JAMES CAWLEY SPEAKS!

[Jedi_Master]

I was shocked to hear about a 148 page fan film script. But I'm not shocked anymore.

 

[urbandefault]

Oh, and it's "an exception", not "a exception", so according to @urbandefault, I no longer have to take you seriously.

So now I'm an authority figure? Awesome.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Nobody is going to mistake a file with "A Star Trek Fan Film" as the real thing either.

I read, on this board I believe, of news reports accidentally using a fan film clip when they meant to run an official Star Trek clip.

If they weren't recognizable as being part of a franchise, they wouldn't be fan films in the first place. They'd just be films. With fan works, building on the franchise is what defines them as fan works. To suggest that they somehow stop being fan works at some point because of their level of quality and professionalism is absurd, and excludes anyone who actually knows how to do something.

Oh, no. You mean when professionals work on fan films, they are no longer amateur fan films?
I'm not sure of the problem here.

All of those things are present in many commercial parodies. Furthermore, look and feel aren't necessarily copyrightable.

In singular no, but, if head over to the Axanar Gets Sued page... you'll find out why in aggregate you are wrong.

No, it was an argument about your hyperbolic use of the word "identical". (This reminds me of the Futurama joke about the four identical pyramids, each one even more identical than the next.)

You sound desperate when you consider the world "identical" to be of hyperbolic use.

Two points. First, if it's a legitimate defense, then they're not guilty of copyright infringement, let alone criminal theft. Second, your argument for not making a fair use exemption for fan works is applicable to ALL fair use provisions. You might as well say that we should never add any fair use provision of any kind.

No. A fan film is very different than parody, a fan film is not educational, a fan film is not being used to critique, and a fan film is certainly not so altered as to be substantially different from the original, (A fan film is a film.)

If you can't see the differences, I can't help you.

We're talking about a law that affects all copyright holders, not just CBS. Are you saying that no company of any kind can be hurt by a fan backlash? Besides, if you look at Axanar specifically, why did they even settle if they weren't concerned with public relations?

Ok... let's look at ALL copyright holders... Any examples of a fan back lash when the copyright holder asserted their rights? You're idea of a "fan backlash" is purely hypothetical, and to borrow your word, hyperbolic, and not based in facts.

So, if you can think of an example, that would bolster your idea of a "fan backlash"

Well, my intent was to show that large numbers of fans can mobilize when they have passionate feeling about a franchise. I wasn't trying to say that they were always right or acting in an intelligent fashion.

Huh. Passionate fans. Not acting in a right or intelligent fashion. Huh.

Broken Window Fallacy.

No.

Don't see why I can't do both.

Because CBS and Paramount have said so? It's their ball.

By that argument, any discussion of law that doesn't result in legislation being passed is worthless.

I suppose. But, really, in the end, it's sort of a trivial ask what you're asking for.

 

[feek61]

Holy Cow!!!!

How do some of you guys have so much time to write so much stuff that nobody cares about and that most people (including me) will not read?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Holy Cow!!!!

How do some of you guys have so much time to write so much stuff that nobody cares about and that most people (including me) will not read?

Time travel.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

I believe the Shat said it best on SNL in 1986.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

So now I'm an authority figure? Awesome.

I would have taken this seriously, but you used an adjective as a sentence.

I read, on this board I believe, of news reports accidentally using a fan film clip when they meant to run an official Star Trek clip.

Wasn't that a situation where the news outlet confused Star Trek Renegades with Prelude to Axanar?

Oh, no. You mean when professionals work on fan films, they are no longer amateur fan films?
I'm not sure of the problem here.

You do understand that something can be done in a professional manner by an non-professional, right? For instance, I can construct a Hollywood flat in exactly the way a professional set designer does without actually being a professional set designer.

In singular no, but, if head over to the Axanar Gets Sued page... you'll find out why in aggregate you are wrong.

Axanar didn't copy "look and feel". They copied specific designs, such as ships, sets, costumes, et cetera. CBS cited them in detail in the lawsuit.

You sound desperate when you consider the world "identical" to be of hyperbolic use.

When you characterize an entire category of work as "identical", it is hyperbole, literally. And real desperation is trying to frighten or humiliate your critics into silence.

No. A fan film is very different than parody, a fan film is not educational, a fan film is not being used to critique, and a fan film is certainly not so altered as to be substantially different from the original, (A fan film is a film.)

