MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: Hidden Frontier (2000) Discussion > End of an Era: Paramount/CBS posts new r...

End of an Era: Paramount/CBS posts new rules for fanfilms

posted 8 years ago by Thalek
38 replies | jump to latest

As a result of a controversy over crowd-sourcing fan-made products, things have changed.

A little bit of background here: Paramount/CBS holds the copyrights and numerous trademarks on Star Trek. It's their property. However, as a result of one fan production holding talks with Paramount's legal department, an informal "gentlemen's agreement" was reached, the primary term of which was you could make a fan film of Star Trek as long as you didn't charge for it. Paramount would pretend you didn't exist, while retaining their intellectual property rights and the ability to defend them at any time. Fan films were inherently low-budget affairs, usually without any professionals involved in their production, made practical only by advances in technology. Crowd-funding didn't exist yet, so fan films were merely an expensive hobby.

Increasingly, though, the technology improved and production values improved, despite the budgets. Professional actors sometimes got involved, a few of them reprising their roles from Star Trek episodes or movies. Donations of equipment were allowed, and fans also donated some money. Professional makeup and special effects were donated to some productions. It all remained non-competitive, but as production values improved and more professionals involved themselves for the fun of it, "non-competitive" became foggier and harder to define all of the time.

Recently one fan-film, after receiving large amounts of money via crowd-sourcing, was deemed to be competition for Paramount's Star Trek franchise, and Paramount chose to sue, and issued letters to numerous additional fan productions suggesting that they reconsider making a fan film. Not formal cease and desist orders in most cases, but advisories.

In an increasingly acrimonious atmosphere with fans, Paramount chose to withdraw its lawsuit. However, they also chose to lay down a new "gentlemen's agreement", this one explicitly stated, and much more widely publicized than the previous one.

You can look up the details, but the changes forever end the making of fan-made series like Hidden Frontier, Intrepid, and New Voyages/Phase II. A fan film must be a stand-alone story, a one-shot; recurring story lines and characters are not allowed. It cannot be more than fifteen minutes long. The phrase "Star Trek" is not permitted in the title. Paramount's music for Star Trek cannot be used. No money may be charged. And so forth; as I said, you can look them up.

It also explicitly states that the terms and conditions are not binding on Paramount/CBS, and can be changed at any time. They also explicitly state that they retain the right to defend their intellectual property solely at their discretion.

Some fans are howling mad over the new restrictions, completely over-looking the fact that they never owned Star Trek in the first place. They also overlook the fact that Paramount is still allowing them to play in the sandbox; they've just changed the rules. Those rules, like them or hate them, make it impossible for a fan film to accidentally or deliberately compete effectively with Paramount's productions.

A subsequent official podcast also clarified a point: these new requirements apply only to audio-visual productions. Audio-only productions are exempt from these specific requirements at this time.

Fans have always been creative. To follow the new rules will simply require a bit more of that creativity.

But the era of the unlicensed fan-made Star Trek "tv series" is at an end.

[–] roska-posti 8 years ago

*beep* THEM PARAMOUNT/CBS!!! This kills Star Trek fan productions. Dammit greedy bastards!

Lexa is  cute!

[–] Thalek 8 years ago

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

Here's another.

Suppose you have a property. For years, you've allowed people to use your property as a short-cut, so long as they stay on the existing trails, don't dump trash, and in general, respect your ownership of the property.

Now, someone decides to charge people access to YOUR property, and you close them down. And you decide to tighten the rules to make certain no one can do the same thing ever again.

Are you a greedy bastard for protecting your property?

[–] roska-posti 8 years ago

Generally, Americans are just nuts with copyrights. Copyrights are national laws that vary greatly, and additionally there are international agreements. In the USA it's a disease already and getting worse. I'm not trying to blame a nation, but the culture of using copyrights there.

In my personal opinion, Gene Roddenberry should have a share of profits made with Star Trek -based stuff - for some time. But, to me copyright should protect copying the original concept, not extended into someone else's creations based on the original concept. Intellectual property copyrights are extended far too far. Are all fan-made movies and stories created by Roddenberry, do they rely on him so much you cannot call these fan productions their creations? No! If you write a story of your own, create computer effects for it, cast actors, direct and edit it... this is certainly your own art already, not Roddenberry's and not Paramount property, in my opinion.

