memeing a cast with a clanker is one thing, trying to profit off of a project's good will is another. Super sus and scammy.

disagree, it's just a vampire attack in both cases. possibly very worse, to different institutions.

integrity is realizing any "memeing a cast with a clanker" is deliberate repackaging of someone else's expression as something that trades. any absence of consent, much less financial license, is super sus and scammy. possibly predatory, to different institutions.

let's "double-click on this" in a couple of years to check if there was any sustainability.

just a @super dog | 0xecCE45A52a55A3D331c490AD7AD1A597E8e7b52e

remixes fall under the Fair Use doctrine, and everyone assumes that all this VC-funded atmosphere around Section 230 & feeds & ad money all just works as such.

Trent Reznor to Johnny Cash singing "Hurt" is transformation, as is sampling & photoshopping & all that silly fun.

no, what happened with "clanking off OP" is more like issuing a Bowie Bond as some third party that's a fan of David Bowie, with no other attributive quality to his production of his music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_bond (on top of its Moxie Fan Token that already existed)
so, reasonably speaking, these situations automatically revert, wholly, to OP. anything less, without license or consent, would more resemble extortion.

but idk, tho.

ehh i get the point but i disagree. by the same logic remixes would be entirely theft and don’t think that’s fair.

that said if you quote or reply and launch a clanker, i do think fees should be auto split between you and the OP.

No it's just poors trying to piggyback from others creations, nothing more nothing less

A vampire attack is not this 

I'm with you on this. Integrity is key, and exploiting others' work isn't cool