Poll The Guidelines are...

[Kytee]

I want to add my voice to the group saying limits encourage creativity not stifle it. Prior to the guidelines when it was an 'anything goes' environment we saw quite a bit of imitation ; almost like fan productions felt a need to get as close to 'real trek' as they can in order to achieve some sense of legitimacy . As a result we saw many attempts at serialized tv show style fan films and feature film style fan films.

The guidelines have curtailed those types of productions; Ironically , I feel the outcry of 'Guidelines killed fan films ' proves how a lack of guidelines had led to stagnant creativity. In the years leading up to the guidelines there seems to have been an arms race to see who could be the least creative. Slavish dedication to accurate imitation somehow became the yardstick for authenticity. Props , customs, sets, even actors became the way we score points. I even recall a suggestion that fan film makers for a governing body that would judge fan films and decide which were worthy of being called fan films. Talk about stifling creativity !!

I can think of a few examples out side of fan films where limits lead to outstanding creativity . There is a Tattoo reality TV show I watch called Ink Masters , they have these art based Flash Challenges that are meant to test the artistic creativity of the contestants ; the more restrictive the better! One time they had a 10ftx10ft white sticky board and salt granules in 5 different sizes and that's it, they had to use the texture of the salt to create a readable image on the board. I was amazed at what they could do, and it really separates the artists based on creative ability . They do these types of challenges frequently and I am always amazed at what these folks can do with so little freedom.

The nice thing is we are still getting fan films after the guidelines so a segment of the producers still see creative room to, well, create.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

I still want to see where the overly entitled fan community will land when (not if, but WHEN) someone is inevitably hurt on a set. I strongly suspect most of these productions have no insurance, or it's inadequate. Do you really, REALLY want Liberty Mutual (or whoever) grabbing the entire policy (if there is one) and then going after your homeowner's insurance if someone like Tim Russ gets hurt and can no longer work? Because his loss of earnings is a rather different calculation from yours or mine. Construction. Plywood. Electricity, with wiring done by amateurs. Sharp metal. Steps. Drills, hammers, and saws. Hot lights. Sheesh, it's a wonder there hasn't been a claim filed yet - and there may have been and it didn't hit litigation, hence it was missed.

Actually, I have paid electricians to do the dangerous stuff that amateurs shouldn't do, and according to our lawyer, we're good as long as we're filming in our studio (which is a giant boat house in the backyard on top of a mountain). We do get special insurance for events and location shoots, and we have to sign indemnities as well.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't see how the Guidelines allow for greater art. There's really nothing you can do now that you couldn't do before the Guidelines. You don't get better art by simply limiting what kind of art can be made.

I don't know if you've noticed, but over the years, copyright has been continually expanded and the public domain has actually shrank. I think there was actually a case where copyrighted works that were in the public domain were put back under copyright as the result of copyright treaties. This type of copyright law have been largely pushed by media corporations and publishers, so expecting them to set some high bar for use of copyrighted materials by fans is absurd.

This is a straw man argument. People who object to the Guidelines are not going around saying "We are strong! We have no need for laws, or government!" They object to the content and nature of the Guidelines, not their mere existence.


Either the fans have true influence over CBS, in which case it makes perfect sense to bring their concerns about the Guidelines to CBS's attention, or the fans have no influence on any decision CBS makes, in which case CBS is entirely responsible for their own actions and you very well CAN blame them.

His point was that the the Guidelines drove Renegades completely out of the Star Trek fan film community. Suggesting that his concerns are about a name change is disingenuous.

Seeing as productions that were already underway were slimmed down in run length to meet the guidelines, I fail to see how it's not destructive. You can measure the destruction in reduced run length, and that's not even mentioning the prohibition on series fan films.

Except that imitating the original shows it the point. It's what makes it a fan film in the first place. People who make fan films are not in a contest for who can be the most creative. They simply want to participate in the franchise they love.

Wow, that is the best argument I've ever seen against preventing professionals from participating in fan films. I hadn't even considered the extreme dangers of not employing professionals for your fan film. Sets could collapse or catch fire because they weren't properly made. People could get electrocuted. You could loose your house if someone gets hurt because you don't know how to properly produce a film and therefore don't know to properly obtain insurance. People could collapse from hunger or dehydration while shooting on location because the director and production manager are amateurs who don't know to provide proper catering or first aid kits on a long shoot in the middle the woods, and they probably don't know to have permits to shoot at that location either.

