Poll The Guidelines are...

Discussion in 'Fan Productions' started by fireproof78, Mar 23, 2018.

?

What do you think of the Fan Film Guidelines?

  1. They suck and they need to change

    6 vote(s)
    12.2%
  2. They are fine just the way they are

    26 vote(s)
    53.1%
  3. Somewhere in between

    11 vote(s)
    22.4%
  4. I don't care...just let me watch my fan films.

    1 vote(s)
    2.0%
  5. Green

    5 vote(s)
    10.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    This is the problem I have with this. It never ends up being about the Guidelines. It ends up being this moral/fairness issue instead of the subject at hand.

    Let's be honest here. The reality of the legality is that Copyright law is what it is, and it gives the IP owner the rights to do what they are doing. Yes, fuck Sonny Bono and his ilk for hopping in Disney's pocket and extending Copyrights beyond all reasonable limits, but that's a different topic than the Guidelines. if that's the topic, then make that the official topic and stop pretending it's about the Guidelines. Please.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  2. Matthew Raymond

    Matthew Raymond Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    The point is obvious: You can't be bothered, so you want me to do all the work.
    Heck, you didn't even point out what arguments those were, let alone give rebuttals. If I argued that you're off topic, you wouldn't be able to prove otherwise. You're just engaging in vague, unsupported conjecture, and seeing as I'm not inclined to let that sort of thing stand, you've failed to save anyone's time. Also, there's the issue of people who haven't read that thread not knowing what you're talking about. You've done nothing to save their time.
    Actually, I totally agree on this. Good sound is one of the most critical elements of any film.
    I see what you're saying, but doesn't your analogy fit Renegades better than short-form fan films?
    It only serves to support your general thesis if you can show that either...

    A) The same film makers were less creative when freed from the rules of the contest (which would indicate that the restrictions themselves stimulated creativity rather than the participants simply being creative to begin with).

    ... Or ...

    B) Film makers that didn't participate were demonstrably less creative (which would show that creative people are naturally attracted to restrictions, and therefore restrictions help weed out the non-creatives).

    The latter is a bit concerning, though, because it suggests that only very creative people should make fan films. (Not that I'm suggesting that's what you're trying to say. Just pointing out the implications of my own reasoning.)
    Yes it is. It's a good thing I never actually said that, then. In fact, I believe you're the first person to use the word "destroy" in this thread.
    Which is why I think people should avoid making fan films under those circumstances. To me, creating a situation where fans must violate copyright to make fan content doesn't seem like something that originates from a place of respect for fans, especially if you demand that they play by set of rules that are all stick and no carrot.
    I see your point to some degree, but if the answer to dealing with the Guidelines essentially boils down to "what you think doesn't matter because it's their right under the law", how do we avoid discussing legal remedies? How do you do the initial topic justice if you're prohibited from discussing the wider implications brought up by other people?
    Similarly, CBS has no right to a fan community of any kind. They have no right to the support and loyalty of their fans nor the patronage of their customers in general. I don't deny that there are people who feel entitled, who have little respect for the work CBS puts into Star Trek, but at the end of the day, if CBS doesn't respect my own efforts, I see no reason to offer them. I do not owe them film offerings made at my own legal peril.
    It's not meant to be exactly equivalent. It's meant to show the general injustice of treating two dissimilar infractions of the law as similar.
    I think the adversarial nature of the way you've framed this is telling...
    We've gone off on a tangent. The point I was making was that, by comparing two supposed infractions if dissimilar severity, you were "clouding the issue", distracting from real issues by inciting emotions about more severe infractions of the law. Whether or not you agree with the legality of fan films, comparing fan film makers to literal pirates on the high seas is an appeal the the emotions of the audience, and not a rational argument.
    I don't think it's ever been effectively demonstrated that it is competitive, though. Confusing? Perhaps, and that's why I don't really object to the guidelines that require that fan films be explicitly labeled and carry disclaimers. But I've seen no evidence that fan films have ever, by their mere existence, reduced sales for CBS. In fact, the derivative and referential nature of fan films may actually encourage consumption of franchise materials. That is not to say that I think CBS should tolerate commercial fan films, or perks for that matter. I think that's a pretty bright line.
    I'm sorry, but this still feels like condescendingly "saving the fans from themselves". The fans haven't actually learned anything. You've just moved the finish line from "the greatest fan film ever" to "the greatest amateur fan short film ever". Rather than figuring out how the two forms of content can coexist (like perhaps having short film contests to raise the profile of shorter, lower budget films), long-form content is prohibited to save short film content, even though there was never anything preventing people form producing or supporting short films in the first place.
    I'd love to stop talking about the Guidelines in a legal/copyright context, but it seems like people are always trying to bring it back to "CBS has the copyright, so too bad", so what am I to do aside from ignoring them and leaving their argument unanswered?
     
  3. Professor Zoom

    Professor Zoom Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Location:
    Idealistic
    Jeez. I even explained the point and you still don't get it...

    Oh, lord. Seriously?

