There's nothing to fear: Axanar has already been sued. The constraints that Axanar is on are LEGALLY BINDING as a result of their mutually agreed settlement with CBS. .
First, my primary "fear" is beyond Axanar. At this point, what happened to Axanar is more a disappointment than a fear. As for what is legally binding, I suspect if CBS/Paramount wanted to relax what they imposed upon Axanar, even now they could (mostly for the fans, but sure as crap not for Peters, of course). Whatever they agreed to, after all, was what it took so CBS/Paramount wouldn't proceed with the lawsuit and take them to court. Just like everything else, the IP owner probably still retains their right to change their mind or refrain from going to court again should they so choose. I don't think they will refrain. But again, that is not my fear. It remains mostly the future uniform or non-uniform application of the guidelines.
No other fan film is under any constraints at all; remember that these are guidelines not rules. CBS, if it wished, could still sue any fan film that fully complied with the guidelines and would be legally allowed to do so. The guidelines are not legally binding - the terms that Axanar agreed to most certainly are. .
I strongly agree with the first parts, but what Axanar agreed to is only legally binding inasmuch as I think they mutually agreed if Axanar stayed in those bounds, CBS/Paramount wouldn't sue, and they might not even be able to legally change their minds on that one and still sue despite Axanar's adherence to those guidelines. He might, for example, offer a film at 4X the speed, like chipmunks, so 120 minutes of material would be crammed in 30 minutes of actual time. Fans would have to play the video at 1/4 the speed , but maybe they could do that. I dunno. It might legally comply to the court mandated agreement, despite being outside the spirit of the agreement, and for all I know, CBS may not be able to sue. But the exact nature of the so-called binding agreement is not something I know or claim to know. Regardless, I still suspect if CBS/Paramount wanted to, they could relax the terms and tell Axanar they could do other things beyond the court agreed guidelines.
I don't have a hard copy of the exact agreement handy. Does it not say no professional actors? And hasn't CBS/Paramount already said Axanar could use some? I suppose I could hunt for that myself, but it's not my highest priority at the moment. If you know, I thank you for any further enlightenment. Otherwise, bringing up Axanar when I'm more concerned about fan filmdom hereafter is always a step back to an older argument, which I think most everyone here, myself included, feels is settled - Peters was a dick.
Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand your example. In your scenario, the entitled kid screaming "Mine, MINE!" is that supposed to represent the fan? Or the studio?
You really didn't understand that? Very well. The one screaming "MINE" is the one who owns the toys, so it represents the IP owner.
Because, where your analogy falls apart, the studio hasn't invited anyone to play with their toys. A better example would be, having seen a kid playing with his toys, another kid decides to just go over to the first kid's house without invitation and without permission and start playing with the toys.
Do you imagine these toys are in the yard, or again the kid must commit breaking and entering to gain access to the toys in the owner's room like you suggested before?
Anyway, no, the social and civil norms we have for living together and how to go about certain civil matters and avoid most conflicts IS the tacit permission (like your mother's invitation) (and again, where "tacit" means "implied" and is never meant to be taken as "explicit" permission, or legal permission, particularly where the IP/toy owner would no longer be able to legally object. It is implied we can get along without resorting to many more, um, excessively harsh and needlessly punitive actions when a kinder, gentler way has yet to be tried. For example.
Hey, that's mine. Don't do that.
Oh, I'm sorry. Here you go.
Thanks.
Retain ownership, yes. Protect your IP, but not stealing. You must not steal. Men must not steal. To steal is a breaking of civil and moral laws we've lived by for thousands of years.
Anyway, copyright law is the civil and moral code we have lived by so I think that would be true even if the IP owners hadn't publically suggested the guidelines. The fact they have publically suggested them just makes it all the stronger to believe one has permission to play with them, just as long as they never forget who actually owns them, and that the owner can always take their ball and go home, legally, morally, and ethically.
See... it's the PERMISSION part you keep leaving out of your examples.... you leave it out, because you know, without permission, you are in a morally grey area.
The permission is implied by civil law and by its outlining of proscribed means to handle civil matters without resorting to criminal law. BTW, don't tell me what I know or why I do or say things or how I see myself. It usually just ticks me off. Thanks. And also, thanks for admitting this is a grey area. Stealing or not stealing is not really a grey area. Every time you use those terms like "stealing" or "theft," you are suggesting a greater degree wrong doing than what is actually happening, and apparently insisting on a far more black or white, all or nothing position. I try to shy away from "always this" or "never that," attitudes, or 100% to blame or 100% blameless claims. One merely has to point out the extremely low bar required to disprove such assertions - not to blame, or to blame, by a mere fraction of 1% - to demonstrate how another is overstating their claims and engaging in little more than useless hyperbole.
Do you (not) mind the stealing because it's a big corporation? Would you feel differently about derivative works if CBS stole something from the little guy? What would you say then?
I still say it's not stealing. And you have civil recourse. But, as a general rule, I'd favor the little guy if the big bully is relying on out spending them and out lasting them in a protracted court battle, attempting to win by attrition i.e. not because they are right, but because they have deeper pockets. But to more fully judge such a situation, I would wish to examine the actual case, and as much as possible, deduce the motivations of the parties involved.