If you can't see the differences, I can't help you.

None of this addresses the argument I was making or the particular quotation I was commenting on. You were saying that a new fair use exemption would make the job of lawyers more difficult by providing an affirmative defense for the defendant. All fair use exemptions do this. Furthermore, I was never claiming that a fair use exemption for fan films already existed, so your point is entirely moot.

So, if you can think of an example, that would bolster your idea of a "fan backlash"

• Fan pressure was partly responsible for the return of Gates McFadden to Star Trek: The Next Generation in the third season.
• After the character Brian from Family Guy was killed off, he was brought back as the result of a fan petition with 125,000 signatures.
• After a fan backlash over its cancellation, Timeless was "uncancelled" and given a second season.
• Due to fan pressure, Netflix added audio descriptions for the blind to Marvel's Dardevil. It was the first series they had every done this for.
• Sense8 was brought back for one more episode on Netflix due to fan pressure.
• Walking Dead ratings plummeted after the episode where Glenn and Abraham were graphically killed by Negan.
• Lorde cancelled a show in Tel Aviv after fans from her native New Zealand asked her to do so.
• The University of Tennesee backed out of an agreement to make Ohio State's defensive coordinator Greg Schiano their head coach after a fan backlash.
• Sky Arts, an art-oriented cable television channel, decided not to air a one-off special "Urban Myths" Elizabeth, Michael and Marlon after a backlash from Michael Jackson fans.

No.

What an inspired rebuttal! Let me offer my equally ingenious surrebuttal: Yes!

Because CBS and Paramount have said so? It's their ball.

Seeing as "both" referred to advocating for changes to copyright law and creating my own franchise, I don't see what CBS and Paramount have to do with it, unless you're suggesting we no longer have a democracy and media corporations dictate copyright law for on high.

I suppose. But, really, in the end, it's sort of a trivial ask what you're asking for.

I wouldn't call millions of fan works trivial.

I believe the Shat said it best on SNL in 1986.

Says the guy referencing a late night tv show episode from 32 years ago on a Star Trek forum for fan films where you're so confident people will know what you're talking about that you don't even provide a quote. Pot meet kettle.

 

[urbandefault]

I would have taken this seriously, but you used an adjective as a sentence.

Wasn't that a situation where the news outlet confused Star Trek Renegades with Prelude to Axanar?

You do understand that something can be done in a professional manner by an non-professional, right? For instance, I can construct a Hollywood flat in exactly the way a professional set designer does without actually being a professional set designer.

Axanar didn't copy "look and feel". They copied specific designs, such as ships, sets, costumes, et cetera. CBS cited them in detail in the lawsuit.

When you characterize an entire category of work as "identical", it is hyperbole, literally. And real desperation is trying to frighten or humiliate your critics into silence.

None of this addresses the argument I was making or the particular quotation I was commenting on. You were saying that a new fair use exemption would make the job of lawyers more difficult by providing an affirmative defense for the defendant. All fair use exemptions do this. Furthermore, I was never claiming that a fair use exemption for fan films already existed, so your point is entirely moot.

• Fan pressure was partly responsible for the return of Gates McFadden to Star Trek: The Next Generation in the third season.
• After the character Brian from Family Guy was killed off, he was brought back as the result of a fan petition with 125,000 signatures.
• After a fan backlash over its cancellation, Timeless was "uncancelled" and given a second season.
• Due to fan pressure, Netflix added audio descriptions for the blind to Marvel's Dardevil. It was the first series they had every done this for.
• Sense8 was brought back for one more episode on Netflix due to fan pressure.
• Walking Dead ratings plummeted after the episode where Glenn and Abraham were graphically killed by Negan.
• Lorde cancelled a show in Tel Aviv after fans from her native New Zealand asked her to do so.
• The University of Tennesee backed out of an agreement to make Ohio State's defensive coordinator Greg Schiano their head coach after a fan backlash.
• Sky Arts, an art-oriented cable television channel, decided not to air a one-off special "Urban Myths" Elizabeth, Michael and Marlon after a backlash from Michael Jackson fans.

What an inspired rebuttal! Let me offer my equally ingenious surrebuttal: Yes!

Seeing as "both" referred to advocating for changes to copyright law and creating my own franchise, I don't see what CBS and Paramount have to do with it, unless you're suggesting we no longer have a democracy and media corporations dictate copyright law for on high.

