What makes a movie a "Fan Movie"?

[Barbreader]

Any way you slice it, it's still a Copyright (and likely Trademark) violation.

It's still a fan film. It's fans making something set in the Trek universe, and they're doing it because they like Trek. That's a fan film, even if the fans are professionals.

Maurice has it precisely right.

Arguing about the definition of 'fan film' doesn't change anything. It doesn't mean you can charge for your film, put it in theaters with admission charges, or on TV or the net with commercials. And if Meryl Streep decided she wanted to be the next captain of the Enterprise, and she and worked Tom Hanks, Steven Speilberg etc. [fill in your idea of top Hollywood talent], as long as it wasn't licenced by the franchise-holder, they would still not be able to charge for it.

And I would still cover it at Star Trek Reviewed.

And yes, like Tosk, I would call it a fan film. But frankly, that's not really important. Vic's Vintage Voyages is just as much a fan film series as Star Trek Continues. Hell, they even have the same actor playing Captain Kirk. They also have exactly the same legal relationship to the franchise holder.

 

[Duane]

It seems to me that you guys are confusing the term "fan-film" with a "for profit" or maybe "not-for-profit" production. These are different things.

Is it a fan film if William Shanter decides to direct Patrick Stewart in a new TNG movie with a professional crew? I don't think so. I think it would be an independent film. But I've been wrong before : )

It's not a copyright violation if Paramount/CBS openly allows this stuff to happen, as the record shows, and the record means something in a US court.

 

[Amaris]

It seems to me that you guys are confusing the term "fan-film" with a "for profit production." These are two different things.

Is it a fan film if William Shanter decides to direct Patrick Stewart in a new TNG movie with a professional crew? I don't think so, but I've been wrong before : )

It is if the studio isn't backing it or endorsing it. It's people using an already licensed property to create a derivative work without the backing of the studio. That makes it a fan film.

And it's not a copyright violation if Paramount/CBS openly allows this stuff to happen, as the record shows.

It's entirely at their discretion. Paramount/CBS has every right to shut them down any time they wish, regardless of who produces the fan film.

 

[Duane]

It makes it a "not for profit" production, which is different from a fan film. A fan film is the kind of stuff being made by amatuers. It's still good, but they aren't pros.

I guess I'm the "odd man out" on this one and that's OK.

 

[Amaris]

It makes it a "not for profit" production, which is different from a fan film. A fan film is the kind of stuff being made by amatuers. It's still good, but they aren't pros.

I guess I'm the "odd man out" on this one and that's OK.

Well, that's fine if you feel that way, it's just that it doesn't change the legal nature of the issue, which has to have a more firm footing beyond an opinion. A not-for-profit production is any production that is made without the explicit intent of gaining profit by or for the owners. That's all it is.

A fan film is a film made by (or for) enthusiasts of a particular intellectual property, that doesn't secure the intellectual rights to said property.

Therefore, a film that uses an intellectual property without permission from the IP holder can be a not-for-profit production, but that doesn't change its status as a fan film, one that can be shut down by the IP holder at any time for any reason.

Keep in mind that every fan film has to be not-for-profit, lest it get immediately shut down for infringement.

 

[Duane]

Hey J. I'm starting to see your point. But just starting ; )

 

[Amaris]

Hey J. I'm starting to see your point. But just starting ; )

Oh, good! Here, let me make my closing statement!

 

[JoeZhang]

Therefore, a film that uses an intellectual property without permission from the IP holder can be a not-for-profit production, but that doesn't change its status as a fan film, one that can be shut down by the IP holder at any time for any reason.

Keep in mind that every fan film has to be not-for-profit, lest it get immediately shut down for infringement.

Yes that is a good point that often gets confused - "not for profit" does not provide any legal protection. Yes studios are less likely to go after you but beyond that...

Here's an actual lawyer on the matter (one who specialises in IP and works for studios):

“An argument that this kind of use is not an infringement at all because no profit will be made is just flat wrong,” he continued. “That’s not the law … You will be depriving the copyright owners of a licensing fee where you have to presume there is a heavy licensing history … So arguing that they won’t make money off of it, that’s not going to be a slam dunk.”

 

[JE Smith]

It's not a copyright violation if Paramount/CBS openly allows this stuff to happen

Yes it is. What you're saying is, "It's not illegal for me to speed if a cop sees me and doesn't give me a ticket." You are still violating the law by exceeding the posted speed limit, even if the lawman chooses not to ticket you. Same principle.

 

[JE Smith]

It's very simple: if you don't own the rights, or have not licensed the rights from the IP holder, you are making a fan film. It doesn't matter who the talent are, what their level of professionalism is, if you make a profit from it or not, or if the IPH decides to prosecute you. Rights make you official, anything else, you are fan.