Herd mentality? But seriously, if you get that impression, it's probably because as fans I believe they'd have more in common than they'd have differences for these particular entertainment needs. If it helps, think of the "majority opinion that is shared" as the one of which I speak. Include others that may be different, but not contrary to the majority opinion, too.
They are not. The micro-management I spoke of was after giving them, not wishing to then police the field, read or preapprove scripts, run down their finances, make sure every one of the guidelines are adhered to, etc. So who is going to be checking on these things if not they?
I disagree it's stealing if the IP owner knows about it and is fine with it. Wouldn't the law say you can't use it IF the owner objects, or something to that effect? So until they sue you or at least tell you to knock it off, or have already told you to knock it off, characterizing it as theft seems wrong. And once tolerated by the IP owner, the fair market forces come into play since it becomes de facto legal. Unfortunately, the IP owners reserve the right to change their minds at any time, so any hogwash that guidelines provide a safe zone where you never have to worry the IP owner can interfere with you is a myth.
My belief (which I admit could be wrong) is a business can make money, but if that money is totally consumed in overhead and wages, then there is no profit. If it makes more than overhead and wages, then that's a profit. I'm not sure how acquiring material assets (sets, costumes, props) could not be considered profit, however, unless you don't have to count those until after you permanently close up shop.
But I reiterate, the lines between professional and amateur, and for profit and not for profit, are all meaningless barriers to the IP owner who can always choose to sue, or not sue, across any one of those barriers, at any time, for any reasons, even regardless of any implications they won't if the fan film simply adheres to certain guidelines. But if you wish to enlighten me as to the actual differences, and explain how they will apply to the IP owner's rights, I'm all ears (eyes?)
Illegally raised money would be using another's IP without their permission and after being told not to do so. Robbing a bank to fund your fan film would be another example. And I maintain it is not a breach of copyright if the copyright holder knows about it and decides to allow it, or simply tolerates it. To suggest otherwise would to be claim they are breaking the law, but IP owners are above the law, or regardless of their wishes, they are not allowed to "tolerate" breaches in the law because the law is the law and it will be enforced.
Not when the IP owner or copyright owner knows about them and at least tolerates them. When they decide not to tolerate them, the usual practice is to tell the offender to knock it off (cease and desist.) If they comply, then the law wasn't broken since the overlap was tolerated. If they don't comply, then the law is being broken and the IP owner can sue and get an injunction to halt to wrongdoing.
I think you’re the one who is wrong if you claim the IP owner can allow another to use their IP, but HEY, that's STILL breaking the law because there is a copyright on it, damn it. I say it's legal when they know about it and allow it or tolerate it. The law protects the copyright holder insofar as it provides a legal means to remedy a situation where a non IP owner is using the IP without permission and refuses to stop.
You analysis seems faulty to me. Faulty. You should analyze. Analyze. I don’t like illegal things, yes. No hypocrisy there. I don’t think fan films are illegal when IP owners know about them and allow them or tolerate them - maybe even if they don’t know but tolerate through inaction or ignorance. The copyrights provide legal remedies to situations one finds unacceptable but only when and if one exercises their rights of copy, so to speak.