    *checks to see what Circle of Hell I'm in.*

    Again: As I stated clearly, I was trying to save MY time, and YOUR time. You are literally repeating the same arguments you gave for pages and pages in that thread. Have you changed any minds? I know I haven't changed yours...

     
  4. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Not destroyed then. Ruined, I believe, was the term used.
    Why should companies, CBS included, incite violation of their own copyright? That's the part that is confusing to me. They have made allowances. No, nobody has to do them. But, nobody is entitled to make fan films either. In essence, there never has been a "carrot" other than the reward of making the film.
    If you want to discuss the legal ramifcations as far as CBS and the guidelines go by all means. If it goes in to "copyright is unfair" (hyperbole to make a point) territory, as a general rule of law, then it's no longer about fan films or guidelines. It's about legal restrictions that not everyone agrees with. In that instance, my recommendation is to work to change the law, something that won't happen here.
    You are quite right. They don't and you don't.
    So, stealing isn't stealing?
    How so? I see nothing adversarial about a producer/consumer relationship. I also don't think it is a friend relationship. I think that it needs to be defined by how it actually exists. The analogy given was of a friend relationship. I am responding in a way that debunks that analogy due to the nature of the relationship between CBS and audience members.
    No. To my mind, stealing is stealing. The severity can vary, the consequences can cary, but we're still dealing with that base result of violating the law. Not sure how that is emotional argumentation when violations of the law are rather black and white.

    Now, whether or not you agree with the law is another story.
    I think confusion is what CBS is trying to avoid.
    Maybe it is "saving them from themselves." Not sure why that is a bad thing, when there have been instances of fan productions going to extremes.

    I do agree that the fans haven't learned anything. They will continue to make what they want. CBS is simply giving themselves legal recourse to respond. CBS, and other companies, are under zero obligation to support these short films. I'm still trying to figure out why should they, if the fans "haven't learned anything." If legal consequences won't help them learn, what will?

    Long form content was prohibited to keep it amateur in nature, and prevent confusion, as you noted above.
     
  5. Kor

    Kor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    Dahar Master final exams
    Somehow this reminds me... I once saw a customer at a pizzeria purchase a piece by the slice, which was served "to go" in a triangular clam-box paper tray. However, she proceeded to stick around the dining area and sneak some extra slices from the buffet line into the paper clambox when the management wasn't looking (paying buffet customers were given round hard plastic plates). But, being just a kid myself at the time, I didn't feel it was any of my business to say anything.

    Now I have absolutely no idea where I was going with this... but I'm sure somebody will find a way to make it analogous to IP/copyrights! :guffaw:

    Kor
     
  6. Potemkin_Prod

    Potemkin_Prod Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Location:
    Metro-Birmingham, Alabama
    I don't think any production company would actually "support" fan films. I think they simply tolerate them in the same way that they've tolerated fan fiction over the decades.

    Yes, some IP holders don't tolerate fan fiction. But some do. It makes no difference. The IP holders are under no obligation to allow fan fiction or fan films. And fans, being the fanatics that we are, can either play by the guidelines or rules placed upon us, or we can choose to disregard them and face the consequences.

    I really don't see why this is still being argued.
     
    Kytee, fireproof78 and ozzfloyd like this.
  7. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Because....


    ....


    ....


    :shrug:
     
    Potemkin_Prod likes this.
  8. Matthew Raymond

    Matthew Raymond Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    @Professor Zoom, you don't have a point to get. You're basically saying "your wrong about something I will not disclose, and my counterargument is recorded somewhere in the Library of Alexandria". I am not going to search the Library for you, nor is anyone else.
    Nope, you're confusing me with @StarTrekRecuts. The only time I ever use the term was in "quotes", and directly in response to your use of the term, and I didn't necessarily disagree with you about its use.
    Why indeed?
    "CBS and Paramount Pictures are big believers in reasonable fan fiction and fan creativity, and, in particular, want amateur fan filmmakers to showcase their passion for Star Trek."

    Sounds to me like they're inciting violation, or at least everything shy of it.
    Then they shouldn't have any problem when we DON'T make fan films for their franchise.
    If you're argument is that this isn't the proper forum to discuss potential legislation, I'm sure people will be happy to have such a conversation elsewhere if you point them to a reasonable alternative venue.
    I'm glad we agree then. ;)
    No, I'm saying petty larceny isn't grand theft auto. You're using broader terminology to make things seem identical when they're not. It's like me saying one animal's an iguana and the other is an alligator, you saying "So, a reptile's not a reptile?". Just because two things can be grouped in the same arbitrary category does not make them the same thing.
    You are deliberately trying to equate something of less severity with something of greater severity for no other purpose than to trigger a response to the more severe infraction. It's an attempt to emotionally manipulate the audience so they'll be more receptive to your argument. There is no rational reason to do this, other than to simply win over the audience.
    Then they failed.
    Because not everyone needed to be saved. The fact that a handful of productions went too far doesn't guarantee that everyone else will screw up. You're advocating for throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    For example, what would have been the harm if Aurora had been allowed to continue? What was learned by the maker of Aurora about making serialized fan films when the Guidelines came out, other than "you can't"?
    When I said that "The fans haven't actually learned anything", I meant they hadn't learned anything from being banned from making longer or serialized fan films. You can't learn how to properly do something if you aren't allowed to do it in the first place.
    You mischaracterize what I said. I don't think it's the length of the content that's confusing. If CBS started doing a lot of 15-minute Star Trek webisodes, then having 15-minute fan films would be no less confusing. (Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance consisted of two- to five-minute "webisodes", so there you have an actual example of this being done by a sci-fi franchise.) What's confusing is not being able to differentiate between franchise and fan content, and I feel that there are Guidelines I agree with that already sufficiently address that problem. Therefore, I don't consider confusion to be a sufficient argument.
    You see, the pepperoni is like the third party content that CBS licenses... ;)
    Why?
     