I wouldn't call millions of fan works trivial.

Says the guy referencing a late night tv show episode from 32 years ago on a Star Trek forum for fan films where you're so confident people will know what you're talking about that you don't even provide a quote. Pot meet kettle.

You think you're winning. So did Charlie Sheen.

 

[Mytran]

I guess it's fair to say that I haven't established a causal link between the poor user rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the lower box office of The Last Jedi. Perhaps I was unduly influenced by the fact that my sister didn't go to see the movie in the theater specifically because our cousin said he didn't like it.

No; that's actual box office receipts. Where are the "potential" ones that you keep mentioning? They seem pretty significant, and I'm sure based on a sample size greater than one person.

The real problem is that CBS failed to provide guidance for a very long time, then suddenly provided guidance that was entirely inconsistent with precedent. And they know this is the case, or they wouldn't have explicitly grandfathered in previous fan films.

Nope! Unofficial guidelines had been provided through email exchange for some years (and basically boiled down to "don't profit by it"). It wasn't until Alec Peters repeatedly poked the bear (he had been harassing Jon Van Citters for official guidelines via email for ages) that the "official" guidelines were released.

Who are you to decide what my motives should be for making a fan film? If someone make fan films for the admiration of their peers, or to refine their skills in film production, or to meet people they may want to work with on other films, what's wrong with that?

All those things are skills and opportunities that can be gained from making actual original works. If those things you mention are your goal then a fan film is not the way to do it, as such products are inherently derivative and limit creatively. Fan films are a celebration of an existing franchise, not a feature on your resume.

Let me turn that around: Who should be denied the opportunity to see a fan film? If your answer is that I shouldn't, then doesn't that reasoning also apply to everyone else? To everyone on the Internet? Or is your argument that everyone on Earth can privately email a fan film creator requesting the he/she individually mail them a DVD for no charge?

Let me turn that around again - who are you making the fan film for, and why?

And yet they're frequently the result of thousands of hours of effort and a great deal of creativity. In the case of fan films, they often represent a significant financial investment by their creators as well. Does it make sense to extend absolute rights to the copyright holder just so they can fail to use them the vast majority of the time while leaving these work of great time, energy and fortune completely unprotected?

It's copyright protection, that's how the law works. You may be confusing it with trademark law, perhaps?

 

[Phoenix219]

I

So this is what we've come to: Ignoring valid points because of a typo. Does this mean I can stop taking you seriously when you make a typo?

Again, you fail to address my actual point and instead focus on grammar and choice of words. Never mind the fact that "violate" can mean "fail to comply with", which I feel is completely appropriate given the context.

Because fans of Star Trek never go on to create new sci-fi properties. (Battlestar Galactica, Stargate SG-1, The Orville, Dark Matter, Galaxy Quest, Renegades, et cetera.)

Is your argument basically that no one should have a conversation unless they can conclusively prove its social merit? Fine then. I've already stated that I'm working on a sci-fi franchise of my own, so your argument is invalid on its face. In the Kickstarter thread, another individual also stated that they were working on a pilot to a franchise. That's two people who could benefit from such a conversation.

They're all real points, including this one.

What is this nonsense?
From https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html:

It has nothing to do with protecting the "property owner". It's about protecting speech.

What premise would that be, and how is it flawed? You seem to enjoy making declarative statements without a supporting argument.

What resistance are you referring to? Or has "resistance" become a synonym for "disagreement" while I wasn't looking?

I don't understand what violation of the Guidelines has to do with Item #1, which concerns the choice of whether or not to make a fan film.

"Chance Encounter - A Star Trek Fan Film". It's a single video longer that 15 minutes for "a single self-contained story". That's just off the top of my head. I haven't been looking.

That's unsupported speculation, and since I've already cited two people on this forum who are writing pilots, it's not even a save assumption.

It doesn't have to. That's not always the point. Sometimes people just want to express what they feel, and there's nothing wrong with that.

That basically boils down to "Keep the legal status quo because of reasons".

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. My annoyance largely stems from those who attempt to shut down conversation, not those who have opposing view points. Imagine if everyone said that you shouldn't argue FOR the merits of the Guidelines because the legal rights of CBS make your approval irrelevant. After all, CBS can change the Guidelines to something you disapprove of whenever they want without your consent, so your approval doesn't matter. It's their property. They have the right to do whatever they want. See, the same argument cuts both ways. Neither side should be silenced.