*goes in search of the krysten ritter eye roll gif*

Meanwhile, here are some careful constructed responses to your arguments....

 

[fireproof78]

I don't see how the Guidelines allow for greater art. There's really nothing you can do now that you couldn't do before the Guidelines. You don't get better art by simply limiting what kind of art can be made.

Yes, actually you can. Otherwise film competitions with limits would not result in some pretty good films.

Also, if there is nothing that has changed since the Guidelines, why the kerfuffle? I think I'm missing something.

I don't know if you've noticed, but over the years, copyright has been continually expanded and the public domain has actually shrank. I think there was actually a case where copyrighted works that were in the public domain were put back under copyright as the result of copyright treaties. This type of copyright law have been largely pushed by media corporations and publishers, so expecting them to set some high bar for use of copyrighted materials by fans is absurd.

This is a larger question that is outside the realm of the Guidelines and film production. If you genuinely believe that corporations are pushing further in to public domain, by all means fight that battle. But, the idea that fan films are the field on which that battle is won is odd to me, to say the least.

Companies can set whatever standards they like. It may be absurd to us, but that doesn't make it less their right under current law. Push back against the law rather than just yelling about CBS guidelines. CBS is operating within the law.

This is a straw man argument. People who object to the Guidelines are not going around saying "We are strong! We have no need for laws, or government!" They object to the content and nature of the Guidelines, not their mere existence.

Your straw man created a straw man.

My point was addressing the idea that the guidelines=bad because they are "ruining" fan films. I don't agree with that at all.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

@Kytee, I think it's necessary to recognize the difference between an externally imposed restriction and a challenge. For a challenge or contest, you enter voluntarily, choosing to subject yourself to limitations because you yourself want to test your ability to create within those limits. Anyone who participates in such a challenge is self-selecting. In other words, the challenge is not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. Not every challenge appeals to every artist, and other artists may challenge themselves in ways that are equally limiting while not imposing the same limits as a particular contest.

By contrast, restrictions like the Guidelines are not voluntary, and are imposed on the entire community. It may serve to make a limited subset of the fan community more creative, but it can also drive away some fan creators completely. Part of the reason people often get involved in fan works is to put their own spin on things that already exist. Make it to difficult for them to participate in the way they want, and they'll likely decide it's not worth their time and effort and invest their efforts elsewhere. You may argue this as a positive, since they're working on their own content (potentially, if they're not simply doing fan films for other franchises), but it also means that these people are working on their own projects without the benefit of the experience they would have otherwise had making fan films.

(I do find it interesting that certain limitations are considered bad and some are considered good, seemingly arbitrarily. Having to restrict yourself to canon and to rules involving uniforms, ship configuration, regulations, race relations, et cetera are considered to be limiting your creativity, but denying people resources for their work is considered somehow universally stimulating to creativity. Does this not imply that CBS, with lots of resources and years of canon to honor will get increasingly less creative?)

Meanwhile, here are some careful constructed responses to your arguments....

It's quite literally not a response to my arguments at all.

Yes, actually you can. Otherwise film competitions with limits would not result in some pretty good films.

Who's to say an equal or greater number of good films were not produced outside of those competitions? Who's to say that the great films produced within those limits weren't made by people who were already inclined to work well within those specific limits to begin with?

Also, if there is nothing that has changed since the Guidelines, why the kerfuffle? I think I'm missing something.

You're interpreting my statement backwards. I never stated that things hadn't changed.

This is a larger question that is outside the realm of the Guidelines and film production. If you genuinely believe that corporations are pushing further in to public domain, by all means fight that battle. But, the idea that fan films are the field on which that battle is won is odd to me, to say the least.

Only because there is a lack of precedent. Broadcast media and the Internet are relatively new phenomenons that alter how we interact with copyrighted materials. I think it's fair to ask if the way we communicate and the way copyrighted are distributed haven't changed our relationship to the media we consume.

Of course, you could argue that the contraction of the amount of material entering the public domain is a major factor, and perhaps our efforts would be better invested in repealing laws that have grossly expanded copyright. For instance, vast quantities of content that would have previously been in the public domain several decades ago now fall under copyright, even though the overwhelming majority of it will never become a registered copyright, and you could convincingly argue that laws such as that are a serious barrier to civil discourse. That's a kind of argument I'm not unreceptive to.

