Marc Zicree Talks About New Voyages

[TRP]

To support Thalek's post, it also does not follow that "fan" produced necessarily means amateur. Two of the biggest fans I know of are Manny Coto and Michael Okuda, among others--

The appeal of NV/P2 that has been a draw for many professionals is that the fans of the original series have come together to continue it. The hybrid production that is P2 encompasses fans from all spectrums and localities.

--R

[OmahaStar]

TRP wrote:

---

To support Thalek's post, it also does not follow that "fan" produced necessarily means amateur. Two of the biggest fans I know of are Manny Coto and Michael Okuda, among others--

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Coto and Okuda were paid to work directly for the copyright holder. Fan films by their very nature don't work for the copyright holder. Sorry to completely deflate your argument, but it was so weak anyway.

[TRP]

It doesn't deflate it at all--it strengthens it. Just because a fan film is made by fans doesn't mean the fans are not professionals too. FAN Film does not necessarily equal AMATEUR Film as has been argued.

Manny asked us to contribute to the Defiant episode of Enterprise and Mike has been a contributor to us--both fans, both professionals, and both have a passing aquaintance with NV/P2.

I'll leave it to the other fans who are professionals to identify themselves if they so choose, but it doesn't take much imagination to read our credits at the end of an episode to see where some of our professional participation comes from. The key is they are all FANS.

--R

[OmahaStar]

TRP wrote:

---

It doesn't deflate it at all--it strengthens it. Just because a fan film is made by fans doesn't mean the fans are not professionals too. FAN Film does not necessarily equal AMATEUR Film as has been argued.

Man, you really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?

Manny asked us to contribute to the Defiant episode of Enterprise and Mike has been a contributor to us--both fans, both professionals, and both have a passing aquaintance with NV/P2.

And the two completely separate entities - one with the copyright holder, one without - are the same how? George Takei appeared in an episode of Voyager. That was legally done by contract with the copyright holder. He also appeared in a fan film under the name of "New Voyages" which was not legally done by the copyright holder. The same person worked on both. So what? They're not the same, but you're blindly arguing that they are.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Fan film," "amateur film" and "unlicensed film" are overlapping rather than congruent sets, with "fan film" being the least well-defined of the offerings. Maintaining that if a video is one of these things it is automatically the other two is a failed argument.

[OmahaStar]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

"Fan film," "amateur film" and "unlicensed film" are overlapping rather than congruent sets, with "fan film" being the least well-defined of the offerings. Maintaining that if a video is one of these things it is automatically the other two is a failed argument.

Actually, it's really simple. Either it's licensed and legal, or it's not. To try and create a grey area where none exists is .. disingenuous at best.

[Hudson_uk]

Some might argue that wasn't the point.

The point is that this is now an argument about semantics and perceived meanings of words.

Professional is not equal to high quality and Fan does not equal low quality.

You may well believe that fan produced product is low quality and that's up to you of course. However, it's your opinon and not a definition of the wording.

[Data Holmes]

OmahaStar wrote:

---

Actually, it's really simple. Either it's licensed and legal, or it's not. To try and create a grey area where none exists is .. disingenuous at best.

There is a third area, because it is not against the rules to produce unlicensed material so long as no profit is derived from the product.

[Noname Given]

hutt359 wrote:

---

There is a third area, because it is not against the rules to produce unlicensed material so long as no profit is derived from the product.

No - it IS 'against the rules' (read ileagal) to produce unlicensed material; HOWEVER, it is up to the copyright holder to enforce and protect those right in court; OR THEY RISK LOSING the ability to enforce a specific copyright.

IF the statements are in fact true that Paramount has knowledge of this, but is allowing it to continue, they are playing with fire; BUT it may be the case that since this is technically a continuation of the 'STar Trek' TV property; it's up to CBS and not Paramount to 'enforce' the copyrights involved.

[Data Holmes]

Noname Given wrote:

---

No - it IS 'against the rules' (read ileagal) to produce unlicensed material; HOWEVER, it is up to the copyright holder to enforce and protect those right in court; OR THEY RISK LOSING the ability to enforce a specific copyright.

IF the statements are in fact true that Paramount has knowledge of this, but is allowing it to continue, they are playing with fire; BUT it may be the case that since this is technically a continuation of the 'STar Trek' TV property; it's up to CBS and not Paramount to 'enforce' the copyrights involved.

It isn't so much a copyright issues as it is a trademark issues. As fan films don't copy actual star trek movies so much as they use trade marked star trek images and common imagery to provide the allusion that it is in the same "world" as the original, licensed, work.

[Lindley]

I get the impression that each of the people involved in this discussion have a slightly different view of what's being argued over. Taking the time to be specific about what you mean would probably put the debate to rest....

[Admiral Buzzkill]

OmahaStar wrote:

---

Actually, it's really simple. Either it's licensed and legal, or it's not.

Well, duh. I didn't suggest otherwise.

If, hypothetically, the studio granted explicit permission to these people to make these films, would that mean that they were automatically not amateur films? If something is unlicensed, is it necessarily the work of amateurs? "Amateur" is a word that actually means something, you know, and has bugger-all to do with legal standing per se. In fact, some of the work done on NV is done by amateurs, and at least in this instance much was not; it was performed by working professionals for remuneration.

[USS Intrepid]

Noname Given wrote:

---

IF the statements are in fact true that Paramount has knowledge of this, but is allowing it to continue, they are playing with fire; BUT it may be the case that since this is technically a continuation of the 'STar Trek' TV property; it's up to CBS and not Paramount to 'enforce' the copyrights involved.

At this stage, I think you'll find it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that CBS knows about it. I doubt there's many fanfilms that fall beyond their radar, and New Voyages certainly isn't one of them.

[OmahaStar]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

Well, duh. I didn't suggest otherwise.

If, hypothetically, the studio granted explicit permission to these people to make these films, would that mean that they were automatically not amateur films? If something is unlicensed, is it necessarily the work of amateurs? "Amateur" is a word that actually means something, you know, and has bugger-all to do with legal standing per se. In fact, some of the work done on NV is done by amateurs, and at least in this instance much was not; it was performed by working professionals for remuneration.

I think if you do a quick search on this thread, you'll find that I have not used the A word. At all. I am talking about legal vs. illegal. Why can't you understand this? It's not like it's a difficult concept to grasp.

[Sean_McCormick]

That such fan-produced films are technically illegal is IMHO not important to the discussion on the Nebula-awards. Ans i'm pretty sure, Paramount/CBS could not care less, if Cawley does pay people to do his films, they are only interested, if he earnes money with them.