So, in other words: no, there's no implied permission.
Implied? We keep using that word. However, I do not think it means what you think it means. You seem to be saying anything short of "explicit" permission means not even implicit permission can exist, and if I can't show you where the law says permission is implied, then it isn't implied. But if the law actually said that, it would be explicit. Implicit means to suggest something without actually saying it. So asking somebody to show you were the law doesn't actually say something is beyond the pale of common sense.
Maybe the confusion is about what is implied. I think it means society implies (and CBS/Paramount have even implied more strongly via their published guidelines) that you can use their IP, but at your own risk, since they always reserve the right to take exception to what you're doing and can legally stop you or forcfully request you alter your film any time they wish, lest they shut you down. It is never meant to suggest it is implied you have legal permission since they have explicitly said you don't.
I have not yet heard back from our lawyer friend, and, I confess, I did not read more than a half dozen of the 50 pages he offered via link, which is probably more than most here have read of those 50 pages, but even there all I think that said was this:
Nothing short of explicit permission can be taken as "legal" permission to do something with another's IP. And that is, of course, correct. But I'm not sure who is actually claiming implied permission is the same as legal permission to do something. I'm sure not saying that. I'm saying the very nature of copyright law and how our society works requiring us to settle civil matters in the courts rather than take the law into our own hands suggests anyone has (implied, but not legal) permission to use another's IP. Doing this, however, is always legally an infringement. This is not the same as saying it is always legally theft. Infringement and theft are not interchangeable or equivalent terms, and nowhere in copyright law can you point out where they have EVER defined copyright infringement of any sort as always the same as copyright theft. There are, as we have seen, other legal provisions and guidelines and precedents where certain acts might cross commonly accepted lines, and in doing so, probably cross into criminal behavior, but not every infringement does this.
Sadly, too many point to partial court rulings and take something out of context, and this type of cherry picking behavior often seems to support their case, even when a more thorough reading the entire ruling would demonstrate otherwise. But as many lawyers have said, you can do that to suggest legal support for any position. What's more important is one doesn't mistake a particular ruling on a particular case to mean all other cases will be ruled in the same way. They may have other extenuating circumstances, or things may have changed sufficiently since then so the ruling would no longer apply. In short, if you what to know what the law says or thinks about a particular matter, then you have to take it to court and let them rule. Only then will you know. Before then, any claims to know how they will rule for a fact are likely erroneous inferences.
Taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission is...?
In fanfildom, probably just an infringement if that something is copyrighted IP, but it could possibly be theft. Ask the courts to know. If you claim to know before you do that, you are being more than a little disingenuous. And the word "taking" also bears closer scrutiny, while you're at it.
I was referring to a free license that codifies restrictions similar to what's in the guidelines. Basically, a license that allows fan filmmakers to "come in out of the cold" and nothing more.
CBS/Paramount could sell one-use licenses to fan film productions that essentially are legal permission to make a film, as long as the film makers remained within the stated parameters, violation of which would nullify the contract, cancel the license (NO REFUNDS!) and revert to CBS/Paramount again having the legal right to sue you and stop your project from being made, or shown, just as before you purchased the license. It might both generate revenue for CBS/P, and please the fanfilmdom community since it would tend to encourage fan film makers (and contributors) to proceed with greater confidence without the worry the IP owners could still be capricious and close them down simply on a whim.