Yes, they are greedy bastards. They could still protect how Star Trek is developped, but that's not what they are doing. They are preventing making fan-production movie 15 minutes of length, making series of continuing stories, using any professional actors and funding can't exceed $50,000. That's downright killing the fan productions, certainly aimed to produce quality ones. Even J. J. Abrams apparently thought the rules were unreasonable and the lawsuit should be dropped, and he is bloody right and so am I.

Then, extending the topic. Say, if a person in a movie wears clothes or a drives a car designed by some artist, should he/she be able to shut down the movie? It's the sort of crazyness they use in Youtube to close down, based on theft of intellectual property. Could I tell people to close their eyes when walking past my house, because you're stealing my intellectual property viewing the building and the garden? Could car designers forbid people to watch or take photos of their cars? Some people and corporations just want to push it too far.

Lexa is  cute!

[–] Thalek 8 years ago

"But, to me copyright should protect copying the original concept, not extended into someone else's creations based on the original concept."

So, for your viewpoint, no one else could re-publish Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories without his permission, but anyone could write a Sherlock Holmes story without his permission and sell it, make it into a radio play (or later, a movie). Anyone can simply build on his original work, and he gets nothing for it. Is that correct?

"If you write a story of your own, create computer effects for it, cast actors, direct and edit it... this is certainly your own art already, not Roddenberry's and not Paramount property, in my opinion."

And that is the point of copyright law, and the viewpoint of the creators everywhere: if you use someone else's universe and characters to write your stories, they are not completely YOUR stories. Someone else already did the intellectual heavy-lifting for you by creating the characters, the universe, the technology, the mythos.

Has anyone violated your copyright on something you created on your own? How did it make you feel that they were making money off of something you did all the hard work on, first?

"They could still protect how Star Trek is developped, but that's not what they are doing."

How could they do that, without having the power to determine who is allowed to make something, and who is not? How can you protect anything, without the power to interdict? Besides, in order to "protect how Star Trek is developed", all fan productions would have to submit their stories to Paramount for approval first, prior to production.

Star Trek is the property of Paramount/CBS, under international copyright law. (It should be noted that in England, the term of ownership of a copyright is even longer than in the United States. J.M. Barre's "Peter Pan" is still under copyright.) Because Star Trek is their property, and not our property, they get to make the rules. Period. They are under no legal obligation to even make rules allowing others to play; they could simply sue everyone who violates the law. And Paramount, with the urging of Justin Lin, CHOSE to end their lawsuit. There was no basis in law for them to do so.

What you are attempting to argue is that no one has any property rights, including the right to defend their ownership. And, you are enraged that anyone would actually defend themselves from robbery by violators of those rights. That's like a thief being angry at the original owner of a property for "stealing" back what he stole from them.

What Paramount has done is invited us into their home and allowed us to play with their property, but they set down some limits as to what we are allowed to do with their property, starting with the simple rule of not breaking it. They didn't have to allow us into their home, and they didn't have to allow us to play with their property.

But you are certainly entitled to have the opinion that we, who do not own their property, somehow have the same rights to their property as they do. Just be aware that millennia of legal precedent and the current form of the laws do not support your views. And I certainly hope to hear from you again in the future, after someone steals something of value from you. It will be very interesting to learn if your views change when you are the victim.

[–] simonpcpearson 8 years ago

In all honesty if the guidelines stop crap like Hidden Frontiers and Osiris being made then that is a good thing.
Not sure if the loss of STContinues Axanar and the rest of the good fan projects is an acceptable sacrifice.

[–] Thalek 8 years ago

The guidelines have no effect on quality, only on format. Consistent quality will continue to elude amateurs and professionals alike, as it always has in the past.

Given our resources, we did fairly well, and we had fun. As "fun" is the only compensation possible for a fan film, we'd probably be willing to do it all over again even if we weren't allowed to let others see it.

Fortunately, love us or hate us, the only thing we cost our audience was time, and then, only as much as they were willing to spend.

As one who strove to entertain, I'm naturally sorry that we missed our mark for you. I hope you didn't spend too much of your time being disappointed with our efforts.

[–] simonpcpearson 8 years ago

Hidden Frontiers was consistent.Consistently abysmal.

