe to a monetized tumblr account isn't. And of course, AO3's rules don't govern what you do on other websites.

What about fan activities on tumblr and elsewhere?

We've also gotten questions and seen a lot of concern floating around about how tumblr's Post+ program affects fans on tumblr and on the Internet more generally. The good news is...probably not much. We want to be clear that we have no relationship with tumblr, so we have no control over them or what they do. But here's our take on things, as experienced lawyers.

Making and sharing fanworks has long been a predominantly noncommercial activity, and the OTW celebrates the community that has grown around that noncommercial approach. Also, the OTW's position is that noncommercial, transformative fanworks are fair use under U.S. copyright law, which means that they do not infringe copyright. Importantly, as a matter of U.S. law, commerciality is one of a number of factors that courts consider in determining whether a use is fair use--it's not the whole question. In other words, it is possible for noncommercial things to infringe copyright, and it is possible for commercial things not to. (In fact, all of the major U.S. cases holding that transformative works constitute fair use have been about commercial works.) Generally speaking, the more a work transforms the meaning, message, or purpose of the underlying work, the less a court would care that the work is commercial; and vice versa--the less transformative a work is, the more commerciality would matter.

But all of this talk of courts is very remote. As a practical matter, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act allows copyright holders (publishers, entertainment companies) to seek to have things taken down from the Internet if they think those things aren't fair use, and we know that in general, copyright holders are more likely to seek takedowns for commercial things than for noncommercial things. That doesn't mean those commercial things are necessarily infringing, but it does mean they're more likely to be taken down.

The law does not give Internet platforms (like tumblr) much discretion in determining whether to take things down when they receive a valid request--basically, if a takedown request is valid and the work isn't an obvious fair use, the platform has to take it down, as a matter of law. As a practical matter, then, it's reasonable to expect that monetized tumblr posts are more likely to be the subject of takedown notices than non-monetized ones. But it doesn't mean they're automatically infringing or non-infringing. Fair use is always a case-by-case analysis.

To think about this differently, Internet platforms (including tumblr and YouTube and all the other ones) act as a form of insulation from lawsuits. That insulation happens in the context of DMCA takedown notices--rather than suing an individual poster, the copyright owner just asks the platform to take it down. It's always up to users to decide what to post, and--in the very (very, very!) unlikely event that a copyright holder would decide to sue rather than just relying on the takedown process--users always bear the risk of being sued. If work gets taken down under the DMCA, users always have the opportunity to "counternotify" and ask for it to be put back up, with the understanding that having it put back up might make a lawsuit more likely. In other words, although platforms don't "defend" their users, they do add layer of protection, in a way. Nothing about tumblr's Post+ program changes any of that.

We hope this is helpful information. The OTW and AO3 are dedicated to maintaining space for noncommercial fanworks and fan culture, and we'll continue to do that.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Of special interest to German fans, as well as other fans in the EU.

Germany is working on implementing Article 17, which makes significant changes in European copyright law. This has created an exciting opportunity to clarify that fan fiction is legal under German copyright law.

The German government has sent a draft bill to the two houses of Parliament. The final vote is planned for the beginning of May. The government proposal makes clear that nonprofit websites like the Archive of Our Own should not be required to get licenses from copyright owners, as commercial websites like Facebook and YouTube will have to do. The draft bill also proposes to explicitly legalize fan fiction, fan art, and many other transformative works, as part of the EU exception for “caricature, parody and pastiche”.

There is one problem, and one risk. The problem is that the proposal includes language that is not required by Article 17 and that could be confusing and unduly restrictive of the ability to engage in caricature, parody and pastiche. This language restricts caricature, parody and pastiche “to the extent required by the specific purpose,” which would invite second-guessing of an artist’s purpose by courts and copyright claimants. Fan fiction, like caricature, parody and pastiche in general, has its own artistic existence and courts should not ask whether a work of fan fiction takes “too much” of the characters.

The risk is that some lobbyists are asking for a remuneration requirement for caricature, parody and pastiche—including fan fiction and fan art—even if they are not posted on commercial websites. The consequences of a payment requirement would be perverse: it would favor commercial platforms over nonprofits such as the Archive of Our Own and Wikipedia. This is because users could freely upload fan fiction, fan art, memes etc. to YouTube or Facebook, because the commercial platform would already be paying a collecting society through the implementation of Article 17, but the same users would have to pay a collecting society if they wanted to upload the same fan fiction, fan art or memes to their personal website or to a nonprofit website such as Archive of Our Own. In practice, the law would strengthen the big commercial platforms by creating an incentive for internet users to close down their private websites, leave nonprofit platforms such as AO3, and move their activities to a Facebook group instead.

