Fan Works, Copyright and Fair Use

[Professor Zoom]

Being a 501c doesn't prevent people from personally profitting from the work. You could create a non-profit 501c3 that is a star trek fan film production company that raises money from kickstarter and donations and still have somebody whose full time job making a 6 figure salary is making fan films and paying profession actors, producers, etc to work on the project. That kind of operation even if "non-profit" has gone beyond being a fan film.

This. 501 c doesn’t mean there aren’t salaries, etc. It means the point of the company isn’t to make a profit. It’s goal might be educational or philanthropic, etc. Money raised goes to the institution to forward that goal. Salaries. Updating offices. Those are legit expenditures in a 501 c.

 

[jespah]

This. 501 c doesn’t mean there aren’t salaries, etc. It means the point of the company isn’t to make a profit. It’s goal might be educational or philanthropic, etc. Money raised goes to the institution to forward that goal. Salaries. Updating offices. Those are legit expenditures in a 501 c.

Yep. People in a 501(c)(3) are not required to sit on the floor and use smoke signals to communicate. They're allowed to have desks and computers and the like.

Charity = https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/the-legal-meaning-of-charity.pdf (see page 13)
Nonprofit = https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/non-profitorganization.asp (that page also covers (Not for profit)

Quote from the Investopedia page:

While some groups can use both terms interchangeably, a distinction between the two is that a not-for-profit is an activity that is not intended to generate any profits, such as taking pictures for personal use, while "nonprofit" references an entire organization whose operations/products are not intended to generate a profit (an organization that offers free photography classes).

 

[fireproof78]

Can any of the more legal minds here inform me why property rights seem to be in question when it comes to media? I don't get this attitude.

 

[jespah]

Probably not a legal thing so much as a misguided belief that if it isn't concrete, it's not real/billable/sellable/inheritable.

Consider how often service people are put on the spot for advice which they generally charge for.

• Doc, my shoulder is bothering me. Could it be a sprain?
• Counselor, I got a parking ticket. Do I need to go to court?
• Hairdresser, do you think I've got split ends?
• Mechanic, my car makes a humming sound when it's in third gear. What could that be?
• Writer, could you look at my granddaughter's scribblings and tell me if she's got talent?
• Artist, could you jot off a quick sketch for my company's logo?
• Blogger, could you write for me for no money but for exposure instead?
• Model, could you pose for a few pictures during your time off which I'll use in my advertising?

For all of those people who ask for those absurdly invasive freebies, they probably would not ask for:

• Doc, my shoulder is bothering me. Could you give me drugs for free?
• Counselor, I got a parking ticket. Could you pay it for me?
• Hairdresser, could you give me free shampoo?
• Mechanic, could you give me free tires?
• Writer, could you give me free books (although I have seen this)?
• Artist, could you give me free pictures (I've also seen this)?
• Blogger, could you pay my website hosting for me?
• Model, could you give me your pro pictures for free?

 

[Maurice]

Oh God, it's amazing how often I get asked for "freebies" by people who don't seem to understand the value proposition of brain/creative work. To people who do it professionally when someone asks for free anything they might as well be taking food right out of our mouths. I think the internet with it's free-seeming everything has to some degree furthered this misperception. "Information wants to be free" doesn't mean that.

 

[fireproof78]

Probably not a legal thing so much as a misguided belief that if it isn't concrete, it's not real/billable/sellable/inheritable.

Well, that explains why I find it fundamentally wrong. It's basically asking for resources without any investment in them at all.

Yeah, I'm sticking with my "another person's property" argument. It's borderline ridiculous to demand corporations give access to a resource because...fandom.

 

[JD]

I've never understood why some fans seem to think that liking something gives them the right to use or it, or decide how the rights holder can use it.
All being a fan means is that you can watch something, and if you want to you can a copies of the things that make up the franschise, that is it.

 

[urbandefault]

I've never understood why some fans seem to think that liking something gives them the right to use or it, or decide how the rights holder can use it.

It's sad, really.

 

[fireproof78]

I've never understood why some fans seem to think that liking something gives them the right to use or it, or decide how the rights holder can use it.
All being a fan means is that you can watch something, and if you want to you can a copies of the things that make up the franschise, that is it.

But, let us take it further. The argument is, in essence, that Fair Use should include fan works, as they do not, in theory, remove profit from the copyright holder.

What legal or moral duty is upon the copyright holders that would require such an action?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But, let us take it further. The argument is, in essence, that Fair Use should include fan works, as they do not, in theory, remove profit from the copyright holder.

What legal or moral duty is upon the copyright holders that would require such an action?

Sorry, could you rephrase the question? Which action?

 

[fireproof78]

Sorry, could you rephrase the question? Which action?

Expanding fair use.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Expanding fair use.

I'm still not sure I get the exact meaning of your question. But I think I get the gist of it, so I'll posit an answer anyway, for the sake of "argument."

It seems to be the position of those advocating said expansion that copyright holders should "share" their works with the world to the extent that they should tolerate the proliferation of knockoffs in media provided that no money is earned, in certain senses of the word, from that proliferation.

As I've stated, implied, and otherwise suggested, I don't agree with the position that they must be legally compelled to do so while they enjoy copyright protection for their work. I also think that there are plenty of instances when it wouldn't be the right thing to expect that sort of "sharing" at all. But there you go. The question of what period of time should elapse before copyrighted works enter the public domain is, as I have indicated, IMO a separate topic; that's because it really concerns much broader issues than the question of how protected fan works ought to be.

 

[fireproof78]

It seems to be the position of those advocating said expansion that copyright holders should "share" their works with the world to the extent that they should tolerate the proliferation of knockoffs in media provided that no money is earned, in certain senses of the word, from that proliferation.

Thus far, I have seen no moral or legal justification for such "sharing."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Thus far, I have seen no moral or legal justification for such "sharing."

Well there's nothing wrong with opting to do it. I see no justification to compel it to be done, though.

 

[fireproof78]

Well there's nothing wrong with opting to do it. I see no justification to compel it to be done, though.

I don't have a problem with corporations or property holders opting to allow that. That's what licensing is for. But, government compulsion through law? I call that in to question every time.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't have a problem with corporations or property holders opting to allow that. That's what licensing is for. But, government compulsion through law? I call that in to question every time.

CBS's fan film guidelines don't represent a license, though. More like a gentlemen's agreement.

 

[fireproof78]

CBS's fan film guidelines don't represent a license, though. More like a gentlemen's agreement.

That wasn't my point, but fair enough as a distinction.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

That wasn't my point, but fair enough as a distinction.

I wasn't trying to be pedantic, but you seemed possibly to imply by "That's what licensing is for" that licensing is the only appropriate channel for this kind of "sharing," which is not the route that CBS has taken.

 

[fireproof78]

I wasn't trying to be pedantic, but you seemed possibly to imply by "That's what licensing is for" that licensing is the only appropriate channel for this kind of "sharing," which is not the route that CBS has taken.

No, it was a fair enough point on that. I agree that it isn't the only route that companies, like CBS, can take. My larger point being that corporations have avenues already under the law that allow them to allow for fan productions.

ETA: Stumbled upon an interesting article regarding scholastic helping young artists by getting them to sign over their IP rights.

Why is this an issue if the kids wouldn't profit from it? This gets right at the heart of this issue.

 

[Maurice]

I actually stopped participating in the 48 Hour Film Project contests because of such language in their participation agreements, because I knew they could have gotten the same results with a simple limited term license instead of doing a limited-term shared Copyright. I was told the language has since been changed but I've not investigated that.