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

The same disingenuous unethical people posting here (carefully spinning the topic and with intellectual dishonesty) misinformation ONLY speak on erroneous copyright matters; where Star Trek is clearly also TRADEMARK protected !

Trademark laws are substantially more protective and have tougher legal teeth for the original owners of the IP to protect their franchise.

Copying something Trek (no matter how badly like gay Trek agenda "Hidden" Frontier) is not being artistic, creative, or unique as the IP originators. It's shoddy, counterfeit and an affront to all REAL creative & artistic people. Also their crew and supporters that try to garner some childish internet amateur Trek celebrity from that copy-cat video series is just shameless, laughable, and shows their ignorance.

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

No one disputes that Star Trek is copy righted material.

No one disputes that Star Trek is also trade-marked.

The discussion here is about the new rules that have been laid down for the creation of fan films.

Do you have something to contribute to that discussion?

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

For those who are somehow, after the last sixteen years, unfamiliar with Oscar-35, allow me to introduce him.

Or rather, let me introduce you to his IMDB link, and you can read about him for yourself without my input. He is Anthony Genovese. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0312964/?ref_=rvi_nm

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

Off topic and 'spin' A G A I N away from the topic.
(No thanks for the thread hijack)
But since already done...
Career production experiences- LINK:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CheckingtheGate/conversations/messages

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

I just wanted people to know who you are, instead of hiding behind an anonymous account, Tony. Think of it as added publicity for your career.

Now, DO you have something to add on the discussion of the new rules for fan-made films?

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

I'll be back ON Topic.....here's some REAL information on copyright.
LINK:http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

But the discussion isn't about copyright.

It's about the new rules that Paramount/CBS has laid down for people who want to make fanfilms without being taken to court.

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

I can read.....it was.
re-writing the thread history again ??

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

If you can read, then you know that the primary discussion is about the new rules. One poster briefly dragged it off-topic by implying that the copyright holders had no right to impose restrictions on others for using those materials, which everyone who has ever read copyright laws knows is WRONG. The whole point of copyright law is to allow the copyright owners to determine what is allowed.

Paramount/CBS has determined what will be allowed, and they have told us in exactly so many words what they will tolerate.

This discussion, as noted in the very first post, and the title of that post, is about the new rules. It us not about copyright law. It is not about whether Paramount/CBS is "allowed" to make those restrictions. It is solely and entirely how those new restrictions will affect fan films.

Clearly, it disallows live action "series" with continuing characters and story lines. I am told, however, that they have decided that it does not apply to audio-only productions. So, some productions might choose to turn their live action productions into audio-only productions.

Does it affect animations like Aurora Trek? To the best of my knowledge the question has not yet been explicitly asked and answered. Tim Vining chooses to believe it does until such time as he is informed otherwise.

What other types of productions might P/CBS choose to block or allow?

That is the discussion here. It is a dicussion on the effects on the fan fiction community.

Do you have anything to offer on that subject?

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

Nah, I have sworn off Whiting gibberish double speak. thalek intellectual dishonesty is just sad. At http://delphiseer.blogspot.com/search?q=whiting&max-results=20&by-date=true

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

So, you're admitting that you have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation.

Thank you. That's unusually honest of you.

Are you declaring this thread highjack officially over, then, and the rest of us can get back to discussing the new rules?

[–] darth_timon 7 years ago

These rules on fanfilms seem awfully draconian to me. Lucasfilm is pretty strict, but Paramount takes it to a whole new level.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

Ironically, it has been said that when George Lucas approached Roddenberry about fan efforts, Roddenberry allegedly said "Leave the fans alone and they'll make you rich".

Paramount has a history of taking draconian measures against fan efforts, and it has backlashed on them a couple of times.

In the early 90s, Paramount was shutting down websites for quite modest crimes, such as having a photo from the show posted. Fanzines at conventions practically died out. It lead to a massive backlash by fandom, which apparently resulted in Paramount quietly dropping its efforts.

Clearly, Paramount's current intent is to prevent unauthorized productions from becoming good enough to genuinely compete, especially in an age when crowd-funding makes it possible to hire considerable talent with negligible financial investment from the creator. It's quite a market-changer when half a million fans can contribute a buck each to fund a project while larger companies have to scramble to find investors.