We suggest that German fans should (1) ask Members of the German Parliament (Mitglied des Bundestags) to remove the restriction on the caricature, parody & pastiche exception “to the extent required by the specific purpose” and (2) explain how important it is that this exception should not be subject to remuneration. One easy way to do that is to use the portal abgeordnetenwatch.de, whose page on the Committee on Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection shows those members of parliament who will be in charge of this proposal.

We believe that the law should not add an additional condition, not part of Article 17, to the exception for parody, caricature and pastiche, saying that uses should only be allowed “to the extent required by the specific purpose”. This wording only serves to muddy the waters, because it is very difficult for a user to determine the extent of the use of a work that is “required” for the purpose of fan fiction, fan art, and other transformative uses. Likewise, we believe that the law should protect individual fans and noncommercial websites, and fight against the dominance of Facebook and YouTube, by rejecting a compensation requirement for the exception for parody, caricature and pastiche.

Update 5 May 2021: Based on fan response to this post about Germany's impending copyright reforms, we have created a Change.org petition for fans to use, which may provide an easier way to reach the legislator than submitting individual comments in the form of a question to the website (as suggested in the original post). 

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Every month or so the OTW will be doing a Q&A with one of its volunteers about their experiences in the organization. The posts express each volunteer's personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OTW or constitute OTW policy. As part of our celebration of Copyright Week, today's post is with Casey Fiesler, who volunteers in our Legal Committee.

How does what you do as a volunteer fit into what the OTW does?

I am part of the OTW Legal Committee. We provide guidance for other parts of the OTW when legal issues come up, provide information for fans when they have questions, and do advocacy work to give a policy voice for the interests of fan creators. This last part especially I think is critical to the mission of OTW, which has always been to serve the interests of fans, and copyright-related advocacy is a huge part of that.

As it says in our vision statement, "We envision a future in which all fannish works are recognized as legal and transformative and are accepted as a legitimate creative activity." I'd love to help us get there! For example, when I first joined the team in 2009 (!) as I was finishing up at law school, I helped with the very first DMCA exemption for noncommercial remix videos. We often partner with organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but I think it’s wonderful to be able to advocate for the specific interests of fan creators.

What is a typical week like for you as a volunteer?

The work that I do with OTW is so highly variable! Some weeks it might be nothing outside of reading some emails, and others there might be a lot to do depending on what we're up to and what my particular role in it is. For example, I recently worked on a Terms of Service revision for AO3, which also included some lengthy conversations with volunteers across the OTW. There are also a lot of fun one-offs; recently I was on a panel about DMCA abuses with representatives from Public Knowledge and EFF, along with video essayist Lindsay Ellis.

What benefits can celebrating Copyright Week bring?

I think that it’s great for fans to both advocate for themselves when it comes to copyright policies that might be less than ideal and to celebrate the parts of copyright law that allow for transformative works! It’s easy to think of copyright as being a form of restricting creativity, but it should also encourage it. Drawing attention to the awesomeness that fair use cultivates (especially fanworks!) serves as a reminder for how important it is to have copyright policies that support remix. I also think that the more you understand about copyright law, and especially fair use, the more confident you can be about the legitimacy of your fanworks.

How does your day job relate to your work for the OTW?

The other academics on the Legal Committee are all law professors, but I'm actually faculty in an information science department. Not all of my research these days is about fandom, but some of my favorite work I've done was about the design of Archive of Our Own, and most recently, about platform migration in fandom. I also really love public scholarship--writing and talking about my research outside of academia! This is one reason I have a YouTube channel, and the most fun thing I've done so far was about fair use and the omegaverse lawsuit. Though this video had nothing to do with my role on OTW Legal, it sparked some great questions and conversations about fandom and fair use! I also taught an Online Fandom class for one semester, which was super fun.

What fannish things do you like to do?

I confess, I’m not as fannish as I used to be -- though I just checked my AO3 stats and I wrote 503,409 words of fanfiction between 2002 and 2012! So I am definitely a fanfiction writer at heart, even though I don’t write as much anymore. As much as I love AO3, I’m very nostalgic for the glory days of LiveJournal. But some of the fannish friends I made during that time are still some of my very best friends! Fandom has been such a positive and important part of my life for decades.

