The Fort Collins blog page can't be found now.
BREAKING: Official Fan Film Guidelines Issued
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
I think the intent is to return the "amateur" to amateur Trek.
A
Amaris
Guest
It's still there when I click on it.
No, they never mailed it back. They sold it at auction along with all their other ST stuff. We had to have a new one fabricated for our set.
Wow. Just wow.
malice or stupidity
A
Amaris
Guest
Yeah, I couldn't help but laugh. Nothing against NV or anything, it's just "hey, did we ever get our scanner back? ...what do you mean they sold it?"That's horrible.
CBS is officially the next door neighbor who borrowed your power tools.
We chalked it up to the studio having no mechanism or procedure in place to return borrowed stuff. Stuff gets returned to rental houses, but it was probably just no one's job really to get our stuff back to us.
It was not just our Suluscope; it was our green wraparound uniform we produced to Scott Bakula's measurements. That never wended its way back to us, either.
You can still only do a parody once. If you make it a continuing series, that's considered infringement. For instance, it's perfectly okay for MAD magazine to do a parody called "Star Trek" when a new Star Trek movie or TV series comes out, but they couldn't do it as an ongoing feature.
You seem to be forgetting that neither ST:C nor ST:NV is located in California. Star Trek: Continues' sets are in Georgia and Phase II is located in upstate New York. Flying the Star Trek cast, crew, and equipment to either location would be prohibitively expensive.
That stinks. Sorry to hear you didn't get your equipment back.
To add insult to injury, Propwerx probably ended up with both...
My suggestion here involves CBS and Paramount's implementation of these guidelines. Let's try to be as fair as we can to the proper copyright holders of the Star Trek franchise. Let's suppose that the guidelines spell out the circumstances in which an amateur, unlicensed production is produced, which would absolutely not raise the ire of CBS' legal department. These are pretty grave restrictions, but if you play in the shallow end of the pool, there is absolutely no risk to you.
Now, any intention to produce a program that falls outside those guidelines involves a risk to CBS' intellectual property. Let's concede that part of the argument.
Suppose the implementation of these guidelines were such that an amateur producer who wishes to start a production that could, or probably does, fall outside the guidelines, could seek permission from CBS. This permission process would be a formal negotiation for permission (not a license since, as a fellow here commented earlier on this thread quite accurately, that could open up a huge new loophole for exploitation of the IP by another studio's proxy). Each permission would be based on terms that were mutually negotiated and agreeable, and exclusive to just that production. CBS could impose restrictions such as, don't use "Star Trek" in the title, or don't post on YouTube, or don't have anyone wearing uniforms from a commercial supplier not licensed by CBS. Maybe it can only be hosted on CBS properties, such as All Access or TV.com (another brilliant suggestion from earlier in this thread). And if the parties can't come to an agreement, then the answer's still no, and you can still make a 15-minute parody where all the crew are replaced with Trump bobbleheads.
I know that CBS' lawyers don't want to get into shouting matches with every fanfilm producer on the planet, but that's why God invented the Internet. Some of these things can be automated. An amateur producer can place an application online, and a server-side process can elevate the more complete applications to the top of the queue. Those that rise to the occasion may merit a response by a human being.
What CBS appears to be worried about is an amateur production rising to such a level of quality, and containing images that are indistinguishable by an ordinary person from the copyrighted, original product, that it could be mistaken for original product -- and thus, in turn, become a profit center of its own, or else otherwise detract from the producers' rights and abilities to profit from their own material. If we concede that this is a legitimate worry, which we would have if we were in their positions, then perhaps we can find it within ourselves to build a bridge (the kind that crosses chasms, not the kind that falls on Capt. Kirk) with which we can meet each other halfway. Otherwise, we've allowed this bridge to get blown up, and we've allowed fear to divide us rather than unite us... yet again.
DF "Any Allusion to What's Going On Between the UK and the EU is Entirely Sub-Coincidental" Scott
Now, any intention to produce a program that falls outside those guidelines involves a risk to CBS' intellectual property. Let's concede that part of the argument.