The trend in fandom lately has been continuing characters and continuing stories, although one-offs like "Of Men and Gods" with its huge cast of professional actors from various Star Trek shows bucked that trend. The main attraction there was seeing old friends in new stories.

But, that's also what Paramount/CBS is doing. So, no continuing stories and no continuing characters in fanfilms.

A decent, complex story usually takes time to tell. So, the time allowed is short; fifteen minutes, I think. You can create a vignette, but not a series.

Music is important, so none of Paramount's can be used. Fortunately, this is less of a handicap as many skilled amateur composers are now coming forth.

For some fans, seeing a favorite character, even with a new actor, is important to them. So, no re-use of existing characters. Hidden Frontier, with its blend of existing and original characters could have phased out existing characters and references to them. However, productions like New Voyages are intended as continuations of the original series; they can't exist in that format without using the existing characters. This also means that actors can't reprise a role even in a new story.

In one light, the rules are harsh, draconian. In another light, Paramount/CBS hasn't banned our efforts entirely, they've simply removed all possibility of unfair competition using their own materials.

You can also view it as protection for Paramount/CBS as well: big studios are popular targets for plagiarism suits. Amateur writers don't seem to understand that ideas are not truly unique, and even when they are, simultaneous invention is still a real possibility. If you come up with a clever story and Paramount/CBS comes out with something similar, there's a natural tendency to think that they stole it. And with the wide-spread nature of the Internet, it's harder for them to claim that they never saw your efforts and be believed.

So, we can continue to play in their sandbox, but we have to tell different kinds of stories than we used to.

I'm not happy about it; hell, no! I like being able to tell stories about continuing characters; I like being able to take as much time as I need to tell the story, too. I like watching the efforts of other fans telling those kinds of stories, as well.

But there are other stories to tell, and clever fans will find them. There are also exceptions, which have been clarified in later conversations. You can, for example, do a "radio play" with continuing characters and story lines. Paramount/CBS has no real interest in that right now, so there's no competition if fans make their own.

From Paramount's view, of course, this is the best of all possible worlds. It keeps the fans relatively quiet. It lets the best, most-talented fans continue to graduate into the professional world if they can, which turns them into a potential resource. (That's one of the reasons there was such a huge influx of female writers into science fiction in the late 1960s; they cut their teeth on writing fanfiction.)

And it's all non-binding on Paramount. They're informal rules; Paramount could change them or scrap them in the next five minutes. There's no legal obligation to continue them, and no legal obstacle to enforcing their copyrights any time they want to. Technically, they're non-binding on us, too, if we're willing to risk being sued. (I'm not that rich, and I'm not that brave, and I'm not that stupid, so I probably won't be violating the rules any time soon.)

Anyway, that's my view. The rules are great for Paramount and not as bad as they truly could be for fans, if not very good for us, either. And unlike the previous "gentleman's agreement" on fanfilms, it's well-publicized and well-distributed. Anyone with a web browser can find them, read them, and presumably, even try to re-negotiate them for a specific project. (I'd like to see them explicitly state that all-CGI efforts like Tim Vining's Star Trek: Aurora are allowed, too. Tim doesn't use their music, their characters, and doesn't mention their characters, either. That deals with most of Paramount's objections right there, but it does have its own continuing characters, on-going storyline, and is typically longer than 15 minutes.)

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

NAH, wrong again, as usual.....FYI- my opponents here will continually appear as weak thinkers until they question their basic assumptions on these legal matters. The my posting text is very clear.
-
You & Ben here got an answer, just not the one you wanted. Putting your rationalization words in other opponent's (people's) mouths is only more weak intellectual dishonesty AND your more no citation rationalizations.
I speak for myself, thanks. Copyrights and trademark are a cornerstone of international law. All your opinionated rationalizations is trivial in court.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

Tony, if you read what I said, I not only did not dispute their right to make these choices, I endorsed their right to make these, and even more draconian choices. I also expressed gratitude that they gave us even this sop.

But I tell you what: if you want to drag the conversation off to copyright law, which is not under dispute here, feel free. I'm sure that we can all benefit from your extensive legal expertise on the subject.

And when you're finished telling us that Paramount has the right to do with their property what they choose to do, which we've already acknowledged, we can get on with our conversation on how to work within the new rules they've laid down. If you have anything useful to contribute to that conversation, you're welcome to.

