JAMES CAWLEY SPEAKS!

[Matthew Raymond]

Well that certainly beats your usual passive-aggressive verbal
diarrhoea.

As opposed to your actively abusive language which makes no real substantive claims or cites anything in particular. I at least try to articulate my thoughts and feelings in a way I can support with fact and logical argument. Well, congratulations, I was going to simply to dignify your previous statements with a real response, but since you seem so eager...

Oh I think it's quite clear what I meant.

If by that you mean you gave an unsupported opinion, they yes.

Nothing snide about it.

This is the equivalent of when Princess Leia called Han Solo a "scruffy looking nerf herder" and Han replied "Who's scruffy looking?". But I suppose what you said technically wasn't snide, because you weren't being implicit or using subtlety.

The ability to Google latin phrases doesn't intimidate the billygoats crossing the bridge.

I used Latin terms because those are the names of the respective terms. I didn't invent the terminology. Clearly, you're implying that I'm engaging in trolling. The interesting thing is that your comment far better meets the definition of trolling:

1) make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

My post was in response to a troll, and while expressing my feelings regarding the post I was responding, was not intended purely to illicit a response, nor did I feel anything I said was inaccurate in any way. Note that, at no time, did you every directly contradict any of my comments, or dispute the facts as I see them. I think that says it all.

To my reading, it starts at a level of passion to express towards a property and morphs, quite readily, in to expectation of access.

There's an expectation of access because the existence of guidelines implies access. (If anything, I think was less cause to believe in an expectation of access before the Guidelines.) I'd actually have more respect for CBS if they simply said "no fan films". At least that would be clear and consistent.

The Guidelines are an attempt on the part of CBS to have their cake and eat it, to foster the kind of fan film community they've always wanted without extending any legal protections or guarantees to that same community so they can continue to exercise control over it, even when they conform to the Guidelines. They keep people in a legal limbo for the sole purpose of exercising that power. The fans don't have to make films, of course, and that's the option I'd actually suggest, but that doesn't mean I find the situation that CBS has created any less distasteful. Fish or cut bait, CBS.

 

[USS Intrepid]

So the person who hijacks every thread he posts in with the same long-winded circular arguments is now calling me a troll. Hilarious.

Particularly interesting since my orignal post didn't even mention your name and yet you immediately went on the offensive against me. That speaks volumes.

 

[jespah]

Gentlemen!

Can we tone down the rhetoric, sil vous plait?

I have 16" of snow in my driveway and am kinda in no mood, okay?

I appreciate everyone stepping back, taking a deep breath, and stepping away from the keyboard if you are unable to conduct yourselves like the fine adults I know you all to be. This also means laying off the beating of deceased equines.

Anyone who cannot will have to come to Boston and shovel out my driveway, which can fit 6 cars (no lie) and my snowblower is trapped in the garage and probably no longer works. You will also have to sleep on the third floor, where there is no heat.

I trust I make myself clear.

Thank you.

 

[fireproof78]

There's an expectation of access because the existence of guidelines implies access. (If anything, I think was less cause to believe in an expectation of access before the Guidelines.) I'd actually have more respect for CBS if they simply said "no fan films". At least that would be clear and consistent.

With respect, no. Access has been expected since the invention of fan films and fan fiction. Access has been assumed for as long as I can remember with costuming, fan art, and death threats to production teams. CBS could say "no fan films" all they want and they would still be made.

The Guidelines are an attempt on the part of CBS to have their cake and eat it, to foster the kind of fan film community they've always wanted without extending any legal protections or guarantees to that same community so they can continue to exercise control over it, even when they conform to the Guidelines. They keep people in a legal limbo for the sole purpose of exercising that power. The fans don't have to make films, of course, and that's the option I'd actually suggest, but that doesn't mean I find the situation that CBS has created any less distasteful. Fish or cut bait, CBS.

CBS is under no obligation to extend legal protections to fan producers. Period. That's not the kind of relationship CBS is obligated to engage with. It's their property and they are allowed to exercise that power. They have, in essence, said here are the ways to play in the sandbox. You don't have to use the sandbox and there are plenty of others out there to play in.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

@jespah, sorry. Didn't read your post before posting. I'll try to tone it down.

With respect, no. Access has been expected since the invention of fan films and fan fiction. Access has been assumed for as long as I can remember with costuming, fan art, and death threats to production teams. CBS could say "no fan films" all they want and they would still be made.

I think we're talking about two different things: unfounded expectations versus expectations that are grounded in the responses or actions of the IP holders. I won't argue that some people feel entitled when they're not.