Companies can set whatever standards they like. It may be absurd to us, but that doesn't make it less their right under current law. Push back against the law rather than just yelling about CBS guidelines. CBS is operating within the law.

Being within one's legal rights does not make one immune to general criticism, nor does it make that criticism intrinsically wrong. Societal values change all the time, and laws often change to suit them, so legality is a poor measuring stick of what it right.

Your straw man created a straw man.

My point was addressing the idea that the guidelines=bad because they are "ruining" fan films. I don't agree with that at all.

You didn't say that. You said that people were saying that "[the Guidelines] are bad because rules=bad". I can't read your mind. I have to rely on the words you actually post.

As for the Guidelines not "ruining" fan films, I would mostly agree with that idea because I think the Guidelines are basically eliminating categories of fan films rather than ruining them, which I believe has a detrimental effect on the fan film community as a whole. For example, the fact that we won't have more fan film series like STC means that we'll see fewer sets being shared or handed down for others to use, resulting in many people spending greater resources on reproducing sets instead of other areas of film that may need more of their attention.

 

[fireproof78]

There's really nothing you can do now that you couldn't do before the Guidelines.

Then explain how I'm supposed to interpret your statement.

Being within one's legal rights does not make one immune to general criticism, nor does it make that criticism intrinsically wrong. Societal values change all the time, and laws often change to suit them, so legality is a poor measuring stick of what it right....

Who said it was "right." I said it was legal and within their legal right to do so. I also am of the opinion that morally a person or company is allowed to do what they want with their property. I do not own Star Trek. It's not my property to play with as I please. I would object to someone coming and taking my lawnmower to mow their lawn.

You didn't say that. You said that people were saying that "[the Guidelines] are bad because rules=bad". I can't read your mind. I have to rely on the words you actually post..

You're still misconstruing my point, but I'll leave it at that. I could have posted it better.

As for the Guidelines not "ruining" fan films, I would mostly agree with that idea because I think the Guidelines are basically eliminating categories of fan films rather than ruining them, which I believe has a detrimental effect on the fan film community as a whole. For example, the fact that we won't have more fan film series like STC means that we'll see fewer sets being shared or handed down for others to use, resulting in many people spending greater resources on reproducing sets instead of other areas of film that may need more of their attention.

Again, perhaps. Perhaps not. Star Trek fan films have taken on many shapes and forms, and I'm not wholly convinced that "bigger and better" contribute to better fan films. I've seen the outcome of that in the Star Wars fan community. The result is infighting and failed productions and a lot of resources wasted.

 

[Professor Zoom]

It's quite literally not a response to my arguments at all.

No, it literally is. You just have to read the whole thread.

Your arguments here are the same presented in the other thread. That many many many other people, including myself, responded to.

 

[Maurice]

The issue of Copyright Creep is a real one, but it's an entirely separate one from the Guidelines since mostly what it does is effect when things fall into the Public Domain. In that sense an active Copyright stifles your ability to copy something you didn't create but it doesn't stop you from being creative. Didn't stop George Lucas when he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon, right? And when Miyamoto couldn't get the rights to Popeye he made Donkey Kong instead. So I fail to be convinced by this claimed creativity-crushing.

I LOVE constraints. I became a better filmmaker faster than I would have otherwise by participating in film competitions where you had all sorts of restrictions heaped on you. I've seen some amazingly good films churned out in 48 hours, script to screen, and the people who excel at it are the ones who embrace constraints as an opportunity as opposed to an obstacle. Would I have ever thought to do a western on an airplane if I hadn't pulled that genre out of a hat after having already secured an airplane as a shooting location? No. Did that impede us? Well, we tied for second place in that contest because we did something really unusual and unique precisely because we were forced to push against that boundary. In fact, the 7 minute maximum restriction of those contests almost forces you to become a better writer/storyteller, because to win in such a contest your film can't be that fanfilm favorite the "vignette" because one or more of your competitors is gonna deliver a film with an actual narrative arc and school you on how it's done.

And, honestly, even the bad films I've seen come out of these contents are often better than many of the fanfilms I've suffered through.

