JAMES CAWLEY SPEAKS!

[USS Intrepid]

Um, talking to yourself? And what are "she days"?

Argh, stupid autocorrection. Didn’t catch that one.

Also, I was supposed to be replying this. Which makes far more sense.

I really feel like you're just talking to yourself.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

1. "Insight," not "incite." If you want to be taken seriously, at least use the right word.

So this is what we've come to: Ignoring valid points because of a typo. Does this mean I can stop taking you seriously when you make a typo?

2. "Violate" is the wrong word here, too. Guidelines are a road map, not laws. Stay on the road and you're good. Deviate from the guidelines and your course might be corrected, or you crash and go down in flames. Crashing in this instance might end you up in court, facing a judge who knows your arguments before you make them.

Again, you fail to address my actual point and instead focus on grammar and choice of words. Never mind the fact that "violate" can mean "fail to comply with", which I feel is completely appropriate given the context.

3. There's only one franchise in question here, and it's not even a question. CBS owns the property, so they get to say how it's used. Protest as you like, but it doesn't change reality.

Because fans of Star Trek never go on to create new sci-fi properties. (Battlestar Galactica, Stargate SG-1, The Orville, Dark Matter, Galaxy Quest, Renegades, et cetera.)

Is your argument basically that no one should have a conversation unless they can conclusively prove its social merit? Fine then. I've already stated that I'm working on a sci-fi franchise of my own, so your argument is invalid on its face. In the Kickstarter thread, another individual also stated that they were working on a pilot to a franchise. That's two people who could benefit from such a conversation.

4. This is your real point.

They're all real points, including this one.

5. Fair use laws are to protect the property owner. Talk to us again when someone tries to appropriate a property you own.

What is this nonsense?
From https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html:

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.

It has nothing to do with protecting the "property owner". It's about protecting speech.

You want to argue a point, but your premise is flawed.

What premise would that be, and how is it flawed? You seem to enjoy making declarative statements without a supporting argument.

As much as you resist, it remains a fact that CBS gets to make the rules when it comes to Trek.

What resistance are you referring to? Or has "resistance" become a synonym for "disagreement" while I wasn't looking?

1. Pretty much everybody is creating stuff under the guidelines If this is STC again, they were just finishing what they started. I can't think of any new project that hasn't followed the guidelines.

I don't understand what violation of the Guidelines has to do with Item #1, which concerns the choice of whether or not to make a fan film.

2. Outside of STC, who else is violating the guidelines?

"Chance Encounter - A Star Trek Fan Film". It's a single video longer that 15 minutes for "a single self-contained story". That's just off the top of my head. I haven't been looking.

3. No discussion on here is going to have an effect on other transchises

That's unsupported speculation, and since I've already cited two people on this forum who are writing pilots, it's not even a save assumption.

4. ok vent. Won't change them.

It doesn't have to. That's not always the point. Sometimes people just want to express what they feel, and there's nothing wrong with that.

5. They shouldn't be. Just becasue fans would like to make their own films, books, etc using other people's IP doesn't mean they should be allowed to as a function of law. That should be a decision by the IP holder.

That basically boils down to "Keep the legal status quo because of reasons".

What if I'm ok with the Guidelines?

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. My annoyance largely stems from those who attempt to shut down conversation, not those who have opposing view points. Imagine if everyone said that you shouldn't argue FOR the merits of the Guidelines because the legal rights of CBS make your approval irrelevant. After all, CBS can change the Guidelines to something you disapprove of whenever they want without your consent, so your approval doesn't matter. It's their property. They have the right to do whatever they want. See, the same argument cuts both ways. Neither side should be silenced.

IMO, Make what you want without broadcasting every step of your production and just put it on line.... it will last forever.

I don't think we should discourage transparency...

 

[Krandor]

Keep the legal status quo because somebody who creates s franchise should be able to have a say in who can and cannot make movies or products based on it and shouldn’t have to compete with others in the universe they created. It’s not tough.

 

[fireproof78]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. My annoyance largely stems from those who attempt to shut down conversation, not those who have opposing view points. Imagine if everyone said that you shouldn't argue FOR the merits of the Guidelines because the legal rights of CBS make your approval irrelevant. After all, CBS can change the Guidelines to something you disapprove of whenever they want without your consent, so your approval doesn't matter. It's their property. They have the right to do whatever they want. See, the same argument cuts both ways. Neither side should be silenced.