Now that our volunteer’s said five things about what they do, it’s your turn to ask one more thing! Feel free to ask about their work in comments. Or if you'd like, you can check out earlier Five Things posts.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Since we began in 2007, the Organization for Transformative Works' core mission has included working to promote fan-friendly copyright law. For years, we've submitted testimony and comments to governments, filed briefs in court, and helped mobilize fans to have their voices heard by lawmakers around the world. Recently, one of our big legal advocacy projects has been testifying and submitting comments to the U.S. Senate about the way U.S. Copyright works online under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Today, U.S. Senator Thom Tillis has released proposed legislation that would be bad for the AO3 and bad for fans. OTW Legal will fight for fans against this proposal, and you can help.

Sen. Tillis's proposal is awful. Among other things, it would dismantle safe harbors in the DMCA that protect the AO3 and other fan sites. It would put fanworks at greater risk of being taken down, and make it harder for new fan sites to get started. But here's the good news: it's just one Senator's wish list. Although Sen. Tillis's office has released a proposal, it's not even a bill yet--and if we remember our Schoolhouse Rock, becoming a bill is only the first step on a long, winding road that can involve lots of changes and may go nowhere. And before it starts on any road, the OTW (and you!) will have opportunities to have our voices heard and make a difference in what (if anything) might go in a bill.

OTW's legal advocacy team is on the case. We've been submitting responses and objections to Congress and the Senate, meeting with Sen. Tillis and other lawmakers, and doing everything else we can to continue to support free expression and fair use, promote copyright safe harbors that make it possible for the AO3 to exist, and protect fans from having their works unfairly taken down or commercially exploited by others.

We're optimistic that this wish list will not become law! But we have a lot of work ahead of us, and if you live in the United States, you can help. As things go forward, we'll know more about what specific actions will make a difference, but for now the biggest thing you can do is stand up and be counted. If you are interested in staying informed or getting involved, let us and our allies at the Re:Create Coalition know!.

OTW Legal is here to help! To find out more about the OTW's Legal Advocacy work or how to contact us, visit our Legal Advocacy page.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Recently, you may have received an email informing you that Disney has updated its terms of use. Or you may have seen discussion about Disney's terms of use and statements on Twitter around the #maythe4th hashtag. So what's going on? Our Legal team can't give you advice, but here's what they have to say about what Disney's terms mean for fans and fanworks.

Disney's terms of use can be found here. (The direct English-language link is here). They govern the use of various (unidentified) Disney "products" such as websites, software, applications, contests, and services. What does that mean? Well, although this scope is broad, Disney can't use terms of service to govern what people do out in the world -- they can only govern what people do in Disney's own platforms, (such as Disney's websites, apps, software, and contests). Even if Disney would like to control what people do outside of those spaces, they just don't have that power: out in the world, the usual rules of copyright, trademark, and fair use law apply.

The part that has attracted the most attention in fandom circles has been Section 7: Submissions, User Generated Content, DMCA Takedown Notices. So what does this term mean?

First, 7A asserts that you have no expectation of compensation for any ideas or materials submitted to Disney. This is an important rule of thumb: Always be careful when submitting ideas or materials to anyone, not just Disney!

7B then goes on to discuss user generated content ("UGC"). It defines UGC as content by users that Disney "asks for" or "allows." This refers to be content uploaded to Disney's platforms, sites, and such. What do Disney's terms mean when they say they cover content uploaded to third-party platforms "integrated" with Disney? This seems to refer to Disney platforms that you can get through various devices and tools such as Xbox, Apple iOS, or Android. Of course, we can't promise that Disney won't try to assert these terms over content posted elsewhere--but the law limits their ability to succeed in that sort of broad assertion.

Disney's terms appear to refer to two categories of UGC made available via these platforms:

(1) If the UGC is entirely your own original work, then the terms state that you grant Disney a non-exclusive, royalty-free worldwide license to do what it wishes with the UGC. This license means Disney can use the UGC in a variety of ways, without attribution or compensation. Non-exclusive, royalty-free worldwide licenses are fairly common in the UGC world. Indeed, these licenses are often necessary for social media and other UGC websites to function (otherwise, they might not be able to display your content at all, which generally isn't what people want when they post something!). However, the license purportedly taken by Disney in its terms of use is somewhat unusual in its breadth and duration. Again, the extent to which Disney can assert its terms of use over UGC posted to third-party websites, apps, and platforms is limited, but please be aware of this term when interacting with any of Disney's platforms.