Suppose the implementation of these guidelines were such that an amateur producer who wishes to start a production that could, or probably does, fall outside the guidelines, could seek permission from CBS. This permission process would be a formal negotiation for permission (not a license since, as a fellow here commented earlier on this thread quite accurately, that could open up a huge new loophole for exploitation of the IP by another studio's proxy). Each permission would be based on terms that were mutually negotiated and agreeable, and exclusive to just that production. CBS could impose restrictions such as, don't use "Star Trek" in the title, or don't post on YouTube, or don't have anyone wearing uniforms from a commercial supplier not licensed by CBS. Maybe it can only be hosted on CBS properties, such as All Access or TV.com (another brilliant suggestion from earlier in this thread). And if the parties can't come to an agreement, then the answer's still no, and you can still make a 15-minute parody where all the crew are replaced with Trump bobbleheads.
I know that CBS' lawyers don't want to get into shouting matches with every fanfilm producer on the planet, but that's why God invented the Internet. Some of these things can be automated. An amateur producer can place an application online, and a server-side process can elevate the more complete applications to the top of the queue. Those that rise to the occasion may merit a response by a human being.
What CBS appears to be worried about is an amateur production rising to such a level of quality, and containing images that are indistinguishable by an ordinary person from the copyrighted, original product, that it could be mistaken for original product -- and thus, in turn, become a profit center of its own, or else otherwise detract from the producers' rights and abilities to profit from their own material. If we concede that this is a legitimate worry, which we would have if we were in their positions, then perhaps we can find it within ourselves to build a bridge (the kind that crosses chasms, not the kind that falls on Capt. Kirk) with which we can meet each other halfway. Otherwise, we've allowed this bridge to get blown up, and we've allowed fear to divide us rather than unite us... yet again.
DF "Any Allusion to What's Going On Between the UK and the EU is Entirely Sub-Coincidental" Scott
What's the difference between permission and a liscense except for money?
Why would they not do one but the other?
My understanding is: a license is a grant of privileges over a specified time under terms that are usually standardized and is revoked following a legal process in the event of a breach, whereas a permission is an understanding that applies to a specific case only and that can be revoked at will.
This guy gets it.
https://egofactor.wordpress.com/201...-killed-startrek-fan-films-not-cbs-paramount/
"You can pick whichever side of this you choose. You can criticise CBS for not supporting fan films. You can call Peters a dishonest money-grubbing git. You can pledge never to watch another Star Trek feature again (no one will ever believe you because you’re lying, but you can pledge nonetheless), you can ignore the whole thing because Star Trek will go on as it always has, and you’ve never really felt like you were in need of extra hammy acting, ropey special effects, or surprisingly impractical clothing beyond that you already get onscreen.
But it remains a fact that CBS never felt the need to lay down the law until Alec Peters and his friends decided to profiteer off fans desire to see ever more of a beloved franchise. So fine. I retract the headline. CBS is the one killing fan films.
But it was Alec Peters that inspired them to do it."
https://egofactor.wordpress.com/201...-killed-startrek-fan-films-not-cbs-paramount/
"You can pick whichever side of this you choose. You can criticise CBS for not supporting fan films. You can call Peters a dishonest money-grubbing git. You can pledge never to watch another Star Trek feature again (no one will ever believe you because you’re lying, but you can pledge nonetheless), you can ignore the whole thing because Star Trek will go on as it always has, and you’ve never really felt like you were in need of extra hammy acting, ropey special effects, or surprisingly impractical clothing beyond that you already get onscreen.
But it remains a fact that CBS never felt the need to lay down the law until Alec Peters and his friends decided to profiteer off fans desire to see ever more of a beloved franchise. So fine. I retract the headline. CBS is the one killing fan films.
But it was Alec Peters that inspired them to do it."
I don't think that is what they are worried about. I think there is a couple of things CBS are worried about. One would be damaging the brand and two is the huge sums of money. Money being the big thing. As these things get larger and larger, one of them imploding with large amounts of money being unaccounted for would look very bad on CBS.
Last edited:
Neatly summarized.
I was being a little rhetorical. However, your differences aren't all that different.
In other words, if they aren't going to licsense a fanfilm, they aren't going to give permission for one either.
