The Axanar Case - did it wreck our community?

[OtherGene]

Agreed, Mike. They don't owe us a dialogue. And as someone who has been part of the fanfilm community for over decade, I'm sorry but I'm getting really tired of this whole entitlement attitude. Fanfilms are not a right, they're a privilege. If you can't tell your story within the fanfilm environment then I respectfully suggest you go and produce something original.

I often picked up on this sense of entitlement when reading quotes attributed to members or supporters of Axanar (and others) and I wonder if that sense comes from the belief that the fanfilm community has kept the Star Trek flame alive during the fallow years media-wise? You know, they owe us this for doing their jobs for them!

I have to say I think that belief is misguided. I can't speak for every fan (I'll leave that to others) but for myself and my Star Trek loving friends the truth of the matter is that our enjoyment of Star Trek never diminished irrespective of whether or not new content was being produced. No offence but until I became aware of Axanar my perceptions of fanfilms were predictably negative and limited (Moms basement etc) and it's ironic that I owe a debt of gratitude to Alec Peters of all people for introducing me to all these other fun productions.

 

[Red Shirt]

I often picked up on this sense of entitlement when reading quotes attributed to members or supporters of Axanar (and others) and I wonder if that sense comes from the belief that the fanfilm community has kept the Star Trek flame alive during the fallow years media-wise? You know, they owe us this for doing their jobs for them!

I have to say I think that belief is misguided. I can't speak for every fan (I'll leave that to others) but for myself and my Star Trek loving friends the truth of the matter is that our enjoyment of Star Trek never diminished irrespective of whether or not new content was being produced. No offence but until I became aware of Axanar my perceptions of fanfilms were predictably negative and limited (Moms basement etc) and it's ironic that I owe a debt of gratitude to Alec Peters of all people for introducing me to all these other fun productions.

I share your sense of irony. I had a dismissive attitude regarding fan films until the AP Axanar debacle. I didn't appreciate what the fan productions are offering which is having fun being Trek fans telling a story. Now I enjoy them and want to thank all of you that are involved in making fan films.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

ORLY? Here's a fan film done and released prior to the guidlines - and it's story is fairly compelling (IMO):

Not to mention hat you seem to ignore my point that ALL stories that take money/time/resources to produce deal with compromises.

The fact that there are always compromises does not automatically justify the imposition of artificial ones. If people already have to make all these choices about money, resources and time, why would pile on more constraints that aren't necessary?

A story always needs to be tailored to constraints placed on it.

This has nothing to do with justifying a constraint imposed artificially. The fact that people may have no choice but to adapt to a rule does not justify the rule.

So yeah, yet another strawman argument in that you somehow believe 'good Star Trek stories cannot be told in 15-30 minutes.

Wow, creating a strawman of my argument and then calling it a strawman. You really aren't that self-aware, are you? I never said that good stories can't be told in 15 to 30 minutes. In fact, I can quote myself:

A number of you are suggesting that compelling stories can still be told in 15 to 30 minutes. That is certainly true, but that doesn't mean EVERY compelling story can be told in that time, and it certainly doesn't mean YOUR story can be told in a compelling manner given that kind of time limit.

My argument has never been that the time limit prevents ALL good fan films. My argument has always been that certain specific types of compelling stories will no longer be possible because they do not lend themselves to a shorter format.

And again, to that I say, see the fan film I posted a link to here.

I have no doubt that it's a good short film. I've seen good fan short films. However, the specter of what could have been casts a larger shadow. A good short film amongst a crop of mediocre long films shines more brightly than the same film compared to the dream a fan holds in the mind's eye. If longer works are truly destine to fail, let them fail so that better films can light the way.

 

[BillJ]

The fact that there are always compromises does not automatically justify the imposition of artificial ones. If people already have to make all these choices about money, resources and time, why would pile on more constraints that aren't necessary?

If you can't work within the guidelines, then don't make "Star Trek" fan films. Pretty simple.

 

[Pindar]

Having ridden the circular argument in this thread to the end of the ride I am left wondering what the point of it is. It certainly seems to be way topic now.

In many ways I think this has strengthened the fan film community. The guidelines may affect story length but they have nothing to do with the community.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

If you can't work within the guidelines, then don't make "Star Trek" fan films. Pretty simple.

I have to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. Deciding not to create a Star Trek fan film does not preclude one from criticizing the guidelines, especially since disagreeing with the guidelines probably precipitated one's decision in the first place.

Having ridden the circular argument in this thread to the end of the ride I am left wondering what the point of it is. It certainly seems to be way topic now.

People claim that Axanar precipitated the guidelines, and this is a thread about the impact of Axanar on the community. Thus, discussing the impact of the guidelines on the community doesn't seem that far from the topic. At worst, we're talking about one degree of indirection. However, if moderators feel this is the wrong thread for this kind of conversation, I will gladly take it elsewhere.