I don't think we should discourage transparency...

I would have taken this seriously, but you used an adjective as a sentence.

Wasn't that a situation where the news outlet confused Star Trek Renegades with Prelude to Axanar?

You do understand that something can be done in a professional manner by an non-professional, right? For instance, I can construct a Hollywood flat in exactly the way a professional set designer does without actually being a professional set designer.

Axanar didn't copy "look and feel". They copied specific designs, such as ships, sets, costumes, et cetera. CBS cited them in detail in the lawsuit.

When you characterize an entire category of work as "identical", it is hyperbole, literally. And real desperation is trying to frighten or humiliate your critics into silence.

None of this addresses the argument I was making or the particular quotation I was commenting on. You were saying that a new fair use exemption would make the job of lawyers more difficult by providing an affirmative defense for the defendant. All fair use exemptions do this. Furthermore, I was never claiming that a fair use exemption for fan films already existed, so your point is entirely moot.

• Fan pressure was partly responsible for the return of Gates McFadden to Star Trek: The Next Generation in the third season.
• After the character Brian from Family Guy was killed off, he was brought back as the result of a fan petition with 125,000 signatures.
• After a fan backlash over its cancellation, Timeless was "uncancelled" and given a second season.
• Due to fan pressure, Netflix added audio descriptions for the blind to Marvel's Dardevil. It was the first series they had every done this for.
• Sense8 was brought back for one more episode on Netflix due to fan pressure.
• Walking Dead ratings plummeted after the episode where Glenn and Abraham were graphically killed by Negan.
• Lorde cancelled a show in Tel Aviv after fans from her native New Zealand asked her to do so.
• The University of Tennesee backed out of an agreement to make Ohio State's defensive coordinator Greg Schiano their head coach after a fan backlash.
• Sky Arts, an art-oriented cable television channel, decided not to air a one-off special "Urban Myths" Elizabeth, Michael and Marlon after a backlash from Michael Jackson fans.

What an inspired rebuttal! Let me offer my equally ingenious surrebuttal: Yes!

Seeing as "both" referred to advocating for changes to copyright law and creating my own franchise, I don't see what CBS and Paramount have to do with it, unless you're suggesting we no longer have a democracy and media corporations dictate copyright law for on high.

I wouldn't call millions of fan works trivial.

Says the guy referencing a late night tv show episode from 32 years ago on a Star Trek forum for fan films where you're so confident people will know what you're talking about that you don't even provide a quote. Pot meet kettle.

The Family Guy thing was always meant as a ratings grab, and Brian was always meant to return. Episode descriptions for future episodes already had Brian in the write up, at the point of his death, and I believe the seed used for his return was planted before any of the episodes aired.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Wasn't that a situation where the news outlet confused Star Trek Renegades with Prelude to Axanar?

Confusing, isn't it?

You do understand that something can be done in a professional manner by an non-professional, right? For instance, I can construct a Hollywood flat in exactly the way a professional set designer does without actually being a professional set designer.

Sure. I'm not sure what your point is. My point is: the problem for copyright owners allowing fan works is when those fan works start getting confused with the real thing--for a lack of a better term.

Axanar didn't copy "look and feel". They copied specific designs, such as ships, sets, costumes, et cetera. CBS cited them in detail in the lawsuit.

Oh. Lord. Are you being this fucking pedantic? You don't think "look" includes specific designs? Costumes?

When you characterize an entire category of work as "identical", it is hyperbole, literally. And real desperation is trying to frighten or humiliate your critics into silence.

Oh. LORD. You ARE being this fucking pedantic.

None of this addresses the argument I was making or the particular quotation I was commenting on. You were saying that a new fair use exemption would make the job of lawyers more difficult by providing an affirmative defense for the defendant. All fair use exemptions do this.

Then, you agree with my point. Your carving out idea would make an already challenging aspect of copyright, what is fair use, even more complicated, by adding yet another aspect.