CBS is under no obligation to extend legal protections to fan producers. Period. That's not the kind of relationship CBS is obligated to engage with. It's their property and they are allowed to exercise that power. They have, in essence, said here are the ways to play in the sandbox. You don't have to use the sandbox and there are plenty of others out there to play in.

I wasn't making a point about legal rights. I was making a point about fans tolerating abusive-but-legal behavior to make fan films, and I don't think they should, even if that means walking away.

 

[fireproof78]

@jespah, sorry. Didn't read your post before posting. I'll try to tone it down.

I think we're talking about two different things: unfounded expectations versus expectations that are grounded in the responses or actions of the IP holders. I won't argue that some people feel entitled when they're not..

Then what expectations are created by the guidelines? Because, thus far, I have not gotten the sense that there is a different between fans expecting to be able to make fan films without repercussions and a sense of entitlement.

I wasn't making a point about legal rights. I was making a point about fans tolerating abusive-but-legal behavior to make fan films, and I don't think they should, even if that means walking away.

How is it abusive? This is the part that makes no sense to me.

 

[USS Intrepid]

Gentlemen!

Can we tone down the rhetoric, sil vous plait?

I have 16" of snow in my driveway and am kinda in no mood, okay?

I appreciate everyone stepping back, taking a deep breath, and stepping away from the keyboard if you are unable to conduct yourselves like the fine adults I know you all to be. This also means laying off the beating of deceased equines.

Anyone who cannot will have to come to Boston and shovel out my driveway, which can fit 6 cars (no lie) and my snowblower is trapped in the garage and probably no longer works. You will also have to sleep on the third floor, where there is no heat.

I trust I make myself clear.

Thank you.

Sorry Ma’am, I’ve said my piece anyway.

 

[jespah]

Thanks everyone.

Anybody know where I can buy a flamethrower?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Anybody know where I can buy a flamethrower?

Try the Boring Company.

Then what expectations are created by the guidelines?

One does not typically post Guidelines for something someone can't do.

Because, thus far, I have not gotten the sense that there is a different between fans expecting to be able to make fan films without repercussions and a sense of entitlement.

What is the purpose of guidelines if not to be followed to avoid repercussions? Not that I would disagree that following the Guidelines doesn't protect you from the repercussions. I just don't see the point to them if they don't.

How is it abusive? This is the part that makes no sense to me.

Alright. Suppose I said that I wasn't giving your kids permission to play in my sandbox, but I wasn't necessarily forbidding them from playing in my sandbox, and here are some guidelines that if they follow them, I may still kick them out of my sandbox, but if they don't follow, I won't necessarily kick them out of my sandbox depending on how popular your kid is in the neighborhood. And I can change the guidelines whenever I want. Would you let your kids play in my sandbox, or would you think that I was psychotic and keep your kids away?

Now suppose I have the only sandbox in the world, and your kids could only ever play in a sandbox if they played in mine. We can quibble about whether or not the situation is "abusive", but I doubt you'd feel good about the situation.

 

[Bixby]

Thanks everyone.

Anybody know where I can buy a flamethrower?

Jespah,
forget about shovelling, I'm relatively in the same geographic region as you, it's downhill skiing day!!! (or if you're not into that, snowball fight day!!

 

[fireproof78]

Alright. Suppose I said that I wasn't giving your kids permission to play in my sandbox, but I wasn't necessarily forbidding them from playing in my sandbox, and here are some guidelines that if they follow them, I may still kick them out of my sandbox, but if they don't follow, I won't necessarily kick them out of my sandbox depending on how popular your kid is in the neighborhood. And I can change the guidelines whenever I want. Would you let your kids play in my sandbox, or would you think that I was psychotic and keep your kids away?

Now suppose I have the only sandbox in the world, and your kids could only ever play in a sandbox if they played in mine. We can quibble about whether or not the situation is "abusive", but I doubt you'd feel good about the situation.

This analogy doesn't track at all.

I guess I have no problem if someone wants to change the guidelines, largely, to extend your analogy, some kids can be jerks and that necessitates protecting the sandbox. Especially if there is only "one in the world."

Is there something so intrinsically valuable about Star Trek than fan films must be made?

 

[mos6507]

Is there something so intrinsically valuable about Star Trek than fan films must be made?

The strongest case for finishing one of these stories is to honor the hours of time invested in the project by volunteers. I have both invested my time in other people's projects that got unceremoniously canceled due to lost interest and abandoned my own work that meant throwing away time others invested. It's just unpleasant either way.