(2) The other type of UGC referenced in the terms is UGC that Disney has "authorized" users to post, upload, distribute, display, or perform that incorporates Disney's copyrighted works. Although we can't be sure, this probably refers to works that Disney has invited or challenged users to create and post. In that situation, Disney asserts that it has granted a license for that use of its copyrighted works within the UGC, with the condition that all rights in the resulting derivative work UGC is assigned back to Disney. The terms go on to state that a refusal to assign the rights in the derivative work to Disney would result in Disney revoking the license to use its copyrighted works in the UGC. Like the first category, this term is unusual in its breadth.

But it is important to note that not all uses of Disney's copyrighted works in UGC require a license from Disney. You do not need a license to create any derivative work that would be protected by fair use, and it is the OTW's position that noncommercial fanworks are creative and transformative works protected by the fair use doctrine. Therefore, Disney's terms grant your UGC a license on the condition that you assign all of your rights to Disney; but not all UGC requires that license in the first place. In that case, revoking the license would just mean that ordinary copyright law, including fair use, governs the UGC.

What's the tl;dr here? If you post something on a Disney platform (website, app, service, etc.), Disney's terms are likely to be enforceable. However, we do not believe Disney's one-sided assertion of control over anything it "allows" is broadly enforceable. If you post something on a non-Disney platform without doing anything to agree to Disney's terms, then copyright and trademark law, including fair use, provides the rules.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

The OTW began receiving reports on Friday, February 14, about apps that are making available fanfic from AO3 without authorization. The first app is Fanfic Pocket Archive Library, which has been available on both the Apple and Google app stores. As far as the OTW can tell, this app provides an interface that allows users to access works on AO3, and it may not actually copy, store, or redistribute any data from AO3. This app has a premium option that allows users to access extra features of the app for a monthly fee; it also hosts ads. At the time of writing, it appears that this app has been removed from the Google Play store but remains available on the App Store.

The second app is actually not just one app, but a collection of them by a company called Woodsign j.d.o.o. The apps are available in the Apple app store. They are called Harry Potter Fan Fiction, P.J. Fan Fiction, K-POP Fan Fiction, Bulletproof Boys Scout / ARMY, 1D Fan Fiction, MCU Fan Fiction, Fantastic Beasts Fan Fiction, Sherlock Homes Fan Fiction, Slashfic, TWD Fan Fiction, and Real Person Fiction. These apps do appear to be redistributing fanworks. They also charge for access to many fanworks. We cannot say for sure that all works contained on these apps are being redistributed without permission, or that all of the works contained on these apps are from AO3, but user concerns and Tumblr discussion suggest that at least some are.

Below are some of the things we have told concerned users in responding to emails. We also highlight some of the steps users can take if they do not want their works on these (or other) apps or sites.

If you have further questions, please ask them here. That will make it easier for us to answer and will let more people benefit from the same information.

Can the OTW/AO3 get my work taken down from these apps?

The OTW does not own the copyright in the fanworks displayed on the Archive. When you post a work on the AO3, you give the Archive the right to display your work - that’s all. And that’s good! It means that when you post fanworks on AO3, you keep your copyrights. For that reason, the OTW cannot issue a copyright notice to apps on behalf of our users. Copyright owners, in this case affected fan authors, must do that for their own works. Although the OTW uses trademark law to ensure that app makers do not mislead users into thinking those apps are official OTW projects, we do not have any legal right to what you share on AO3. For that reason, we cannot get those works removed from other apps or sites.

As a fan author, do I even own the copyright in my fanworks?

Yes! As a fan author, you automatically own the copyright in your original expression. You don’t own any rights in elements of the canon you base your fanworks on, such as characters or settings, but you do own the rights in what you yourself have added to them. That means that people cannot copy and/or sell your fanworks without your permission.

What can I do if I do not want my works displayed on these apps?

Fan authors who find their works being distributed on apps without their permission can request that their works be removed. Most sites have takedown procedures (known as DMCA takedown procedures) that allow copyright owners, including fan authors, to request the removal of their works. Even if these particular apps do not have an official DMCA procedure, copyright owners can always use the contact information listed on the app’s description page to demand that their works be taken down from places they are not authorized. This means you can submit a notice containing the information below and ask the app maker to remove your works. As a matter of copyright law, sites or apps should comply with DMCA takedown notices and demands for removal.

What do I say in a DMCA takedown notice to get my works off an app I do not want them on?