Then I wouldn't argue about it. Largely because its impact is fairly negligible in my life as whole. The guidelines are not interfering with my larger ability to live.

You're right-it does cut both ways. CBS is under no obligation to respect me or my opinion in this matter. The larger question, to me is, why does it matter what CBS does with their property?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Keep the legal status quo because somebody who creates s franchise should be able to have a say in who can and cannot make movies or products based on it and shouldn’t have to compete with others in the universe they created. It’s not tough.

This is a False Dilemma (a.k.a. Fallacy of the Excluded Middle). The vast majority of fan works have either no economic impact or slightly positive impact by sustaining interest in the franchise. We can provide modest, specific fair use exemptions while preserving a copyright holder's ability to profit from their copyright. It's about striking a reasonable balance. Not every fan work is Axanar, and we shouldn't treat them as such.

The larger question, to me is, why does it matter what CBS does with their property?

If you asked the same question about Star WARS (and Disney), you have tens of thousands of angry fanboy Internet trolls on your case, so I guess I don't understand the question.

 

[Krandor]

This is a False Dilemma (a.k.a. Fallacy of the Excluded Middle). The vast majority of fan works have either no economic impact or slightly positive impact by sustaining interest in the franchise. We can provide modest, specific fair use exemptions while preserving a copyright holder's ability to profit from their copyright. It's about striking a reasonable balance. Not every fan work is Axanar, and we shouldn't treat them as such.

As costs come down and crowdfunding budgets go up it becomes more and mroe likely that fan works can be confused with regular products and that is an issue.

Even with that I still say it should be up to the owner of the copyright to decide if they want people to make fan films or not. If they don't want it, then people shouldn't be able to make it. It would really bother me for that control to be taken away from the owner of a copyright.

 

[Professor Zoom]

If you asked the same question about Star WARS (and Disney), you have tens of thousands of angry fanboy Internet trolls on your case, so I guess I don't understand the question.

Tens of thousands... Yet, Star Trek couldn't muster the same on this very board....

huh.

 

[fireproof78]

If you asked the same question about Star WARS (and Disney), you have tens of thousands of angry fanboy Internet trolls on your case, so I guess I don't understand the question.

I'll reframe-why are the guidelines so impactful? Because individuals are no longer allowed to play freely with someone else's property? Because there are rules? There were rules beforehand.

People are mad at Disney-so? What impact has that had on Disney' and their business? Largely, none. So, clearly the impact isn't as great on their lives as Internet trolls would have us believe.

It's about impact. If I want to go out and make a Star Trek fan film, then I can. I do the same thing I did with my Star Wars fan films. I make them, maybe they work, maybe they fall through. But, ultimately that's my choice to engage in that work, and its CBS choice to decide how they respond.

All they've clarified is how they will respond.

So, the larger question is, what is the impact?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

As costs come down and crowdfunding budgets go up it becomes more and mroe likely that fan works can be confused with regular products and that is an issue.

Just to be clear, I don't oppose the guidelines that require people to identify their film as a fan film. (In fact, trademark law makes the prohibition regarding the use of the name "Star Trek" essential.) Also, fair use with regards to copyright does not exempt you from trademark law. They're two different types of fair use.

Even with that I still say it should be up to the owner of the copyright to decide if they want people to make fan films or not. If they don't want it, then people shouldn't be able to make it. It would really bother me for that control to be taken away from the owner of a copyright.

Companies already thrive with existing fair use exemptions. There's no reason to think that a careful, narrowly tailored exemption for fan works would adversely impact copyright holders. I'd go into detail, but we're already way off topic.

Tens of thousands... Yet, Star Trek couldn't muster the same on this very board....

A petition to remove The Last Jedi from Star Wars canon is at this time approaching 100K petitioners. So, yeah, if you managed to piss them all off, that's how many people could theoretically come after you, my obvious hyperbole not withstanding.

I'll reframe-why are the guidelines so impactful? Because individuals are no longer allowed to play freely with someone else's property? Because there are rules? There were rules beforehand.

There aren't even rules now. They're guidelines, and following them to the letter does not give you any kind of license or legal protection. People were never actually "allowed" do to anything. It's just that CBS chooses to enforce copyright selectively, and if they felt that all fan films were detrimental to the franchise, they'd crack down on everyone.