 

[fireproof78]

The strongest case for finishing one of these stories is to honor the hours of time invested in the project by volunteers. I have both invested my time in other people's projects that got unceremoniously canceled due to lost interest and abandoned my own work that meant throwing away time others invested. It's just unpleasant either way.

Respectfully, I'm sorry it is unpleasant. However, I don't see how CBS is to blame for this, or somehow mandates their attention.

 

[mos6507]

Respectfully, I'm sorry it is unpleasant. However, I don't see how CBS is to blame for this, or somehow mandates their attention.

Not saying CBS is to blame. Just saying that one can make a case for feeling guilty for pissing away someone's volunteer effort. The disconnect between what feels like right and wrong at an interpersonal level vs. legal right and wrong is as old as Solomon cutting the proverbial baby in half.

 

[fireproof78]

Not saying CBS is to blame. Just saying that one can make a case for feeling guilty for pissing away someone's volunteer effort. The disconnect between what feels like right and wrong at an interpersonal level vs. legal right and wrong is as old as Solomon cutting the proverbial baby in half.

I'm not denying the feelings. I'm also not denying the reality.

Both can exist simultaneously. I've done the whole invested in fan films, writing scripts, making props, and on and on. It sucks when it can't go forward for any reason. But, I've also learned so much from it. So, it hurts but, at the same time, it's ok.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

This analogy doesn't track at all.

If what you mean is not covered in your next paragraph, please elaborate. (Otherwise, ignore this.)

I guess I have no problem if someone wants to change the guidelines, largely, to extend your analogy, some kids can be jerks and that necessitates protecting the sandbox. Especially if there is only "one in the world."

That's the domain of rules, not guidelines. Otherwise, some kids can be jerks with impunity, while others get kicked out for trivial and arbitrary things, like creating a sandcastle with one too many towers. That is, of course, if the goal is to actually have everyone respectfully and safely play in the sandbox without damaging it. If you just want to be able to kick kids out of the sandbox on a whim, guidelines are fine.

 

[Maurice]

Honestly, does this CBS Guidelines Copyright stuff have to permeate every discussion on here? It sure injects itself into a many. The topic of this thread is what James Cawley said about the state or non-state of his series and what if anything happens to the uncompleted segments. Can we get back to that? Pretty please?

 

[fireproof78]

If what you mean is not covered in your next paragraph, please elaborate. (Otherwise, ignore this.)

That's the domain of rules, not guidelines. Otherwise, some kids can be jerks with impunity, while others get kicked out for trivial and arbitrary things, like creating a sandcastle with one too many towers. That is, of course, if the goal is to actually have everyone respectfully and safely play in the sandbox without damaging it. If you just want to be able to kick kids out of the sandbox on a whim, guidelines are fine.

Yeah, I'm out. Thus far this has been unproductive because I genuinely don't know what you want.

Also, not on topic. If you want to try to make more sense, PMs are fine.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Honestly, does this CBS Guidelines Copyright stuff have to permeate every discussion on here? It sure injects itself into a many. The topic of this thread is what James Cawley said about the state or non-state of his series and what if anything happens to the uncompleted segments. Can we get back to that? Pretty please?

This thread started with a post about James Cawley's comments with respect to the Guidelines and grandfathering. While a general discussion about the Guidelines may be pushing the envelope of this thread's topic, it would be disingenuous for me to say that said topic was some how inserted into this thread after-the-fact. This thread has always had at least a tertiary relation to the Guidelines.

Yeah, I'm out. Thus far this has been unproductive because I genuinely don't know what you want.

What I want should be obvious: If I make a fan film, I want to know, FOR A FACT, that I won't get sued. It would be fine if compliance with the Guidelines provided that certainty, but it doesn't. Why should anyone expect people to engage in an activity that is illegal by default and where your only defense is the hope of lax legal enforcement?

To quote the first post in this thread:

CBS has clearly said, that any and all releases after the guidelines that do not conform to said guidelines "Will be judged on a case by case basis". That means that any fan film makers who choose to ignore the guidelines are rolling the dice and could possibly face legal action.

Like James, I don't enjoy this kind of gambling.

 

[fireproof78]

What I want should be obvious: If I make a fan film, I want to know, FOR A FACT, that I won't get sued. It would be fine if compliance with the Guidelines provided that certainty, but it doesn't. Why should anyone expect people to engage in an activity that is illegal by default and where your only defense is the hope of lax legal enforcement?

Then don't engage. Simple