I added some edits to my previous post which would explain some of the questions you brought up here:
I apologise for my tone, it may have seemed a little belligerent.
If you're trying to reframe your question, you're still mixing up your terms. Canon =/= continuity. If you want to forget Threshold, you're more than welcome to. But that's a continuity choice on your part. Canon is about the production and official article from the creators themselves (in this case, Paramount); we can deny that Threshold belongs with the overall Trek narrative, but we cannot deny that Paramount actually made it and broadcast it.
Bear with me, I'm not grasping this.
You seem to be, subtly, altering your argument. If canon, simply, constituted those products directly created by the rights-holder, they why would they need to make pronouncements on it?
The rights-holder (Paramount) can make any sort of pronouncements they want on it, for whatever reason. It is, as they say, within their rights. If it interferes with future plans or they feel the product in hindsight isn't up to snuff, they can make those decisions.
I mentioned Star Trek: TAS as an example. Others include the Ghostbusters cartoon, or the various James Bond movies that carry his name but aren't sanctioned by the Broccoli family. Portions of their library are considered out of continuity. But they were still made, still being sold and distributed, and still are protected by their company's copyright. That's canon. Star Wars used to count their novels and comics as part of the movies' continuity, but Disney recently overruled it. The books are still getting published and made, so they're literary canon; but their relation to the movies -- continuity -- is fundamentally changed.
(though a correction on my part: Paramount only ruled TAS as non-continuity once the movies were in production)
I also gave a non-pop culture example (the research paper example), if tht helps.
And where's the line between direct and indirect creation? I'm not sure how many executives at the company wrote, directed or, otherwise, contributed to its creation.
Executives call the shots, but they also make the final decisions, too. If our favorite writer makes changes, those changes won't see the light of day unless they're approved and signed off.
The general rule is, if it's been broadcast, then it's been approved. It's not foolproof (sometimes innuendo in Trek that otherwise would get shot down makes it to the air because the execs weren't paying attention), but they're still part of the gatekeepin gsystem.
What about when the company contracts out production of its material? How does its relation to the production of, say, a film, differ to its relation to the production of a novel of comic book? Why are the latter not considered canonical by the rights-holder?
This is why companies have armies of lawyers, to filter everything and get enough legalese so as to protect the company. Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures' joint deal to share Spider-Man is a ripe example of how companies treat and deal with non-staff -- it's a lengthy process.
However, at the smaller level, it's a little easier. But it still happens; this is why we have Tom Paris instead of Nick Locarno as the helmsman of Voyager. Legalese and protecting canon (and its financial implications -- in this case, preventing the payment of Locarno's contracted creator royalties for 170 episodes).
Continuity says that if you want to believe that Paris/Locarno just changed names and are the same character, have at it, but there's nothing in the canon to back that up. But we can't disregard that either's existence because of canon.
Paramount wouldn't give a damn if you disregarded an episode like Threshold. That's continuity. However, they *would* give a damn if you were trying to tell them and others that it's not really theirs and thus wiped out from their books. That's still their work, documented, archived, and something that makes money for them. Canon is the official body of work, not the personal acceptance of that work. Continuity, on the other hand, is what you choose to believe to make the premise work.
I was under the impression that the whole terminology is such that the distinction is, essentially, irrelevant. TV Tropes (not the best source, I'll warrant, but a useful one) defines canon as "what
counts, in terms of continuity".
So, I'm saying, or asking, rather: "What
does count?"
I'm also a devout reader of TV Tropes (one of my favorite time sinks, really), but Trek is one of the few TV franchises that is this expansive, as evidenced by the sheer entries on TV Tropes. If we were talking about a sitcom like Modern Family, determining canon as continuity would be much simpler.
With that said, Trek is such an expansive universe that Paramount's taken steps to protect its brand. Indeed, the TV Tropes page on canon -- and specifically television canon -- makes exception to the Word of God, and in Trek's case, that's Paramount. Few franchises have such involved oversight - Doctor Who, Star Wars (the parallels between Roddenberry/Lucas and Paramount/Disney these days are just so eerie), and Harry Potter come to mind, and that oversight is the result of those franchises (including Trek) expanding beyond their original media.
As well, the separate creators still have to operate under the studio. Every little trivia fact that you hear about a writer getting cheated out of royalties, or an actor unable to reprise a role because of legal matters -- is all part of studio copyright control. And part of that control is, yes, canon. But demarcating the lines between canon and continuity, I think, would go a long way towards helping you separate the two concepts.
I'm having some trouble with that notion.
I'm just saying that the concept of canon has consequences on the brand, because of those legal steps Paramount takes. There's no consequence if you choose to believe that Threshold doesn't exist. There's a consequence if you try to strike that episode off Paramount's official library because of legal ramifications -- for example, if that episode somehow dropped out of Paramount's canon, there would be nothing to stop you from recreating the story from the ground up and then profiting it; but Paramount's rights and the rights of its staff would get damaged in the process.
For Paramount, judging what is/isn't canon is a way to protect their productions. Continuity, on the other hand, doesn't do that, so there's a lot more room for change.
