Kid Recreates the famous "Khaaann!" moment in TWOK

Here's an actual court case about parody -- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. (You could call it THE court case about parody.)

Again, do you see commentary or criticism here? You see humor, but is that the same thing? Is it certainly the same thing? It there enough of it to constitute true "transformative use" in the eyes of the Court? Would you bet a million dollars on it? More importantly, would the creator of this fan film, who bears all of the risks if that judgment is wrong, make that bet?

 

I'm familiar with the court case.

I've already answered that commentary question in my last post. As for the rest, I'm not a lawyer, which is why I asked @jesph for her expert opinion.

In any case, seems that we're on a witchhunt to say this would be sued and that would be sued here. And in my non-legal expertise, and solely based on my professional understanding of copyright law (I'm a professional writer see the link in my sig), I don't see anything worth pursuing here. At the most, a C&D to take down the video.

In other words, we're making a mountain out of a [insert cliche here].

 

Ah, I misunderstood your last post. So you view comic effect as being inherently a form of commentary? Interesting. (And that's not a sarcastic "interesting." It's an interesting position.)

Also interesting. Would you say the same about, say, Tales of the Seventh Fleet, then?

Oh, I see you worked at ZURB! Foundation is brilliant. I use it everywhere.

EDIT: And, yes, Jespah's opinion carries deserved weight.

 

Comedy, in itself, is a form of commentary, whether on a work (as here) or on society (as a stand-up or skit routine). It's commenting on the work, in my opinion, through the comic gags.

No. I wouldn't. It is clearly aping STAR TREK and isn't transformative, and thus doesn't fall under fair use because it is neither parody or commentary.

And if it were made post the new guidelines, it certainly violates a few of them. First and foremost that it is an ongoing series rather than a one-shot.

Awesome! Glad to hear it. I worked on several of their releases — on the marketing and copy side, of course. I also had a huge hand in the creation of Ink — now know as Foundation for Emails.

She's my go-to for all things legal.

 

Creating your own Star Trek, with all of its iconography, isn't transformative.

 

Fun video. Nice cinematography and lighting.

Kor

 

You sound very certain! This must mean you know the case law, and I defer to your expertise.

However, if you have time for a question, what is it that distinguishes creating your own Star Trek from creating your own Gone With the Wind? (Which is, of course, a roundabout way of me asking for your two cents on Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin.)

 

Like a lot of us, I'm no lawyer. But, as a writer, I have an interest in IP, and I used to work for a group that represented writers, and we got the question a lot that was basically, "how much of someone else's work can I steal?" So we talked about it a lot.

Reading it now, the book was determined to be parody because it was commenting on Gone With The Wind. Which is an important part of parody being used as a defense of using someone else's copyright, under fair use.

Now, from my point of view, there really isn't any commentary about Star Trek in the fanfilms. They seem to be playing within the fictional universes rather than commenting on the show itself. I'm sure there are parodies out there, like I know there is a TNG porn parody--they are free and clear to tell CBS to fuck off. And can afford the legal fees.

Using someone's work in a transformative way is different. Like if I was using clips in a news report, that would fall into transformative. Or if I made a mural using images from Star Trek. Both of these would not be mistaken for real Star Trek and far away from a dramatic motion picture. That's not to say they wouldn't send a cease and desist or even sue, but, you would probably have a good defense in fair use because of a transformative act.

I remember a gallery got sent a cease and desist because they were selling paintings of Batman and Robin as gay lovers. Now, they could have defended it in court, but that takes money and well, Art gallery versus Warner Brothers...