Otherwise, this reminds me of the few times I've made statements in support of something you've said, and you then promptly attacked me for daring to agree with you. Believe me, after more than sixteen years of your harassment, I DO understand that you feel you must oppose everything we say. I understand that you feel you must announce to everyone that we're wrong, whether we actually are or not.

But right now, what you're saying is "No, they're wrong to say that they agree Paramount has the right to do this, and no, they don't know anything about copyright law, and boy, are they awful people for trying to work within Paramount's publicly announced rules." Even for a persistent contrarian like you, are you sure that's what you want to be saying?

This remains a conversation about the new rules, how they came about, and how we can worth within them. Contribute or obfuscate; I really don't care which.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

[–] darth_timon 7 years ago

It is unusual that he can disagree with you agreeing with him.

Actually no, that isn't unusual. But it makes his position unclear. If he is disagreeing with you on the off-topic subject of copyright law, does this mean he doesn't support the right of companies to copyright their material? He ought to make more of an effort to focus on the point.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

One time he commented on a set being built in the old Rockwell Downey building, where they used to build the Space Shuttle. As such, it has very large, very high-ceilinged bays, perfect for building a set that was both large and tall. He was making some kind of comment about how such a huge physical set was so much better than doing the same thing in CGI.

I agreed with his post, commenting that I'd spent many hours at that plant, and it was indeed suitable for a set like that. (The Space Shuttle, with the tail assembly is at least three stories tall, possibly as much as four. With a group of friends, I used to be part of Rockwell's monthly open house, acting as docents, crowd control, and security for the Apollo 14 spacecraft on display. I've probably spent fifty to a hundred hours in that building, some of them in the actual assembly areas which were not usually open to the public.)

He got extremely upset that I'd made a post agreeing with him. (Not counting the recent post agreeing that Paramount/CBS owns the Star Trek rights and can do what they bloody will please with them, I think I've publicly agreed with him twice.) I've managed to get the impression that there's nothing I can say that he won't upbraid me for having said it.

As you can see for yourself, I'm not even arguing with him any more, and that's not good enough, either. I rather doubt that there's anything I can do while still alive that he wouldn't complain about. I think it's my very existence he objects to these days. I have no plans in the immediate future to be very accommodating to him on that score, however, so he'll just have to continue having ulcers over it. He's spent over sixteen years telling me just how little I mean to him, which tends to make the opposite argument. [chuckle]

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

Yes, good artist people have to be educated about their artist rights under copyright and trademark international laws.
OFF topic- The best you could do ? Interesting posts contain facts to widen the discussion (as I did). (As you did) expressing an opinionated completely non-factual (citation less) and talking about one individual is what trolling poster's do. Keep it up...you disgrace yourself and your point of view.

An observation on this thread's mis informational 'spin' in basic wrong premise-
I'm reminded with these same thread opponents to copyright/trademark rights said that Gene Roddenberry wanted this and that...when the Roddenberry family did not own the I.P. rights to Star Trek for decades. Paramount/CBS/Viacom did.
Currently, the same thread opponents to copyright/trademark rights like to talk about George Lucas & Star Wars wanted this and that.....when the Lucas does not own the I.P. rights to Star Wars. Disney does.

Sloppy thinking people would be taken more seriously when they would question their original false wrong premises and correct their wrong facts.

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. That discussion is about the current guidelines Paramount/CBS has issued to fan films. Do you actually have something to contribute to THAT conversation?

And for the record, at the time Roddenberry said he wanted at least one gay character added to Star Trek: The Next Generation, he had considerable influence over the production. It is still not clear who overrode Roddenberry's decision, only that it happened when Roddenberry was in ill health a relatively short time before his death. Per Harlan Ellison, however, Roddenberry allegedly made other promises he did not keep, so perhaps this is another one.

At the time Roddenberry spoke to George Lucas, which was decades ago, obviously, George Lucas DID own the Star Wars intellectual property. Lucas would not sell his rights for another two decades. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/30/disney-star-wars-lucasfilm/1669739/

Disney still allows Star Wars fan films to be made, although I do not know if they have modified the guidelines that Lucas and company originally set up. They not only allow Star Wars fan films to be made, they hold an annual contest to select the best fan films of that year. Here is a link to the 2016 contest results: http://www.starwars.com/star-wars-fan-film-awards

Now that we've cleared that up, back to the actual discussion of the Paramount/CBS guidelines.

