On the other hand:
I've known a lot of little people - webcomic artists, small game designers, illustrators - who have had their work ripped from them, sometimes flagrantly and sometimes simply by well-meaning people who do what a lot of people here do: show their fan love for something while trying to cover the cost of making it plus a little extra. In the end, when the unlicensed creations get to be popular themselves, it's the original author / artist who loses.
Bill Watterson's fight to hold onto
Calvin & Hobbes is a legendary tale.
I think that copyright law could stand to recognize when something becomes a part of the cultural grain. The law was written poorly by people acting in the best interests of corporations. But it's hard to find the middle ground. It's easy to say that you shouldn't rip off a lone illustrator's IP - but Watterson became part of the cultural grain, and he prided himself on being a one-man operation. Where does one draw the line?
I could have filled my Etsy shop long ago with loads of hilarious and poignant video game, TV, and movie works, but with copyright law the way it is, I won't... not to mention that I know how personal these works are to the individuals who make them.