  9. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    "Everything short of it" sounds about right. It's their property.
    Wasn't aware that they did. Or that I did. Or that anyone did.
    To quote you, I'm not going to find the library for you.
    It was bound to happen eventually.
    And that isn't my argument. Yes, it's theft. And then I noted that the consequences, the severity to use you term. It's still theft.
    No. That's not my point or purpose. I have no emotional dog in this fight. I am simply stating that theft is theft.
    And that's their problem. Not mine, and not the community's.
    Guess what? Corporations don't see it that way. They would rather prevent further possible issues and respond to each one that "goes to far."

    I'm not advocating it. I am observing that corporations, at least in my experience, will err on the side of overprotective and constantly responding.
    So, is the argument that fans cannot learn how to make long form films because they can't make fan films? Because, if that's
    Then what would make a "sufficient argument" for you, to use your words again, since we must be precise in our language? Because, to my eye, CBS is trying to get out and ahead of the next Axanar wannabe. Corporations don't want to spend money on going out and dealing with problems. They would rather prevent something from increasing and dealing with that, than have to go out and respond to potential issues.

    It isn't rational. We can disagree with it all we want. But, at the end of the day, CBS wants to protect its property. As inconvenient as it is to fans, is that really unreasonable?

    It's a joke...I do that :vulcan:
     
  10. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    Again. What the holy heck is the purpose of this topic? It seems like we're either...
    1. we're fine with it, it's their property
    2. it's wrong, they shouldn't restrict us!
    Accomplishing what?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  11. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Oh, should have made that the poll.

    Largely, it accomplishes nothing. But, I guess I'm a glutton for punishment or something.
     
  12. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    I think the poll's glib (but admittedly funny) "Green" option inadvertently indicates the problem with topics like this. "What do you think?" is awfully open-ended. It's like asking a child "what do you want to eat?" instead of giving them options that are actually in your pantry. Well, this pantry only contains three options:
    1. make Trek fanfilms as per the Guidelines
    2. make Trek fanfilms that violate the Guidelines
    3. don't make Trek fanfilms
    Don't like those choices? Sucks to be you. Now eat one of them or go to bed hungry. :D
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
    Firebird and Professor Zoom like this.
  13. Professor Zoom

    Professor Zoom Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Location:
    Idealistic
    That's what I've been trying to explain to @Matthew Raymond, that it's already been litigated for pages and pages in another thread... no one has changed their minds. What's the point in says the same things over and over?

    Yes, yes you are.
    PS: I literally had the same discussion with him regarding IP and theft in the other thread.
     
  14. jespah

    jespah Rear Admiral Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, the Gateway to the Galaxy
    Okay, folks. We've had 5 pages on this topic. And several pages on others.

    I see no minds being changed. I just see everyone getting tired and potentially frustrated. This does not make for good discussion or a fine collegial atmosphere. Instead, heels are dug in, ever deeper.

    I will now declare - enough is enough. I am loath to lock this topic and I really don't want to start pulling anything.

    So before we get to that point, as I said, enough, basta, no mas, no mas!

    Time to find other things to discuss. And no more movable soapboxes. Want to preach about the wonder and majesty of the Guidelines, or about how they are pestilence upon the land? Fine, awesome. Do it on your own topic. Keep your soapbox in your own backyard. If others want to discuss such things with you, then they will. If they don't, then they won't. And I don't want to see those soapboxes moved to others' threads. Leave 'em home or you'll start to see them confiscated. Capische?

    Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
     
    Kytee, MikeH92467, ozzfloyd and 2 others like this.
  15. Matthew Raymond

    Matthew Raymond Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Well, actually, no, because I thought this was a thread about the Guidelines. But whatever. I'm done. It's clearly not worth the effort I'm putting into this.
     
  16. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Can I, as the OP, request it to be locked? Because I think the topic is exhausted and never the twain shall meet, as the saying goes.

    If anyone wants to continue on then my PM box is always open :)
     
    Professor Zoom likes this.
  17. jespah

    jespah Rear Admiral Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, the Gateway to the Galaxy
    Oh sure. Hang on and I'll do it now.
     
    fireproof78 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.