People are mad at Disney-so? What impact has that had on Disney' and their business? Largely, none.

I don't think the box office numbers support your conclusion. Bad word of mouth has had a significant negative impact on Last Jedi ticket sales.

But, ultimately that's my choice to engage in that work, and its CBS choice to decide how they respond.

All they've clarified is how they will respond.

So, the larger question is, what is the impact?

We've seen the impact: Long-form fan films and regular fan series have basically either gone extinct or rebranded.

 

[Krandor]

Companies already thrive with existing fair use exemptions. There's no reason to think that a careful, narrowly tailored exemption for fan works would adversely impact copyright holders. I'd go into detail, but we're already way off topic.

There aren't even rules now. They're guidelines, and following them to the letter does not give you any kind of license or legal protection. People were never actually "allowed" do to anything. It's just that CBS chooses to enforce copyright selectively, and if they felt that all fan films were detrimental to the franchise, they'd crack down on everyone.

We've seen the impact: Long-form fan films and regular fan series have basically either gone extinct or rebranded.

You are talking about removing one of the basic tenents of copyright which is control over derivitave works. That is a big deal. A derivitive work is a lot different then using clips from a show fir critical commentary. And in your scenerario what if the copyright owner didn't like how their characters were being protrayed in said fan film? They would be able to do nothing and that isn't fair to them.

CBS is never going to license a fan film and quite honestly you wouldn't want them too because too much red tape would come with it. They have said they won't sue if you follow the guidelines and that is the most you'll ever get.

Long-form fan films and fan series are not allowed per the guidelines so of course those have gone extinct.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Companies already thrive with existing fair use exemptions. There's no reason to think that a careful, narrowly tailored exemption for fan works would adversely impact copyright holders. I'd go into detail, but we're already way off topic.

But, why would copyright holders want to even open that door a crack for someone to make identical works? What's the advantage? But, more importantly, why would a copyright holder want to willingly chip away at copyright protection?

You want a careful, narrow exemption today, what about tomorrow?

A petition to remove The Last Jedi from Star Wars canon is at this time approaching 100K petitioners. So, yeah, if you managed to piss them all off, that's how many people could theoretically come after you, my obvious hyperbole not withstanding.

There's a couple of point here. 1. More Star Wars fans than Star Trek fans., 2. Fans are idiots.

We've seen the impact: Long-form fan films and regular fan series have basically either gone extinct or rebranded.

So? What's the problem?
Maybe those people could dedicate their time and energy creating something new. Maybe they would create the next great thing?

 

[urbandefault]

CBS is never going to license a fan film and quite honestly you wouldn't want them too because too much red tape would come with it. They have said they won't sue if you follow the guidelines and that is the most you'll ever get.

This, right here. Well said.

 

[fireproof78]

There aren't even rules now. They're guidelines, and following them to the letter does not give you any kind of license or legal protection. People were never actually "allowed" do to anything. It's just that CBS chooses to enforce copyright selectively, and if they felt that all fan films were detrimental to the franchise, they'd crack down on everyone.

Exactly. So, nothing's really changed, aside from the fact that the risk factors were spelled out in black and white.

I don't think the box office numbers support your conclusion. Bad word of mouth has had a significant negative impact on Last Jedi ticket sales.

It's among the top 20 highest grossing films of all times. It's not as bad as the Internet would have us believe. Disney certainly isn't adjusting its business model because of it.

We've seen the impact: Long-form fan films and regular fan series have basically either gone extinct or rebranded.

Wasn't that always a possibility? Like you said, they are guidelines. People were never "allowed" to do anything anyway. It is fan fiction, pure and simple, that costs more money. People were not allowed to do it before, they are not allowed to do it now. Status quo.

 

[Maurice]

Corporations don't give a fuck about petitions. They care about money. And since The Last Jedi made tons of cash you can bet Disney isn't paying any mind to the whinging of fanboys, who, history has shown, complain about everything.

To be blunt, most fan filmmakers aren't serious about being filmmakers. They're rather like re-enactors. They want to play Star Trek, not make something original. A few move on to make their own films, but they're the ones who would've done so even without the guidelines and the Axanar debacle.

 

[Mytran]

To be blunt, most fan filmmakers aren't serious about being filmmakers. They're rather like re-enactors. They want to play Star Trek, not make something original. A few move on to make their own films, but they're the ones who would've done so even without the guidelines and the Axanar debacle.