Paramount/CBS has indicated that they might consider exceptions to the guidelines, but such exceptions, IF granted, would have to be considered "on a case by case basis". This offers some hope for productions like Tim Vining's Star Trek: Aurora.

Aurora is an all-CGI animation that follows the adventures of a pair of civilian merchants set in the Star Trek universe. Two episodes have been made thus far, and they tend to meet most of Paramount/CBS's criteria. One violation of the guidelines is the use of the phrase "Star Trek" in the title, which is easily remedied. The second episode, written and mostly finished before the guidelines came out, mentions and uses an existing Star Trek character. Again, this is easily remedied in future episodes, as the character used is not intended as a recurring character in Aurora.

It is not known at this time if Tim Vining will appeal to Paramount/CBS to see if his production can be exempted.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

Per a transcript of the podcast with John Van Citters, Aurora would have something of an uphill battle to receive an exemption. (Partial transcript is available here: http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/cbss-john-van-citters-interviewed-about-the-guidelines.281808/)

HOST: Another question that I got which I think the answer's pretty straightforward is somebody saying, "Well, we're recording a long-form radio play. Does that count as fan film?" And I think the answer's no, right?
JVC: No. Audio dramas definitely do not qualify under this. These are fan film guidelines.
HOST: But this does include animation... anything visual. I think there was some confusion about that.
JVC: Yes. If it's a visual representation of Star Trek that way that would qualify as a film. Animation, computer animation, et cetera.

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

I listened and watched the whole Paramount fan video release internet interview....not just 'spun' internet Blog re-prints or published interpreted excerpts like in the previous questionable post here. Why not, unless trying to deceive for their own questionable false agenda ?

Honest people know to listen to the WHOLE interview quoted to understand the context and REAL meaning. No 'Spin'. Others here post trying to nitpick & choose out-of-context quotes to do a purposeful DIS-service to intellectually honest folks here like me.

Get the facts first hand....not through a filtering writer.

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

http://newatlas.com/star-trek-axanar-copyright-fair-use-result/47258/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=33f356d306-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-33f356d306-91409805

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

This is a bias blog, NOT a real news source. It represents your opinion, and the opinion of those that leave comments. I provide links in many my posts as documentation or citation facts source.

I MUST remind you that your labels of others does NOT make discussions on this topic.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

"I provide links in many my posts as documentation or citation facts source."

[chuckle] Unless you've changed in the last couple of years, your usual link is to yourself on another site. Quoting yourself gives "circular reasoning" a very special shine.

"I MUST remind you that your labels of others does NOT make discussions on this topic."

In my previous post, I didn't offer any discussion. I provided a link for the reader to follow without any commentary on my part. In the title, I described the article with the ambiguous word "interesting".

So, Tony, do you have ANYTHING to contribute to a conversation about the new guidelines? Anything relevant at all? You haven't done so yet, and you even admitted that you weren't going to continue posting, presumably because you didn't have anything to offer. I commented at the time that it was unusually honest of you, but I see that you haven't really changed at all. You make statements that aren't true, and promises you never keep, and you've done it for decades; you remind me a great deal of a certain prominent politician who also fails to keep his promises while lying most of the time.

The topic is STILL the new guidelines, which have yet to offer any comment upon, beyond the obvious one that CBS/Paramount has a right to make the rules. If you can't actually contribute anything, just tell me so and I'll cheerfully let you derail the conversation and you can rant completely unopposed. You can tell us how you are so much more an expert on copyright law than anyone else who can read, you can tell us how terrible CGI is and how it should never, ever be used; you can tell us all about your great acting career and how many Oscars you've been cheated out of.

Or you can actually talk about the subject of the thread, which is the new guidelines for fanfilms, and how fanfilms can adapt to meet the new reality. But if you're going to continue to actively interfere in the discussion and completely derail it, have the integrity to admit it so I can stop trying to reason with you.

Do you have that much integrity, Tony?