In many ways I think this has strengthened the fan film community. The guidelines may affect story length but they have nothing to do with the community.

I can't come to the same conclusions. Many productions have either rebranded or closed up shop entirely as a reaction to the guidelines. Some even skirt the razor thin edge of the guidelines in a way that might get them into trouble down the road. Are they not part of your definition of "the community"?

 

[BillJ]

I have to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. Deciding not to create a Star Trek fan film does not preclude one from criticizing the guidelines, especially since disagreeing with the guidelines probably precipitated one's decision in the first place.

Nothing obtuse about it. CBS owns the "Star Trek" intellectual property, not fans. They've drawn their line in the sand on what can be done with their property. No different than someone laying down rules before lending their car to someone.

You're free to rant and rave all you want about the guidelines, but they are here and most upstanding folks will follow them to the best of their abilities.

 

[Pindar]

Many productions have either rebranded or closed up shop entirely as a reaction to the guidelines.

Many?
How many?

 

[CaptGrumpy]

The fact that there are always compromises does not automatically justify the imposition of artificial ones. If people already have to make all these choices about money, resources and time, why would pile on more constraints that aren't necessary?

The answer is this, and it's very simple: What justifies the imposition of any constraint is that CBS/P owns Star Trek and you don't. Their ball, their rules. It's up to you if you don't want to live within these constraints. If you don't want to the options are this: stop using the Star Trek name, or keep on keepin' on and risk their wrath.

Anything else is moot.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Nothing obtuse about it. CBS owns the "Star Trek" intellectual property, not fans. They've drawn their line in the sand on what can be done with their property. No different than someone laying down rules before lending their car to someone.

You're free to rant and rave all you want about the guidelines, but they are here and most upstanding folks will follow them to the best of their abilities.

I neither advocated for breaking the guidelines nor suggested that anyone violate the copyrights of CBS/Paramount, as you seem to imply. People who agree to the guidelines is no more upstanding than people who choose to create films outside of the Star Trek universe (which is the solution I have advocated). In fact, even if you're following the guidelines, you're still in technical violation of CBS/Paramount copyrights, whereas the same is not true if you craft a new setting devoid of infringing derivative works for your stories to take place in.

As for expressing my opinion on the Guidelines, you've done it yourself...

I'm surprised they continue to allow crowdfunding at all. If I were them, that would've been the first thing to go.

...So characterizing my own comments on it as "ranting and raving" is sheer hypocrisy.

Many?
How many?

Here's the ones I know about (though some of this info may be out of date):

• Anthology - Rebranded as "The Outer Rim"
• Aurora - Cancelled (After completion of final episode)
• Cataja: The Falkenhorst Chronicles - Cancelled
• Constellation - Cancelled
• Dark Isolation - Rebranding (After completion of current episodes)
• Farragut - Cancelled (After completion of series finale)
• Minotaur - Rebranded
• New Voyages/Phase II - Cancelled (Prior to Guidelines, but after the Axanar suit was filed)
  
• Renegades - Rebranded
• Reliant - Cancelled
• Saladin - Cancelled (After completion of current episodes)

The answer is this, and it's very simple: What justifies the imposition of any constraint is that CBS/P owns Star Trek and you don't. Their ball, their rules. It's up to you if you don't want to live within these constraints. If you don't want to the options are this: stop using the Star Trek name, or keep on keepin' on and risk their wrath.

Anything else is moot.

I disagree about the subject being moot. The guidelines may well be used as a model by others, and if we remain silent on the issue, we will continue to get more of the same from other franchise, or possibly worse.

 

[Danlav05]

Don't quote me on this but apparantly Farragut Forward may go forward

 

[MikeH92467]

I disagree about the subject being moot. The guidelines may well be used as a model by others, and if we remain silent on the issue, we will continue to get more of the same from other franchise, or possibly worse.

And if we continue to whine and complain (as a group) CBS/P might well decide we're not worth the trouble and simply drop the "Anne Rice Banhammer".

 

[urbandefault]

I neither advocated for breaking the guidelines nor suggested that anyone violate the copyrights of CBS/Paramount, as you seem to imply. People who agree to the guidelines is no more upstanding than people who choose to create films outside of the Star Trek universe (which is the solution I have advocated). In fact, even if you're following the guidelines, you're still in technical violation of CBS/Paramount copyrights, whereas the same is not true if you craft a new setting devoid of infringing derivative works for your stories to take place in.

Aren't you the guy who advocated an arbitrary panel of yahoos with the power to decide what fan films are canon?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

And if we continue to whine and complain (as a group) CBS/P might well decide we're not worth the trouble and simply drop the "Anne Rice Banhammer".

If they ban fan films because a couple guys on a forum said they don't like the guidelines, we're already screwed, because I'll bet someone has already commented negatively on them somewhere.

Aren't you the guy who advocated an arbitrary panel of yahoos with the power to decide what fan films are canon?