Spot on - which is why phrases like "playing in someone else's sandbox" are so commonly used to describe the process. At best, fanfilms are a fun hobby to entertain yourself and your friends. The guidelines only come into play when they're put onto public broadcast media like Youtube or Vimeo, or try to publicly raise large sums of money. Otherwise, you can make your 90 minute fan epic, burn it to disc and keep it on your shelf for personal viewing! :-)

 

[fireproof78]

Spot on - which is why phrases like "playing in someone else's sandbox" are so commonly used to describe the process. At best, fanfilms are a fun hobby to entertain yourself and your friends. The guidelines only come into play when they're put onto public broadcast media like Youtube or Vimeo, or try to publicly raise large sums of money. Otherwise, you can make your 90 minute fan epic, burn it to disc and keep it on your shelf for personal viewing! :-)

Exactly. Fan films are amateur and that amateurism is part of their charm. That passion for details in STC and the like is great but it is a recreation.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

You are talking about removing one of the basic tenents of copyright which is control over derivitave works. That is a big deal. A derivitive work is a lot different then using clips from a show fir critical commentary. And in your scenerario what if the copyright owner didn't like how their characters were being protrayed in said fan film? They would be able to do nothing and that isn't fair to them.

Parodies are BOTH derivative works AND potentially represent characters in ways the original author might not approve of, and we have explicit fair use exemptions for those. So, I don't see your point.

CBS is never going to license a fan film and quite honestly you wouldn't want them too because too much red tape would come with it.

Devoid of an example to follow in the industry, that's probably true. CBS is unlikely to be the First Penguin in that regard.

They have said they won't sue if you follow the guidelines and that is the most you'll ever get.

That's generally true in the short term, but it wouldn't surprise me if people successfully campaigned for specific changes or clarifications in the Guidelines.

Long-form fan films and fan series are not allowed per the guidelines so of course those have gone extinct.

Yes. I'm saying that was always the intent.

@Professor Zoom, in the following quotes, I'm going to assume we're still talking about revising fair use in copyright law.

But, why would copyright holders want to even open that door a crack for someone to make identical works?

Why would they be identical? There's a difference between allowing derivative works and allowing direct copying of an original work. Most fan fiction, for instance, doesn't actually copy the text of the book they're based on.

What's the advantage?

Being able to release fan works without fear of a copyright lawsuit.

But, more importantly, why would a copyright holder want to willingly chip away at copyright protection?

Well, I'd like to believe large media companies don't control the government and dictate copyright law, so I don't see why they specifically would have to be willing, but that's not to say this arrangement wouldn't have some advantages for them. For one, it would allow them to more aggressively pursue content that falls outside of fair use without fear of a fan backlash. It may also result in fewer cases in the court system, allowing copyright cases to proceed more quickly. It would also reduce the number of DMCA takedowns for sites like YouTube. (But that's another topic...)

You want a careful, narrow exemption today, what about tomorrow?

Well, tomorrow I'm going to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There's a couple of point here. 1. More Star Wars fans than Star Trek fans.,

Based on what evidence do make that assertion? And even if it were true, there simply have to be a lot of Star Trek fans, not as many as Star Wars.

2. Fans are idiots.

Let's not lump all fans into a condescending stereotype.

So? What's the problem?

I like long-form and serial fan films and want to see more films in those formats.

Maybe those people could dedicate their time and energy creating something new. Maybe they would create the next great thing?

They probably already are.

Exactly. So, nothing's really changed, aside from the fact that the risk factors were spelled out in black and white.

Yes, I agree.

It's among the top 20 highest grossing films of all times. It's not as bad as the Internet would have us believe.

It's a tent pole. It doesn't have to loose money. It just needs to not make enough money to cover Disney's losses for other films. And even if it does, the fan backlash still means the loss of millions in potential revenue. (For the record, I actually like The Last Jedi.)

Wasn't that always a possibility? Like you said, they are guidelines. People were never "allowed" to do anything anyway. It is fan fiction, pure and simple, that costs more money. People were not allowed to do it before, they are not allowed to do it now. Status quo.

Yes and no. The more long-form and serial fan films that came out without action by CBS, the more it gave the impression that such films were permissible. For example, there a literally dozens of fan films that are episodes in a series. The Guidelines turned that tacit permission into an explicit prohibition.