Creatively stifling? Fuck no.

 

[jespah]

Actually, I have paid electricians to do the dangerous stuff that amateurs shouldn't do, and according to our lawyer, we're good as long as we're filming in our studio (which is a giant boat house in the backyard on top of a mountain). We do get special insurance for events and location shoots, and we have to sign indemnities as well.

That's awesome. I'm glad you're taking care of things.

And @Matthew Raymond - come on already. Nothing says you can't pay real live electricians, etc. IIRC to get it done properly. And I'm sure no one will starve without craft services, either. My point is that Russ, etc. are more important and valuable to the franchise when they're healthy and in one piece. Hence stunt performers, etc. If Martin-Green is injured in a car accident (which I hope never happens), then production grinds to a screeching halt. But that often can't be prevented. Her getting hurt on a fan film can most certainly be prevented. She shouldn't be wrapped in bubble wrap of course. But if certain risks can be eliminated, then that is only to the good for the pros.

I'm not saying these are death traps, either. I handled construction claims for a long time (even as a claims adjuster after I stopped practicing). Fan films are often construction zones more or less by definition. And construction zones are often accidents waiting to happen (for example, I handled a multi-car accident which occurred when a guy working on an overpass had his safety equipment fail and he ended up one highway level down - poor guy was hit by a car and then there was a multi-collision. Trust me, nobody wants to be the human yo-yo). Keeping the MVP out of harm's way is kind of a good move for the IP holders.

Anyway, off to do something offline.

 

[Kor]

Are these the same rules that makes everything so limiting and can ruin so many fan films.

If so how can people say They are fine just the way they are, like how?

I wish some of the guidelines could be a little looser.

But it was very gracious of CBS/Paramount to offer a framework which accommodates the continued existence of fan films at all. There are plenty of IP holders who do not tolerate fan-produced prose fiction, films, or other derivative works in any form whatsoever. And that is absolutely their prerogative. We should be grateful that TPTB didn't decide to clamp down on Star Trek in that fashion.

Kor

 

[StarTrekRecuts]

Yes it's better then not allowing no fan films at all but still i just find it funny how lot of the videos on youtube make it clear these rules suck and they do.

 

[Maurice]

Yes it's better then not allowing no fan films at all but still i just find it funny how lot of the videos on youtube make it clear these rules suck and they do.

Because people who don't think they are bad typically don't vent their spleens in YouTube videos.

 

[Professor Zoom]

The issue of Copyright Creep is a real one, but it's an entirely separate one from the Guidelines since mostly what it does is effect when things fall into the Public Domain. In that sense an active Copyright stifles your ability to copy something you didn't create but it doesn't stop you from being creative. Didn't stop George Lucas when he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon, right? And when Miyamoto couldn't get the rights to Popeye he made Donkey Kong instead. So I fail to be convinced by this claimed creativity-crushing.

I LOVE constraints. I became a better filmmaker faster than I would have otherwise by participating in film competitions where you had all sorts of restrictions heaped on you. I've seen some amazingly good films churned out in 48 hours, script to screen, and the people who excel at it are the ones who embrace constraints as an opportunity as opposed to an obstacle. Would I have ever thought to do a western on an airplane if I hadn't pulled that genre out of a hat after having already secured an airplane as a shooting location? No. Did that impede us? Well, we tied for second place in that contest because we did something really unusual and unique precisely because we were forced to push against that boundary. In fact, the 7 minute maximum restriction of those contests almost forces you to become a better writer/storyteller, because to win in such a contest your film can't be that fanfilm favorite the "vignette" because one or more of your competitors is gonna deliver a film with an actual narrative arc and school you on how it's done.

And, honestly, even the bad films I've seen come out of these contents are often better than many of the fanfilms I've suffered through.

Creatively stifling? Fuck no.

OT: I so want to see the western on an airplane. That sounds AMAZING.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Then explain how I'm supposed to interpret your statement.

CBS did not introduce the Guidelines to replace an even more restrictive set of Guidelines. Thus, the Guidelines add only restrictions. They do not actively facilitate art so much as they create hurdles that can be creatively surmounted. Conversely, a lack of restrictions do no prevent creativity even if you argue that they don't actively stimulate it, and it is demonstrably false to say that restrictions don't prohibit some forms of creative expression, especially when the deliberately exclude topics that can be addressed by fan films.