[–] oscar-35 7 years ago

this again....Am I pointing out this knowledge to you for the first time ? Where's your critical thinking ? Seems you have very little.
FYI- I supply 'citations' for my facts posted. Your posts speculate and give your opinion or your conclusions without any ethical citation as a base. First person citation is the best, not Blogs or Wikipedia. Those citations rely on false consensus, not factual research. My Blog entries contain those 'citations' from 1st party sources. Many of those are YOUR own incriminating false words repeated back to you ! Bad memory. Your mis-characterizations of my record here is so typical of you and FALSE. BTW- "Tellurites do NOT argue for reasons, they simply argue !" I find your argument posted here strewn with gaping defects in facts and any rational logic.
Revel in your ignorance. I'm tired of going around the same tree with you. We'll see how long this is posted until you respond back, in minutes. Have no life ?

I MUST remind you that your labels of others does NOT make discussions.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

Tony, you have never cited a source that confirms your beliefs about gays in Star Trek. The Wikipedia article cites its first party sources, which consist of various news articles. Unfortunately, the last time I pointed out those same news articles, you claimed that the reporters were lying. So, clearly, even citing first party sources is insufficient evidence.

The fact is, there IS NO first party source that you will ever accept as long as it continues to contradict your beliefs. You will continue to cling to your alternative facts for the rest of your life, even though you yourself never had nor cited a first party source to support them.

I don't even know why you're still humping this dead horse. Even if Paramount/CBS higher-ups successfully prevented the creation of gay characters in the late 80s, and deliberately continued those efforts for decades after, there is at least one gay character in Star Trek now. The last Star Trek movie has a gay character, and he's a major character.

So, it no longer matters that there were well-documented efforts to have gay characters in Star Trek starting about thirty years ago(and well-documented reports that those efforts were suppressed), there is one now. Your campaign to keep gays out of Star Trek was a waste of everyone's time, especially your own.

"We'll see how long this is posted until you respond back, in minutes. Have no life ?"

It's interesting how you equate someone having some spare time on their hands with having no life at all. I find it particularly ironic because you've always had enough time on your hands for nearly two decades now to stalk and harass the people you disagree with. Now THAT is a truly wasted life.

"I'm tired of going around the same tree with you."

Then please stop. Finally, after nearly two decades of harassment, just stop. But we both know you won't stop.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

Tony,you should also be aware that Marvel Comics produced Star Trek comic books which required storyline approval from Paramount/CBS. While the books are not considered canon, they were subject to oversight, and Marvel worked with Paramount/CBS

In Star Fleet Academy #17, published in April of 1998, there was a storyline about a gay academy member---and the bigoted alien who refused to be in the same room with him. It should be noted that she was the last of her kind. However, nineteen years later, it's clear that other bigots who cannot tolerate the open existence of gays are still with us. Maybe they, too, will someday be the last of their kind, but it certainly won't happen in your lifetime.

[–] Thalek 8 years ago

Here's an interesting discussion of copyrights that is part legal, part philosophical. It has clear implications for that subset of transformative works known as "fan films".

I don't know where I stand on the points raised; I'm still mulling it over, but feel free to discuss it without my input.

http://newatlas.com/internet-copyright-history-remix/45536/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=7f1fb8ad72-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-7f1fb8ad72-91409805

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

http://newatlas.com/star-trek-axanar-copyright-settlement/47505/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=ac4315f79b-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-ac4315f79b-91409805

Apparently, the Axanar people have found a way to rework their project to conform with the new guidelines Paramount/CBS have broadcast. There's no mention of what will happen with the million dollars raised for the original project, an amount that is likely to far surpass the needs of the new, modified project.

[–] Thalek 7 years ago

Because some people may not know where to look up the new rules Paramount has issued, here's a link: http://www.startrek.com/fan-films

Here, a CBS official clarifies some information about the new rules: http://www.trektoday.com/content/2016/06/cbs-clarifies-fan-film-guidelines/

Ars Technica's article is here: http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/06/cbs-paramount-offer-rules-for-fan-film-makers-amid-axanar-dispute/

Slate.com weighed in on the new rules here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/01/cbs_and_paramount_issue_rules_for_fan_films.html

A group called the Organization for Transformative Works has an interesting editorial here: http://www.transformativeworks.org/otw-legal-on-paramountcbs-fan-film-guidelines/

I recommend that people read these articles (and listen to the podcast). It is possible that having precise information on what Paramount/CBS have actually stated might better inform people who have heard only rumors, or read only my own summary here.