• Fan pressure was partly responsible for the return of Gates McFadden to Star Trek: The Next Generation in the third season.
• After the character Brian from Family Guy was killed off, he was brought back as the result of a fan petition with 125,000 signatures.
• After a fan backlash over its cancellation, Timeless was "uncancelled" and given a second season.
• Due to fan pressure, Netflix added audio descriptions for the blind to Marvel's Dardevil. It was the first series they had every done this for.
• Sense8 was brought back for one more episode on Netflix due to fan pressure.
• Walking Dead ratings plummeted after the episode where Glenn and Abraham were graphically killed by Negan.
• Lorde cancelled a show in Tel Aviv after fans from her native New Zealand asked her to do so.
• The University of Tennesee backed out of an agreement to make Ohio State's defensive coordinator Greg Schiano their head coach after a fan backlash.
• Sky Arts, an art-oriented cable television channel, decided not to air a one-off special "Urban Myths" Elizabeth, Michael and Marlon after a backlash from Michael Jackson fans.

Um. I didn't ask for examples of fan backlash in general. I asked for fan backlash after a copyright holder stopped an infringer.

Seeing as "both" referred to advocating for changes to copyright law and creating my own franchise, I don't see what CBS and Paramount have to do with it, unless you're suggesting we no longer have a democracy and media corporations dictate copyright law for on high.

Why do you assume only Media Corporations disagree with your idea of a carve out for fan works?

I wouldn't call millions of fan works trivial.

I'm not calling fan works trivial. I called your ask for a carve out for fan works a trivial ask.

 

[urbandefault]

This whole thing could be called preaching to the choir.

Arguing fair use, copyright, and trademark law here is pointless; it's a waste of time. Changing the system is not something that will happen on an internet forum. Take it to the legal system and report back.

We'll be waiting with bated breath.

 

[feek61]

When is James Cawley going to speak?? I'm weary of this LONG conversation you guys are having.

 

[Professor Zoom]

When is James Cawley going to speak?? I'm weary of this LONG conversation you guys are having.

He’s waiting for you to be frustrated by the conversation.
#SorryNotSorry

 

[fireproof78]

This whole thing could be called preaching to the choir.

Arguing fair use, copyright, and trademark law here is pointless; it's a waste of time. Changing the system is not something that will happen on an internet forum. Take it to the legal system and report back.

We'll be waiting with bated breath.

You might find some lawyers on this forum though

 

[Professor Zoom]

I’ve been giving it some more thought, and in order to exit this long conversation, I’ll say why I don’t think their should be a carve out for fam films: they provide very little cultural value.

Those that have been carved out for fair use offer either education or critique of the work. Whereas fan films and fanfic seem to just want to recreate or bounce in a fun house mirror of the work, endlessly doing the same thing over and over. And ultimately, the argument, as presented here for why to have a carve out is “because I want it.”

And frankly, that’s a pretty childish and entitled argument. It’s simply not yours to take. Fair use at least offers something for the culture at large. Fan films offer more of the same.

This isn’t to slag on those who make and enjoy fan films. Have fun with them. Have fun making them. But, I don’t see any reason to carve out an expection for them in copyright.

Copyright is an important tool for creators. And in this day and age, it’s incredibly easy to take things that don’t belong to you, why further weaken copyright?

 

[Noname Given]

When is James Cawley going to speak?? I'm weary of this LONG conversation you guys are having.

He already did - did you not read the OP of this thread?

 

[fireproof78]

Copyright is an important tool for creators. And in this day and age, it’s incredibly easy to take things that don’t belong to you, why further weaken copyright?

Indeed. The pain this causes me is the fact that creators do not get respected because...corporations, or something. And yet, there isn't enough protections right now for creators to prevent digital piracy.

I get this is a controversial topic, but if you account for piracy the copyright holders are well within their rights to protect their protect and ability to profit from it.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I think ST Continues is certainly a good test case regarding the rules v. guidelines semantics. They still have a few episodes to release and at least one was released after the guidelines if not two.

They seem ok.

And if nothing happens to ST Continues, then we should tip the hat to Paramount for having the sense to leave people who have done nothing but good for the franchise alone. It would also mean a lot to not only the fans, but to ST New Voyages, because it would show that Paramount IS taking it on a case by case basis.

It's CBS that owns Star Trek, not Paramount. And no, you don't automatically deserve a fan production on a case-by-case basis; it's theirs, and they decide if fan films exist or not.

 

[Maurice]

It's CBS that owns Star Trek, not Paramount. And no, you don't automatically deserve a fan production on a case-by-case basis; it's theirs, and they decide if fan films exist or not.

You just replied to a post that's 12 pages back, 8 months old, and to someone who's not been seen in this forum since.