Actually, no. You misread the thread. And nothing in that hypothetical thought exercise advocated copyright violation either, by the way.

 

[urbandefault]

You misread the thread.

Where's that meme when I need it? Oh, well.

NOPE. I didn't misread the thread.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

NOPE. I didn't misread the thread.

Yeah, you did, because I've corrected that very assertion multiple times in that thread. I won't get into that here because it's off topic, but feel free to repost any questions/assertions in the other thread so I can go into excruciating detail there.

 

[urbandefault]

Yeah, you did, because I've corrected that very assertion multiple times in that thread. I won't get into that here because it's off topic, but feel free to repost any questions/assertions in the other thread so I can go into excruciating detail there.

Nah, but thanks for asking.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

I disagree about the subject being moot. The guidelines may well be used as a model by others, and if we remain silent on the issue, we will continue to get more of the same from other franchise, or possibly worse.

You may not like the guidelines, but until and unless the IP owners change their mind, it is moot. Only they have the moral and legal right, as the owners, have the right to determine the use. There does seem to be an air of entitlement to your arguments.

 

[Pindar]

I

Here's the ones I know about (though some of this info may be out of date):

• Anthology - Rebranded as "The Outer Rim"
• Aurora - Cancelled (After completion of final episode)
• Cataja: The Falkenhorst Chronicles - Cancelled
• Constellation - Cancelled
• Dark Isolation - Rebranding (After completion of current episodes)
• Farragut - Cancelled (After completion of series finale)
• Minotaur - Rebranded
• New Voyages/Phase II - Cancelled (Prior to Guidelines, but after the Axanar suit was filed)
  
• Renegades - Rebranded
• Reliant - Cancelled
• Saladin - Cancelled (After completion of current episodes)

Rebranded I don't see as being a negative. It means the guidelines have encouraged people to make their own original material.
Some of these films reached their natural conclusion they were not cancelled.
Some releassed one film years ago.

• Cataja: The Falkenhorst Chronicles - This is machinima and could easily continue as audio if they wanted to completely avoid the guidelines
  
• Constellation - This one is real shame

 

[Matthew Raymond]

You may not like the guidelines, but until and unless the IP owners change their mind, it is moot.

Moot in what context?

• In the context of understanding someone's decision to cancel a fan film? False.
• In the context of learning the community consensus on what restrictions that would find appropriate? False.
• In the context of other franchises considering something similar to the Star Trek Fan Film guidelines? False.
• In the context of understanding the impact of the guidelines on the fan film community? False.
  
• In the context of CBS/Paramount potentially reevaluating the guidelines at a later date? False.

In think what you really mean to say is that it's moot to discuss the guidelines with you.

Only they have the moral and legal right, as the owners, have the right to determine the use. There does seem to be an air of entitlement to your arguments.

I've upheld their legal rights on many occasions, and if by entitled you mean that I feel entitled to my opinion, yes I do.

I'm entitled to have the opinion that the Guidelines are a scheme to get the fan community to censor itself, saving CBS/Paramount money on legal fees without actually granting the community any legal protection from lawsuit in exchange for their compliance. The mere existence of the Guidelines proves that they see a benefit to having a fan film community, but they deliberately keep their fans in a state of pseudo-legality to exercise maximum and arbitrary control over them. I am I to be of the opinion that it's moral to condone violation of your own copyrights while reserving the right to sue over those same violations?

However, if you want to talk about entitlement, just look at Guideline #9. It prohibits registering "any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law", which means if you reuse an original character in a non-Star Trek film, you can't copyright that character or trademark his or her name. And if CBS or Paramount use your characters or story ideas, and you sue for copyright or trademark infringement, they can just counter-sue for violations related to the fan film and force you into a settlement. They keep your copyrights and trademarks and you get nothing.

Now suppose the actor from your fan film wants to reprise the role of your original character in a non-Trek context and receives your permission to do so. If CBS/Paramount have already appropriated your character for their own use, they may already have copyrights and trademarks with which to sue your actor friend for simply reprising the role he helped create.

So, yeah, you were talking about entitlement?

Rebranded I don't see as being a negative. It means the guidelines have encouraged people to make their own original material.

Rebranding can be a positive, but not in all instances. A franchise, and the fan community around it, create certain economies of scale that can't be replicated by a single, independent project. (For instance, off-the-shelf costumes and props, asset sharing, preexisting franchise designs, lore and history to reference, et cetera.) Some of that can be negated if you're working on an ongoing series where you can reuse assets and ideas, but it all depends on what content you were planning to use and how much content you have to replace. Iif you were planning to do a story on something that's intricately tied to Star Trek races and lore, it may not be worth the effort to rebrand, and you may simply cancel the project.

It's not all bad, though. A franchise can be just as limiting as it is empowering, and free of a franchise you can rent out your sets, props and costumes to others without fear.