Somehow I'm not surprised you missed my point.
The point is obvious: You can't be bothered, so you want me to do all the work.
Instead of repeating the same old rebuttals to your same old arguments, I just cut to the chase. Saves time for me, saves time for you.
Heck, you didn't even point out what arguments those were, let alone give rebuttals. If I argued that you're off topic, you wouldn't be able to prove otherwise. You're just engaging in vague, unsupported conjecture, and seeing as I'm not inclined to let that sort of thing stand, you've failed to save anyone's time. Also, there's the issue of people who haven't read that thread not knowing what you're talking about. You've done nothing to save
their time.
Very well done. Congrats. And THANK YOU for having good sound. That always bugs me in lower budget stuff when the sound is shit. I'm forgiving of cheap seats, but, when the sound is terrible, makes me crazy. You wouldn't shoot out of focus, why would you have bad sound?
Actually, I totally agree on this. Good sound is one of the most critical elements of any film.
Miyamoto wanted to license Popeye, couldn't, so made up Donkey Kong instead (
source). Sure the "Kong" thing drew the ire of Universal, but the point was that he didn't let the inability to do Popeye stop him, so he made up his own characters (the mechanic is much more Popeye than Kong if you look at it, right down to the construction site as in the 1934 cartoon
A Dream Walking). The name was really the only thing that made it actionable.
I see what you're saying, but doesn't your analogy fit
Renegades better than short-form fan films?
EDIT: And as to the the film contests, of course everyone knew what they were getting into and chose to be there. I fail to see how that disproves anything related to fan films.
It only serves to support your general thesis if you can show that either...
A) The same film makers were less creative when freed from the rules of the contest (which would indicate that the restrictions themselves stimulated creativity rather than the participants simply being creative to begin with).
... Or ...
B) Film makers that didn't participate were demonstrably less creative (which would show that creative people are naturally attracted to restrictions, and therefore restrictions help weed out the non-creatives).
The latter is a bit concerning, though, because it suggests that only very creative people should make fan films. (Not that I'm suggesting that's what you're trying to say. Just pointing out the implications of my own reasoning.)
Yes, but "destroying" fan films? That's a bit hyperbolic.
Yes it is. It's a good thing I never actually said that, then. In fact, I believe you're the first person to use the word "destroy" in this thread.
Since fan films always operate within a gray area of the law, i.e. not parody or education, then the property owner is always allowed to restrict their property access.
Which is why I think people should avoid making fan films under those circumstances. To me, creating a situation where fans must violate copyright to make fan content doesn't seem like something that originates from a place of respect for fans, especially if you demand that they play by set of rules that are all stick and no carrot.
Here's my struggle. The argument has shifted from one about the guidelines, to one about public domain access. One is a discussion that fits within the bounds of Star Trek fan films, the other is a legal matter.
If you want to discuss the guidelines-great. But, public domain as a whole? Beyond the scope of this thread.
I see your point to some degree, but if the answer to dealing with the Guidelines essentially boils down to "what you think doesn't matter because it's their right under the law", how do we avoid discussing legal remedies? How do you do the initial topic justice if you're prohibited from discussing the wider implications brought up by other people?
Also, legality and morality are not the same. But, property ownership is governed under the law. I truly think this is the breaking point in this discussion. There appears to be a lack of respect for CBS' property rights, and that by being a fan of Star Trek, I have a right to their property. I have no such right, neither moral nor legal.
Similarly, CBS has no right to a fan community of any kind. They have no right to the support and loyalty of their fans nor the patronage of their customers in general. I don't deny that there are people who feel entitled, who have little respect for the work CBS puts into Star Trek, but at the end of the day, if CBS doesn't respect my own efforts, I see no reason to offer them. I do not owe them film offerings made at my own legal peril.
Your analogy is highly suspect and not equivalent. This is not pilfering a few fries, and if I wasn't ok with that, then I would take steps to prevent my friend from doing so.
It's not meant to be exactly equivalent. It's meant to show the general injustice of treating two dissimilar infractions of the law as similar.
However, this is not a friend relationship. This is a producer/consumer relationship.
I think the adversarial nature of the way you've framed this is telling...
No matter the value, taking another's property is wrong, and the owner is allowed to take steps to protect it, from guarding French Fries, to establishing guidelines for use.
We've gone off on a tangent. The point I was making was that, by comparing two supposed infractions if dissimilar severity, you were "clouding the issue", distracting from real issues by inciting emotions about more severe infractions of the law. Whether or not you agree with the legality of fan films, comparing fan film makers to literal pirates on the high seas is an appeal the the emotions of the audience, and not a rational argument.
Here's the thing. A line is crossed when individuals decide to make a full length episode or feature length film it comes across as being competitive. And, that competition, intended or not, is what CBS wants to avoid.
I don't think it's ever been effectively demonstrated that it is competitive, though. Confusing? Perhaps, and that's why I don't really object to the guidelines that require that fan films be explicitly labeled and carry disclaimers. But I've seen no evidence that fan films have ever, by their mere existence, reduced sales for CBS. In fact, the derivative and referential nature of fan films may actually encourage consumption of franchise materials. That is not to say that I think CBS should tolerate
commercial fan films, or perks for that matter. I think that's a pretty bright line.
From my experience, yes it would fix a real problem. It stopped the need to compete with professional productions, or craft "the greatest fan film ever" and allowed individuals to feel they could do something with less. So, I think it evened the playing field.
I'm sorry, but this still feels like condescendingly "saving the fans from themselves". The fans haven't actually learned anything. You've just moved the finish line from "the greatest fan film ever" to "the greatest amateur fan short film ever". Rather than figuring out how the two forms of content can coexist (like perhaps having short film contests to raise the profile of shorter, lower budget films), long-form content is prohibited to save short film content, even though there was never anything preventing people form producing or supporting short films in the first place.
Let's be honest here. The reality of the legality is that Copyright law is what it is, and it gives the IP owner the rights to do what they are doing. Yes, fuck Sonny Bono and his ilk for hopping in Disney's pocket and extending Copyrights beyond all reasonable limits, but that's a different topic than the Guidelines. if that's the topic, then make that the official topic and stop pretending it's about the Guidelines. Please.
I'd love to stop talking about the Guidelines in a legal/copyright context, but it seems like people are always trying to bring it back to "CBS has the copyright, so too bad", so what am I to do aside from ignoring them and leaving their argument unanswered?