Who said it was "right." I said it was legal and within their legal right to do so.

You specifically said: "Push back against the law rather than just yelling about CBS guidelines. CBS is operating within the law." This doesn't give me the impression you think there is a conversation to be had outside a legal context, but perhaps that's just my interpretation.

I also am of the opinion that morally a person or company is allowed to do what they want with their property.

If I want to criticize your "property" in a review, showing excerpts to prove my point, I'm free to do so. Same if I want to make a parody of it. The same is true if I want to use excerpts from your copyrighted material to teach something. It seems that the law already allows certain uses of copyright without your permission. Is that not also immoral by your own standards? Or is morality always subject to legality?

I would object to someone coming and taking my lawnmower to mow their lawn.

This is basically like saying that making a Star Trek fan film is the moral equivalent of breaking into your house and stealing your Star Trek DVDs. It is not. That isn't to say that all violations of copyright is somehow morally just, but comparing two offenses that are not remotely equivalent just clouds the issue. Your friend pilfering a few of your fries at McDonald's is not the equivalent of that same friend stealing your car from the McDonald's parking lot. No fan film maker is capable of Grand Theft Franchise.

Again, perhaps. Perhaps not. Star Trek fan films have taken on many shapes and forms, and I'm not wholly convinced that "bigger and better" contribute to better fan films.

I think that Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice pretty much proves that run length doesn't automatically make a film good, but conversely you can probably list a few films that you love that are over two hours long, so the format itself is not what determines the quality either way. Yes, it can be more difficult to make longer films for many reasons, but preventing people from even trying because it's supposedly for their own good is just patronizing.

I've seen the outcome of that in the Star Wars fan community. The result is infighting and failed productions and a lot of resources wasted.

I'm not familiar with the goings on of that particular community, but would restricting run lengths in this case actually fix a real problem, or would it just mask the real problem by lowering the stakes to the point where people can sort of put up with the problem?

There's a joke that Dr. Crusher once told in the episode "Brothers":

You heard the old story about the man who goes to his doctor? He says: "It hurts when I raise my arm like this!" The doctor says: "So don't raise your arm like that!"

The problem I always had with this joke is that, even if you don't "raise your arm like that", there's still probably a problem with your arm. I feel the same logic applies here. Perhaps it's just a matter of giving the community time to figure out its own problems.

No, it literally is. You just have to read the whole thread.

Your arguments here are the same presented in the other thread. That many many many other people, including myself, responded to.

The burden is on you to make an argument, not on me to find one for you. If you actually had an argument, you'd quote it directly rather than trying to make me look for it over 1703 pages. Not to mention the fact that causal readers of this thread are certainly not going to spend any time searching that thread to figure out what you mean.


@Maurice, though I may not agree with some of the things you say, I do very much appreciate the time you take to carefully and thoughtfully articulate your arguments and point of view.

Didn't stop George Lucas when he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon, right?

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

And when Miyamoto couldn't get the rights to Popeye he made Donkey Kong instead.

Actually, Universal sued Nintendo over the trademark for King Kong. Nintendo won because the judge decided that Universal didn't actually have a legitimate trademark, and that it knew this going into the trial. Nintendo won millions in damages as a result. So it's really a story about copying something in the public domain.

And, honestly, even the bad films I've seen come out of these contents are often better than many of the fanfilms I've suffered through.

What you talk about sounds like a lot of fun, but to be fair, you're still describing a situation where everyone who entered knew what they were getting into and chose to be there.

And @Matthew Raymond - come on already. Nothing says you can't pay real live electricians, etc. IIRC to get it done properly.

Guideline #6:

The fan production must be a real “fan” production, i.e., creators, actors and all other participants must be amateurs, cannot be compensated for their services, and cannot be currently or previously employed on any Star Trek series, films, production of DVDs or with any of CBS or Paramount Pictures’ licensees.

Does CBS care if you use a professional electrician? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that the most people reading the Fan Film Guidelines for the first time actually know that. People shouldn't have to hunt for a particular podcast to find out if CBS really means what they say in a Guideline or just sorta mean it, wink wink.

And I'm sure no one will starve without craft services, either.

