Argggh. I thought I had mellowed over the last years wrt to Fanlore, but the statements manage to piss me off again and again.
Frankly if Fanlore at least followed its own policy I'd be much less angry about it. I'd still think the right thing to do would be to go with fannish norms, but if they followed that they'd have art they got permission for and then without permission you'd had maybe small cover scans (like on goodreads) and the occasional piece of other properly sourced fanart where it illustrates the text (say an article talks about Vulcan penises in fanfic and they put an illustration of one there). Nobody can tell me that US copyright law thinks it's a-okay to grab a dozen interior zine scans sourced to some ebay seller who put them up briefly to sell their copy, dump them onto a zine page, with no additional info than "interior art of zine X", while the text of the wiki does not mention the art, or talk about the art, or needs it in any way, because that use is "fair".
no subject
Frankly if Fanlore at least followed its own policy I'd be much less angry about it. I'd still think the right thing to do would be to go with fannish norms, but if they followed that they'd have art they got permission for and then without permission you'd had maybe small cover scans (like on goodreads) and the occasional piece of other properly sourced fanart where it illustrates the text (say an article talks about Vulcan penises in fanfic and they put an illustration of one there). Nobody can tell me that US copyright law thinks it's a-okay to grab a dozen interior zine scans sourced to some ebay seller who put them up briefly to sell their copy, dump them onto a zine page, with no additional info than "interior art of zine X", while the text of the wiki does not mention the art, or talk about the art, or needs it in any way, because that use is "fair".