Your posts seems to assume I'm financially obligated for someone else's playtime.
I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying that if you actively curtail projects by externally imposing unnecessary restrictions, then you expect to reap the benefits of people who had to struggle on in spite of your active opposition, that doesn't exactly seem fair. Not that anyone here has any authority to impose those restrictions to begin with. Only CBS/Paramount does.
The crowdfunding model is not the same thing as people volunteering time and effort. People volunteering time, energy and materials to make something doesn't necessarily profit the project runners and actually gets the film made (in theory). Crowdfunding opens a spigot with no actual accountability for how the money is spent. I've seen this happen with fan productions even before Axanar. The latter is simply more easily misused and problematic than the former.
I appreciate that the system has its potential for abuse, but I don't think the solution is to assume abuse and prevent willing participants from supporting the projects they like. I'm happy to talk as much as you want about methods and practices to mitigate risk to patrons and help the producers not to bite off more than they can chew, though.
Actually, no. If it ends up free on YouTube and its good I'll consider that a nice surprise, but I have no reason to expect it to be there unless the people making it go out of their way to announce "It's gonna be on YouTube!"
This doesn't make sense. If the film was never funded, there are no special patrons to exclusively release it to.
What I do expect is for grown people who want to play dress-up in front of a camera to finance it themselves. Again, we're talking about a hobby. If they want to make it a profession - i.e. "get paid" - then they should go out and look for jobs that will pay them for whatever work they applied to the fan film.
If they "get paid", it's a violation of the Guidelines, which is beyond the scope of my original comments. I've never supported for-profit/commercial fan production without a license.
"But CBS and Paramount won't pay me to make Star Trek films." News flash: they don't have to, and neither does anybody else.
Strawman. I was responding to comments that crowdfunding should be restricted to levels lower that those permitted by CBS. It has nothing to do with requiring people to fund a project, and everything to do with requiring them NOT to fund a project.
If it is a hobby then yes. It would be very much like someone going hunting or fishing and inviting friends over to dine on the catch. How about I liked to fish, but I needed to start a GoFundMe to a boat and fuel, tackle and fishing gear? I'll need food for my trip, so add that. I forgot I need a NEW pickup truck and a trailer to tow the boat around............Oh and when my fishing trip is over I get to keep everything.......no matter if I catch any fish..........
Seems to me your beef is with GoFundMe, not fan films. I'm not sure why fan film makers need to personally solve crowdfunding, though.
And with YouTube views he will get ad revenue. So after my fishing trip, I'm going to charge you if you want to eat the fish I catch.
Since the coming of first Adpocalypse, most YouTubers are now funded almost entirely by Patreon. These days, you get less money from ads, and it's much harder to get monetized in the first place. Nobody's going to make any money directly from adds on a fan film.
I'd be fine with the elimination of perks in general from crowdfunding. In most cases, they only serve as a resource drain for legitimate projects anyway. Only situation where perks make sense for me is if the perk is also the thing that's being crowdfunded. (For example, if you're crowdfunding uniforms for a film, and the perk is one of the completed uniforms.)
Your posts seems to assume I'm financially obligated for someone else's playtime.
Not at all. I'm just saying that someone who forces everyone else NOT to donate to a fan film but has no problem watching that fan film, completed in spite of their efforts, is kind of a prick.
The crowdfunding model is not the same thing as people volunteering time and effort. People volunteering time, energy and materials to make something doesn't necessarily profit the project runners and actually gets the film made (in theory). Crowdfunding opens a spigot with no actual accountability for how the money is spent. I've seen this happen with fan productions even before Axanar. The latter is simply more easily misused and problematic than the former.
This seems to be about acting in bad faith. If there were no potential for abuse, would you still object to crowdfunding? 'Cause I'm more than happy to talk about how the community can organize to mitigate abusive crowdfunding...