Depends on the situation. If you're two blocks from a supermarket, of course not. If you've gone a long hike into a national park and many of the cast and crew members don't have their own cars, it might be a different story, especially on an all-day shoot. In that situation, people could literally die of heat stroke. (Of course, that's an extreme example, but it's based on some of the things I've heard about a film made by Channel Awesome.)

But if certain risks can be eliminated, then that is only to the good for the pros.

No argument here.

I'm not saying these are death traps, either.

Again, I think this is largely an issue of circumstances. If you're filming everything in front of a green screen using standard room lights, the most dangerous thing to your cast and crew is probably going to be a little wet spot on the restroom floor tile. If you're using an elaborate, multi-level set, you'd be out of your mind not to use a real carpenter. Some simple choices about your set could make a lot of difference, safety-wise, so it's possible to eliminate safety risks with some creative thinking.

 

[Maurice]

OT: I so want to see the western on an airplane. That sounds AMAZING.

Ask and ye shall receive.

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

Remember, this was written on Friday night, filmed on Saturday, and edited and scored on Sunday. The version here is a fine-tuned edit I did later, so color-corrected and sound balanced better, but essentially the same film just with longer credits and a few bells and whistles. Our constraints were we had to use/include the following:

• Genre: Western or musical
• Character & occupation: Claude or Claudette Green, a guitarist
• Prop: a hat
• Line of dialog: "I believe that anyone can change"

What I point out with these is we always made an effort to tell a complete story with an arc: the protagonist wants something and has to overcome obstacles to get it.

Oh, and if the plane looks familiar... this is why.

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

 

[Professor Zoom]

The burden is on you to make an argument, not on me to find one for you. If you actually had an argument, you'd quote it directly rather than trying to make me look for it over 1703 pages. Not to mention the fact that causal readers of this thread are certainly not going to spend any time searching that thread to figure out what you mean.

Somehow I'm not surprised you missed my point.
Instead of repeating the same old rebuttals to your same old arguments, I just cut to the chase. Saves time for me, saves time for you.

Ask and ye shall receive.

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

Remember, this was written on Friday night, filmed on Saturday, and edited and scored on Sunday. The version here is a fine-tuned edit I did later, so color-corrected and sound balanced better, but essentially the same film just with longer credits and a few bells and whistles. Our constraints were we had to use/include the following:

• Genre: Western or musical
• Character & occupation: Claude or Claudette Green, a guitarist
• Prop: a hat
• Line of dialog: "I believe that anyone can change"

What I point out with these is we always made an effort to tell a complete story with an arc: the protagonist wants something and has to overcome obstacles to get it.

Oh, and if the plane looks familiar... this is why.

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

Very well done. Congrats. And THANK YOU for having good sound. That always bugs me in lower budget stuff when the sound is shit. I'm forgiving of cheap seats, but, when the sound is terrible, makes me crazy. You wouldn't shoot out of focus, why would you have bad sound?

 

[Kytee]

Ask and ye shall receive.

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

Remember, this was written on Friday night, filmed on Saturday, and edited and scored on Sunday. The version here is a fine-tuned edit I did later, so color-corrected and sound balanced better, but essentially the same film just with longer credits and a few bells and whistles. Our constraints were we had to use/include the following:

• Genre: Western or musical
• Character & occupation: Claude or Claudette Green, a guitarist
• Prop: a hat
• Line of dialog: "I believe that anyone can change"

What I point out with these is we always made an effort to tell a complete story with an arc: the protagonist wants something and has to overcome obstacles to get it.

Oh, and if the plane looks familiar... this is why.

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

Thanks for sharing , that was entertaining.

 

[Maurice]

Fair Warning: Old videogame history is my bailiwick. I worked in the game biz for 20 years, handled all the classic game IP for Namco's mobile group, once got drunk with the creator of PAC-MAN, know the guy who made Pong, and did two depositions about Ms. PAC-MAN during an arbitration. So I generally know my stuff in this dept.

Me with my buddy and Atari E.T. creator Howard Scott Warshaw
(subject of the documentary Atari: Game Over)

Before we drank waaaay too much sake over dinner

Miyamoto wanted to license Popeye, couldn't, so made up Donkey Kong instead (source). Sure the "Kong" thing drew the ire of Universal, but the point was that he didn't let the inability to do Popeye stop him, so he made up his own characters (the mechanic is much more Popeye than Kong if you look at it, right down to the construction site as in the 1934 cartoon A Dream Walking). The name was really the only thing that made it actionable.