If you want your works removed from one of the apps discussed (or anywhere else!), you can submit the information below in a takedown notice:

• Your Name and/or Pseudonym as an e-signature
• Link(s) to the unauthorized works (such as a link to the pdf, mobi, or hosting page) or other information sufficient to allow the site or app to identify the precise unauthorized works you want removed
• Link(s) to an authorized version of your work (whether on AO3, Tumblr, or somewhere else)
• An email address of the submitter (include it again even if it’s in the header)
• This statement: “I have good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”
• This statement: “The information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.”

Finally, both the Google and Apple app stores have procedures for reporting apps that infringe copyright. They can be found at the following links:

App store: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstorenotices/#?lang=en

Google Play store: https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905

Every month or so the OTW will be doing a Q&A with one of its volunteers about their experiences in the organization. The posts express each volunteer's personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OTW or constitute OTW policy. Today's post is with Stacey Lantagne, who volunteers as member of OTW's Legal Advocacy project. It's posted today to highlight the celebration of Copyright Week

How does what you do as a volunteer fit into what the OTW does?

As a volunteer for the Legal Committee, I work on behalf of OTW's mission to protect and nurture fanworks as a legitimate creative activity. The Legal Committee monitors legislation in the United States as well as internationally, and provides comments on behalf of the interests of fan creators. For instance, recently the Legal Committee provided comments in response to New Zealand's request for input on its review of its Copyright Act (with help from New Zealand AO3 users!). We also join briefs in legal court cases that have fanwork implications, as well as review internal procedures and policies to ensure compliance.

What is a typical week like for you as a volunteer?

It depends on what's going on! Sometimes I'm working on a specific project, like the New Zealand comments, or checking the nonprofit regulations of all fifty states as they apply to the OTW. Sometimes I'm getting ready to be a guest at a con or speak on a panel at a conference about fannish legal issues. Sometimes I'm assisting in efforts to communicate about major legal changes, like the EU's recent new regulations. Sometimes I'm just helping to respond to the many emails that come in weekly, whether asking questions about works on AO3 or asking questions about personal fan projects people are working on. The Legal Committee can't give legal advice, but we strive to provide relevant legal information.

What did AO3's Hugo win in 2019 mean for OTW's Legal Team?

For the Legal Team, as I think for everyone involved with the OTW, the Hugo win felt like a huge recognition of the validity and importance of fanworks in creativity. At the same time, we recognize that it's not the end of our work. But it was incredibly inspiring to watch all those people at the Hugos speak up for how much fanworks have played a part in their lives. We at the Legal Committee were waving along at home!

Why do you think Copyright Week is an important event?

Copyright isn't just a law for Disney; it's a law for all people who create, and that's most people! Copyright Week is important because it raises awareness of how much copyright is there for all of us. A lot of the narrative we hear about copyright is in terms of piracy and media conglomerates but copyright is out there protecting all of those stories you scribble or doodles you draw, just to make yourself happy! It also has protection built in to make sure the rest of us have some freedom to engage with the behemoth copyright properties, and Copyright Week reminds us of that.

What fannish things do you like to do?

I am a voracious consumer of all things fannish. I wish I could draw, because I'm in awe of fan artists, but I'm a writer myself. Catch me on a perfect weekend curling up with a 150K coffee shop AU.

Now that our volunteer’s said five things about what they do, it’s your turn to ask one more thing! Feel free to ask about their work in comments. Or if you'd like, you can check out earlier Five Things posts.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

It's an active time for OTW's copyright-law advocacy, and if you're in or from New Zealand, we need your help! Here's what you can do.

We're hard at work arguing for fan-friendly law around the world. In addition to our continuing work in the EU and our upcoming testimony to the U.S. Copyright Office about the importance of safe harbors for online service providers, we'll also be submitting a comment to the government of New Zealand in connection with that country's review of its Copyright Act.

Here's where you come in! As we've done in many countries, including Canada, Australia, the U.S., and South Africa, we'd like our New Zealand submission to include first-hand accounts from New Zealanders about the benefits of laws that promote the creation and sharing of transformative works.

If you’re in or from New Zealand and have expressed yourself, gained skills, been part of creative communities, or otherwise experienced the benefits of being able to create transformative works, we’d love to hear your stories. They can be long or short--just give us some specifics about why making and enjoying fanworks matters to you, so we can include those stories in our submission.

The deadline is approaching quickly! Please send your stories to us by April 3 using our contact form (scroll down to "Legal Advocacy") or e-mailing us at legal [at] transformativeworks.org. (Feel free to use a pseudonym if you don't want us to share your personally identifying information.)

