While I think this is an excellent shift in the right direction (mitigating the penalization of smaller artists for creating new work derivative of more well known artists) we are talking a lot about this more from the perspective of a smaller fish using the IP of bigger fish; however, as an artist myself, I’ve been trained to protect my IP by copyright. The standard argument is that it can protect us from being metaphorically f***ed by a bigger fish who would have the means to beat us out in the courtroom if they decided to create something derived from our original work and ideas without giving proper credit or compensation. My question is: What would you propose to protect or honor the IP of a smaller artist if the situation was reversed?