No, I'm talking about the entitlement that some fan film makers think they have, that they can do what they want with someone else's property. The entitlement of CBS/Paramount is absolute. They own all of Star Trek. Even if you wrote a cannon story, you don't own the parts you created, because it's a work for hire. So how it be different for a fan film, who is doing something that's unauthorized? CBS/P for a long time has turned a blind eye to fan films, now that they've been forced to look at it, they've been forced to take action. The aren't beholden to the fans Are the guidelines unfair? Probably. Don't like it? OK. But it is how copyright law works. We can discuss the fairness of the guidelines, but in the end, it really doesn't matter. We are allowed to play in their sandbox, by their good graces. Since it is theirs, we have to abide by their rules. If we don't like the rules, we can pound sand, cuz it ain't ours If you have a character you love, put it in something you control, create your own sandbox and let others play there. Then it'll be your rules and others will complain about them.
First of all, copyright law is derived from the will of the people. It is not a fundamental human right. As such, I don't see it as an absolute entitlement, because the people can choose to change that law as they see fit. For instance, one could argue that non-commercial fan works should be protected under fair use. Or they could reduce the length of a copyright so that works enter the public domain sooner. We are well within our rights to petition for legislation in this regard. We are obligated to uphold the law, but nothing prevents us from changing it. Note that under the length of copyright allowed in the Copyright Act of 1790, everything created before 1989 would already be in the public domain, by the way. That would be all of TOS, all of TAS, the first four movies and the first two seasons of TNG. The ever increasing length of this "entitlement" is not the result of some new found morality, but of increasing corporate influence over our legislators. (Aside: CBS/Paramount technically don't own the derivative works of the fans, even if those works are based on Star Trek. In theory, a fan could take down their fan film, pay any fines related to a lawsuit, and never license their content to CBS/Paramount, although that wouldn't be a great choice from a financial point of view.) Well for one thing, CBS/Paramount wouldn't actually be paying you for any of your work, nor is there any law by which they automatically get copyrights to your work. Are you suggesting that a company is entitled to impress their fans into service as contract employees? You act as if fans are some charity case that sucks from the teat of lax copyright enforcement. In reality, it's a symbiotic relationship where the franchise is made more valuable by the efforts of the fans. While fans do not have the right to take the law into their own hands, they do have the right to evaluate whether this relationship has tipped to far in the direction of the copyright holders and act accordingly. They do not have to "pound sand", as you put it. They are free to either start their own franchise, take their ideas to a franchise that is more willing to accommodate them, or avail themselves of fair use exemptions like parody. What makes you think I'm not? What did you think all those rebranding threads were about? The difference is that if people complain about my rules, I'll actually open a dialogue with them rather than just snidely telling them to "pound sand".
True. But we are talking about facts as they are. If you don't like the law, lobby to change it Nope, I'm saying that they can sue anybody who uses their property without their permission. I was also talking about cannon stories, meaning stories that are part of the official cannon, professional stories. You make it sound like fans are owed something. We are not. We like something or don't. That confers no rights on us, legally or morally. As for pounding sand, that was specifically geared to using someone else's property. If you don't like the rules of using the franchise, use your own property and that is your choice. You aren't a corporation and may have the time and energy to do that, but CBS/Paramount doesn't have any obligation to us. They only have an obligation to their shareholders. If you own a car, and lend it to a friend, don't you expect your friend to follow your rules regarding its use? Same with the owners of Star Trek. Their property, their rules.
Really? Where do I say that fans are owed anything? Where do I say they have special rights? I merely point out that the copyright holders have a mutually beneficial relationship with the fan film creators, and that the copyright holders have to be careful how they manage that relationship if they want to receive maximum benefit from it. It's not about rights. It's about managing a relationship with the people who pay you for your content and merchandise. Bringing this whole conversation back to topic, the Axanar settlement actually proves this. CBS/Paramount could have taken this all the way to trial and buried Axanar. That would have been the full exercise of their rights, but they didn't do that because they wanted to curry favor with the community. In the settlement, Axanar is actually getting away with violating some of the guidelines for this one film. I think the way the went about it was dead wrong, and I make no excuses for them, but it does prove that CBS/Paramount can be motivated to permit fan films under conditions that differ from the guidelines. Yes, let's pretend I didn't understand you the first thousand times. After all, it's not like I actually listed remedies that don't involve copyright infringement--Oh, wait, I did exactly that: I fail to see how a large corporation would have less resources to manage a dialogue with fans than a single person in his/her spare time. As for obligation, it's irrelevant. If a waning fan film community results in diminished interest in the franchise, and thus decrease sales of media and merchandise, the guidelines will be revealed to the shareholders as a costly mistake. Now, perhaps I'm wrong, and CBS/Paramount can basically eliminate fan films and barely see a blip in their profits, but that's not the argument you were making. You keep trying to have a conversation about rights and legality (or more accurately, end all conversation by citing rights and legality), when I'm actually talking about prudence and how to manage a mutually beneficial relationship with the community. Congratulations. You've managed to beat that dead horse twice in the same message, and with a metaphor you already used in a previous one. Extra points for redundancy.
It's not a matter of resources, but desire. But I think we are seeing things through two different lenses. I don't think they need to do anything with or for the community. They're in the business of producing product and not dealing with the community. Maybe I have a harsh view of things, but that's how I see it.