Otherwise, you can make your 90 minute fan epic, burn it to disc and keep it on your shelf for personal viewing! :-)

You make it sound like fan films should be an underground activity...

 

[Professor Zoom]

Parodies are BOTH derivative works AND potentially represent characters in ways the original author might not approve of, and we have explicit fair use exemptions for those. So, I don't see your point.

They are fair use because no one is going to mistake a parody for the real thing.

@Professor Zoom, in the following quotes, I'm going to assume we're still talking about revising fair use in copyright law.

Why would they be identical? There's a difference between allowing derivative works and allowing direct copying of an original work. Most fan fiction, for instance, doesn't actually copy the text of the book they're based on.

I think you're being disingenuous with your "why would they be identical?" You know fan films aren't copying the exact thing. But, they ARE trying to look and feel like CBS/Paramount's Star Trek. Fanfilms are going to great length to look like professional work that could be mistaken for the "real" thing. Look at Star Trek Continues. The whole point was to look like an episode of the original.

These derivative works are copying the look, the tone, in some places, the characters of work they don't own.

And you know that. So, again, I think you are being disingenuous.

But, that's not an argument why a copyright owner should allow derivative work without being compensated.

Being able to release fan works without fear of a copyright lawsuit.

I should've been more clear: what's the advantage for the COPYRIGHT owner to carve out an exception for fan work?

Well, I'd like to believe large media companies don't control the government and dictate copyright law, so I don't see why they specifically would have to be willing, but that's not to say this arrangement wouldn't have some advantages for them. For one, it would allow them to more aggressively pursue content that falls outside of fair use without fear of a fan backlash. It may also result in fewer cases in the court system, allowing copyright cases to proceed more quickly. It would also reduce the number of DMCA takedowns for sites like YouTube. (But that's another topic...)

1. Carving out an exception for fan films might complicate pursuing copyright theft. Carving out a exception would give someone a legal argument to defend their theft.

2. "Fear of a fan backlash." Can you provide an example where there has been a fan backlash when a copyright holder has put an end to copyright infringement? Oh, sure, there were a couple of fans that are upset about Axanar... but, do you really think that was a blip on anyone's radar?

3. I believe it would increase the number of cases. As it muddies the waters. There's already enough people who don't understand how copyright works.

Let's not lump all fans into a condescending stereotype.

Sure. Still. The fans that sign a petition like that? Idiots, who really should get a fucking life.

I like long-form and serial fan films and want to see more films in those formats.

Ok. Great. I guess you'll have to find something else to like then.

They probably already are.

GREAT! Then maybe that's the new thing you could like! You could help them with their Kickstarters. You could support their original content. That would be a great thing to come out of this. New original stories, owned solely by the creators.

Maybe instead of advocating for a carve out in copyright (which isn't going to happen) you could seek out those who have experience making fan films and help make something NEW. Something exciting!

Wouldn't that be a better use of your time and energy than shouting at the clouds?

 

[Mytran]

It's a tent pole. It doesn't have to loose money. It just needs to not make enough money to cover Disney's losses for other films. And even if it does, the fan backlash still means the loss of millions in potential revenue. (For the record, I actually like The Last Jedi.)

That's the second time you've talked about the loss of revenue:

Bad word of mouth has had a significant negative impact on Last Jedi ticket sales

Are you able to provide any sources for this information? It would be fascinating to know how much money wasn't made from tickets that weren't sold to people who didn't like or weren't going to see the film anyway, from before the movie had even been released!

You make it sound like fan films should be an underground activity...

Top marks for taking my quote out of context! But as I said originally, the only reason that fan films have run into restrictions in recent years is because of the increase in public fundraising and dissemination of those products. Fan films should primarily be made for the enjoyment of making them, shouldn't they?
BTW, I'm not advocating that they should be an underground activity as you suggest, but why should they get the full rights to be broadcast indiscriminately? These are, ultimately, hobby projects made with somebody else's IP. They are not original works of art.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

They are fair use because no one is going to mistake a parody for the real thing.

Nobody is going to mistake a file with "A Star Trek Fan Film" as the real thing either.

I think you're being disingenuous with your "why would they be identical?" You know fan films aren't copying the exact thing. But, they ARE trying to look and feel like CBS/Paramount's Star Trek. Fanfilms are going to great length to look like professional work that could be mistaken for the "real" thing. Look at Star Trek Continues. The whole point was to look like an episode of the original.