On March 26, by a pretty slim margin, the European Parliament passed the un-amended Digital Single Market Directive. This directive includes the fan-unfriendly provisions known as Articles 11 and 13 (now re-numbered to 15 and 17, but otherwise unchanged), which we have written about before in this space. We won’t sugarcoat it—it’s bad news—but it isn’t the end of the world. Nonprofit platforms like the AO3 will not be affected, and there are provisions designed to protect some of the sites and fan activities you (and we!) love. A lot remains to be seen. Here’s a close look at what the law means and what we can expect.

The European ministers still have to vote on the directive before it becomes final, but it is widely presumed that they will approve it. Assuming the European ministers approve it, the directive will then be transposed into national legislation by EU countries, at which point it will become law. Each country’s implementation may be slightly different, but will conform to the directive’s principles. Here are some of the key takeaways from the directive as it passed:

- The definition of "online content-sharing service providers" is limited to platforms whose main purpose is to “store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users, which it organizes and promotes for profit-making purposes.” The directive therefore excludes non-profit platforms like the AO3.

- The definition also explicitly excludes "not-for-profit online encyclopedias, not-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software-developing and-sharing platforms, [Internet service providers], online marketplaces, business-to-business cloud services and cloud services that allow users to upload content for their own use." That means that platforms like Wikipedia, Open Science Framework, GitHub, telecom companies, eBay, Etsy, Amazon Web Services, and Dropbox should also be safe from these provisions.

- For-profit "online content-sharing service providers" will be liable for copyright infringement by their users, and will have an obligation to obtain permission from copyright holders for providing user-uploaded copyrighted works. This means that some big sites will negotiate license agreements with major copyright holders to implement systems (like YouTube’s ContentID) that allow those copyright holders to block or monetize instances when users upload their copyrighted material.

- However, platforms will not be liable for infringing content if they implement notice-and-takedown and filtering systems to prevent uploading and re-uploading of material claimed by copyright owners. Although this has some things in common with the notice-and-takedown safe harbors in the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it places more intensive obligations on platforms. Industry standards will vary, but some sites will almost certainly install "filters" that try to prevent the upload of unauthorized material.

- The directive states that it "shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation" (although the consensus is that filters will be required) and that platforms must have an "effective and expeditious" way for users to dispute a block or takedown. Therefore, the directive requires that fans be provided with mechanisms to combat abusive takedowns, including the ability to dispute takedowns of non-infringing transformative works, although we don't know what those mechanisms will look like or how well they may work.

- The directive states that its implementation should "in no way affect legitimate uses, such as uses under exceptions or limitations" to copyright, and should "not result in the prevention of the availability of works ... which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or other subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation. Member States shall ensure that users in each Member State are able to rely on [exceptions for] quotation, criticism, review; use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche." We don’t know how this will be implemented or how it can work with filters that can't tell whether these exceptions apply, but it provides countries with the opportunity to include significant exceptions in their laws implementing the directive. Fans may wish to contact their national legislators to emphasize the importance of protecting users' rights.

- The directive says that the standard should take into account "(a) the type, the audience, and the size of the service and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the service; and (b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers." This means that in theory, smaller or less-resourced sites, sites whose main purpose is hosting non-infringing transformative works (like fanworks), and sites that focus on criticism and commentary can argue that they should not have to engage in filtering because filters are too expensive or are simply not suitable for dealing with the non-infringing transformative works they host. Although we cannot predict what they will do, fansites and popular for-profit fanwork platforms like Fanfiction.net, tumblr, Wattpad, and DeviantArt may be able to argue that they should not have to install upload filters. However, we can also predict that for-profit filtering providers will argue that their products are priced appropriately and that large copyright owners will argue that any sites that host video, audio, or images for profit should be required to filter.

- There is also an exemption for very small and very new platforms (less than 3 years old, average monthly unique visitors under 5 million, and annual turnover below EUR 10 million). This is a minimal exception, but it may allow new fansites and platforms a small opportunity to get on their feet before having to comply, if they can figure out a way to do so.

- Finally, the directive provides for research and stakeholder dialog on implementation. The OTW has joined a coalition that will be conducting such research and dialog, and will continue to fight for fans’ rights on the Internet!

If you don't live in the EU: Big copyright owners are seeking the same changes around the world, and will be asking the U.S. Copyright Office to support similar changes in April. Keep an eye out for a chance to let your legislators know that filters are a bad idea.

Have questions about the directive? OTW Legal is here to answer them.