EDIT: And as to the the film contests, of course everyone knew what they were getting into and chose to be there. I fail to see how that disproves anything related to fan films. No one is guaranteed the easy path, they just want to take it or delude themselves into thinking they have the right to. Hey if wishes were horses, the streets would be covered in horseshit.

 

[Maurice]

Very well done. Congrats. And THANK YOU for having good sound. That always bugs me in lower budget stuff when the sound is shit. I'm forgiving of cheap seats, but, when the sound is terrible, makes me crazy. You wouldn't shoot out of focus, why would you have bad sound?

Thanks! We won for Best Costumes (obviously) and Best Sound Design, and tied for runner-up for Best Film.

 

[fireproof78]

CBS did not introduce the Guidelines to replace an even more restrictive set of Guidelines. Thus, the Guidelines add only restrictions. They do not actively facilitate art so much as they create hurdles that can be creatively surmounted. Conversely, a lack of restrictions do no prevent creativity even if you argue that they don't actively stimulate it, and it is demonstrably false to say that restrictions don't prohibit some forms of creative expression, especially when the deliberately exclude topics that can be addressed by fan films.

Yes, but "destroying" fan films? That's a bit hyperbolic. Since fan films always operate within a gray area of the law, i.e. not parody or education, then the property owner is always allowed to restrict their property access.

You specifically said: "Push back against the law rather than just yelling about CBS guidelines. CBS is operating within the law." This doesn't give me the impression you think there is a conversation to be had outside a legal context, but perhaps that's just my interpretation.

Here's my struggle. The argument has shifted from one about the guidelines, to one about public domain access. One is a discussion that fits within the bounds of Star Trek fan films, the other is a legal matter.

If you want to discuss the guidelines-great. But, public domain as a whole? Beyond the scope of this thread.

If I want to criticize your "property" in a review, showing excerpts to prove my point, I'm free to do so. Same if I want to make a parody of it. The same is true if I want to use excerpts from your copyrighted material to teach something. It seems that the law already allows certain uses of copyright without your permission. Is that not also immoral by your own standards? Or is morality always subject to legality?

Lots of things are allowed without my permission. But, as far as taking my product and attempting to make something that is a rough facsimile or recreation of it then it would stand the reason that I, as the original owner, still have a say.

Also, legality and morality are not the same. But, property ownership is governed under the law. I truly think this is the breaking point in this discussion. There appears to be a lack of respect for CBS' property rights, and that by being a fan of Star Trek, I have a right to their property. I have no such right, neither moral nor legal.

This is basically like saying that making a Star Trek fan film is the moral equivalent of breaking into your house and stealing your Star Trek DVDs. It is not. That isn't to say that all violations of copyright is somehow morally just, but comparing two offenses that are not remotely equivalent just clouds the issue. Your friend pilfering a few of your fries at McDonald's is not the equivalent of that same friend stealing your car from the McDonald's parking lot. No fan film maker is capable of Grand Theft Franchise.

Your analogy is highly suspect and not equivalent. This is not pilfering a few fries, and if I wasn't ok with that, then I would take steps to prevent my friend from doing so.

However, this is not a friend relationship. This is a producer/consumer relationship. No matter the value, taking another's property is wrong, and the owner is allowed to take steps to protect it, from guarding French Fries, to establishing guidelines for use.

I think that Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice pretty much proves that run length doesn't automatically make a film good, but conversely you can probably list a few films that you love that are over two hours long, so the format itself is not what determines the quality either way. Yes, it can be more difficult to make longer films for many reasons, but preventing people from even trying because it's supposedly for their own good is just patronizing.

Here's the thing. A line is crossed when individuals decide to make a full length episode or feature length film it comes across as being competitive. And, that competition, intended or not, is what CBS wants to avoid.

I'm not familiar with the goings on of that particular community, but would restricting run lengths in this case actually fix a real problem, or would it just mask the real problem by lowering the stakes to the point where people can sort of put up with the problem?

From my experience, yes it would fix a real problem. It stopped the need to compete with professional productions, or craft "the greatest fan film ever" and allowed individuals to feel they could do something with less. So, I think it evened the playing field.