zlacker

>>at1as+(OP)
> If you paint a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog in your living room, you are technically creating an unauthorized derivative work

Is this even true? It might violate a trademark, but I don't think it would violate copyright law unless it was a copy of an existing picture.

>>wtetzn+wn
It is true but meaningless. Derivative works are not illegal, and you don’t need authorisation to create one.

So if you draw sonic in your living room you are indeed creating an unauthorised derivative work. And someone can call it an unauthorised derivative work. And the only reaction that should induce is raising an eyebrow and replying “ok?”