Kid Recreates the famous "Khaaann!" moment in TWOK

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Best fan film I've seen in a while.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The original for comparison:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mudd]

Things I love about this in no particular order:

• The visual pun surrounding "You've got Genesis;"
• Khan's headbanger henchman;
  
• Kirk's crew of stuffed animals versus Khan's pet tyrannosaurus.

This kid should go far.

 

[Professor Zoom]

THAT is WONDERFUL.
Besides the wonderful performance... the TECHNICAL level was fantastic. The sound was great. The picture was great.
There are a ton of fan films that should pay attention.

 

[Admiral2]

Could somebody cc this kid the Axanar script so it can be made by somebody competent without the lawsuit baggage?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Could somebody cc this kid the Axanar script so it can be made by somebody competent without the lawsuit baggage?

To be frank, the Axanar script is hardly competent.

 

[Karzak]

Robert Meyer Burnett could learn a thing or two from this kid about how to keep his camera steady.

 

[Campe]

Robert Meyer Burnett could learn a thing or two from this kid about how to keep his camera steady.

Oh, come on... It was intentional!

 

[Karzak]

 

[Sgt_G]

They should get him to take over Alec Peters roll in Axanar.

 

[USS Triumphant]

This clip, if made now, would violate rule 3 of the guidelines: "The content in the fan production must be original, not reproductions, recreations or clips from any Star Trek production."

 

[Philip Guyott]

This clip, if made now, would violate rule 3 of the guidelines: "The content in the fan production must be original, not reproductions, recreations or clips from any Star Trek production."

It's a parody so it should be OK.

 

[wamdue]

This clip, if made now, would violate rule 3 of the guidelines: "The content in the fan production must be original, not reproductions, recreations or clips from any Star Trek production."

to say nothing of the unofficial communication prop and uniform.

On the plus side, I dont think any of the teddy bears involved have ever worked on Star Trek before, so maybe its ok.

 

[USS Triumphant]

to say nothing of the unofficial communication prop and uniform.

I'm pretty sure those items don't violate the rule, since they aren't knock-offs of the correct items from an unlicensed source. They're a watch and regular clothes.

But perhaps I'm taking your comment too seriously.

 

[wamdue]

But perhaps I'm taking your comment too seriously.

your a Star Trek fan, its your way.

 

[Wowbagger]

It's a parody so it should be OK.

Do you see an exemption in the guidelines for parody?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Do you see an exemption in the guidelines for parody?

Shouldn't be an issue because parody is allowed under copyright law whether there is a provision in the guidelines or not.

 

[ozzfloyd]

Do you see an exemption in the guidelines for parody?

Parody is protected regardless of any guidelines from the studio

 

[ihno]

Nice.

They can still try to sue.

 

[Wowbagger]

Shouldn't be an issue because parody is allowed under copyright law whether there is a provision in the guidelines or not.

So's transformative not-for-profit fair use, but nobody seems to be putting much stock in that copyright law exemption protecting them from a lawsuit.

Unless CBS/P says they aren't suing parodists, they should be considered to be affected by the same rubric to the same extent as everyone else.

EDIT: Incidentally, in what sense is this parody in the first place? Do you see a commentary on the source material here?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

So's transformative not-for-profit fair use, but nobody seems to be putting much stock in that copyright law exemption protecting them from a lawsuit.

Unless CBS/P says they aren't suing parodists, they should be considered to be affected by the same rubric to the same extent as everyone else.

EDIT: Incidentally, in what sense is this parody in the first place? Do you see a commentary on the source material here?

It's clearly parody. The teddy bears, the Genesis bible gag, the metal rocker Khan lackey, etc. It is, by the dictionary definition, a parody, which must imitate and exaggerate the source material.

par·o·dy
ˈperədē/
noun
noun: parody; plural noun: parodies

1. 1.
   an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.

Further:

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.

Source: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

This was done for comic effect. It exaggerated the original scene in the performances and overall style. And the elements I listed above — the Genesis bible gag, the metal lackey, the teddy bears as Kirk's crew while Khan has a T-Rex crew — are all commentary on the source material. For, get this, comic effect.

Hence, parody.

You're looking for reasons for a lawsuit where none exist in this particular video. This is parody, plain and simple, which falls under fair use. And who's not putting stock in that exemption, as you say?

But you know what, let's ask @jespah, our resident attorney, for a ruling. Is this Jespah, parody and is it protected under fair use? Can Paramount or CBS sue this kid and his dad for this video?

As an aside: are we now all going to suss out if any sort of Trek-related video violates the new guidelines? Because that's seems to be what's happening in this thread.