If they weren't recognizable as being part of a franchise, they wouldn't be fan films in the first place. They'd just be films. With fan works, building on the franchise is what defines them as fan works. To suggest that they somehow stop being fan works at some point because of their level of quality and professionalism is absurd, and excludes anyone who actually knows how to do something.

These derivative works are copying the look, the tone, in some places, the characters of work they don't own.

All of those things are present in many commercial parodies. Furthermore, look and feel aren't necessarily copyrightable.

And you know that. So, again, I think you are being disingenuous.

How so?

But, that's not an argument why a copyright owner should allow derivative work without being compensated.

No, it was an argument about your hyperbolic use of the word "identical". (This reminds me of the Futurama joke about the four identical pyramids, each one even more identical than the next.)

1. Carving out an exception for fan films might complicate pursuing copyright theft. Carving out a exception would give someone a legal argument to defend their theft.

Two points. First, if it's a legitimate defense, then they're not guilty of copyright infringement, let alone criminal theft. Second, your argument for not making a fair use exemption for fan works is applicable to ALL fair use provisions. You might as well say that we should never add any fair use provision of any kind.

Oh, and it's "an exception", not "a exception", so according to @urbandefault, I no longer have to take you seriously.

2. "Fear of a fan backlash." Can you provide an example where there has been a fan backlash when a copyright holder has put an end to copyright infringement? Oh, sure, there were a couple of fans that are upset about Axanar... but, do you really think that was a blip on anyone's radar?

We're talking about a law that affects all copyright holders, not just CBS. Are you saying that no company of any kind can be hurt by a fan backlash? Besides, if you look at Axanar specifically, why did they even settle if they weren't concerned with public relations?

Sure. Still. The fans that sign a petition like that? Idiots, who really should get a fucking life.

Well, my intent was to show that large numbers of fans can mobilize when they have passionate feeling about a franchise. I wasn't trying to say that they were always right or acting in an intelligent fashion.

GREAT! Then maybe that's the new thing you could like! You could help them with their Kickstarters. You could support their original content. That would be a great thing to come out of this. New original stories, owned solely by the creators.

Broken Window Fallacy.

Maybe instead of advocating for a carve out in copyright (which isn't going to happen) you could seek out those who have experience making fan films and help make something NEW. Something exciting!

Don't see why I can't do both.

Wouldn't that be a better use of your time and energy than shouting at the clouds?

By that argument, any discussion of law that doesn't result in legislation being passed is worthless.

Are you able to provide any sources for this information? It would be fascinating to know how much money wasn't made from tickets that weren't sold to people who didn't like or weren't going to see the film anyway, from before the movie had even been released!

I guess it's fair to say that I haven't established a causal link between the poor user rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the lower box office of The Last Jedi. Perhaps I was unduly influenced by the fact that my sister didn't go to see the movie in the theater specifically because our cousin said he didn't like it.

Top marks for taking my quote out of context! But as I said originally, the only reason that fan films have run into restrictions in recent years is because of the increase in public fundraising and dissemination of those products.

That would make sense if most of those restrictions had anything to do with fundraising or dissemination. The real problem is that CBS failed to provide guidance for a very long time, then suddenly provided guidance that was entirely inconsistent with precedent. And they know this is the case, or they wouldn't have explicitly grandfathered in previous fan films.

Fan films should primarily be made for the enjoyment of making them, shouldn't they?

Who are you to decide what my motives should be for making a fan film? If someone make fan films for the admiration of their peers, or to refine their skills in film production, or to meet people they may want to work with on other films, what's wrong with that?

BTW, I'm not advocating that they should be an underground activity as you suggest, but why should they get the full rights to be broadcast indiscriminately?

Let me turn that around: Who should I be denied the opportunity to see a fan film? If your answer is that I shouldn't, then doesn't that reasoning also apply to everyone else? To everyone on the Internet? Or is your argument that everyone on Earth can privately email a fan film creator requesting the he/she individually mail them a DVD for no charge?

These are, ultimately, hobby projects made with somebody else's IP. They are not original works of art.

And yet they're frequently the result of thousands of hours of effort and a great deal of creativity. In the case of fan films, they often represent a significant financial investment by their creators as well. Does it make sense to extend absolute rights to the copyright holder just so they can fail to use them the vast majority of the time while leaving these work of great time, energy and fortune completely unprotected?