Talk:Star Trek spin-off fiction
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Change of article title
- 3 Self promotion
- 4 fan video advertising websites
- 5 Brand new Star Trek fanfilm
- 6 "Questionable Future" Article is Inaccurate
- 7 ""Questionable Future" is TRUE!
- 8 'Questionable Future' inaccuracies
- 9 Documenting inaccuracies of "Questionable Future" article
- 9.1 The Fictional Viacom Press Release
- 9.2 Unsubstantiated Allegations
- 9.3 Misquoting the 'RespectCopyrights.org' Web Site
- 9.4 Mischaracterization of CNN Link
- 9.5 Claiming a Stargate 'Source' is About Star Trek
- 9.6 Unfair Characterization of Trek Fan Film Producers
- 9.7 Internet Rumors That Don't Exist
- 9.8 Karen Carpenter's Relevance to Star Trek Fan Films?
- 9.9 Carpenter's Relationship to Science Fiction?
- 9.10 A "Neutral" Source With an Axe to Grind
- 9.11 "Studio Actions" Having Nothing To Do with Fan Films
- 9.12 Conclusion
- 9.13 Responses in general
- 9.14 Initial Response to Carlosp censorship of articles facts
- 10 incorrect derviative works entries, concepts, statements
- 11 Intrepid Entry
- 12 Reminder about how to handle disputes
- 13 Posting Controversy
- 14 RE: Posting Controversy
- 15 Article Size
- 16 Legal Issues section
- 17 Yuuzhan Vong
- 18 Listing Unfinished Fan Videos
- 19 Article split
- 20 Fair use rationale for Image:StarTrekComic2001.jpg
- 21 Fair use rationale for Image:STMissionToHoratius.jpg
- 22 Related link
The banner just wasn't fitting right in the article, but I didnt want to delete it. So I've place it here. Ttownfeen 21:13, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Change of article title
Seems to me that it's more "encyclopedic" for the title to begin with the general topic, followed by the specific reference. "Other" doesn't strike me as a way to begin the title of an encyclopedia article that belongs under a more specific heading. Article titles should move from the general to the more specific. --Carlos 15:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a pest, but some of the stuff on this page is borderline self-promotion (see the Star Trek: Pioneers image page history for an example). Please don't use wikipedia as ad-space for your Star Trek fan project. If you must do this sort of self-promotion, make sure that the thing actually exists, and please have someone else do it or at least make sure its not so obvious that you wrote it. --IRelayer 23:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
fan video advertising websites
I think this point should be made. I would have to agree with the previous poster. I thought this information site was not about promotion or advertisement or pitching of you or your video project to possible new fans. what is even worse, some videos listed here are still not finished. Their possible exhistance is based on only large promotion website banners and commercial items put on the Internet. All this blatant fan video advertising seems alittle too much.
Brand new Star Trek fanfilm
I have new non-profit Star Trek fanfilm I am working on that I think is very ambitious and based purely on canon concepts, but also introduces many situations unfamiliar that have not been referenced on the Trek movies and television shows. It is entitled, STAR TREK: RELEVATIONS! More information will come soon.
- You haven't stole part of your title, by any chance, from the highly-successful Star Wars: Revelations, have you? The Wookieepedian 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- May a recommend an investment in a spell-checker before releasing this move. They are really very cheap these days. DJ Clayworth 18:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"Questionable Future" Article is Inaccurate
Why is this poster constantly re-posting this article when its veracity has been challenged, and its source links remain inaccurate and unchanged?
""Questionable Future" is TRUE!
Carlosp (producer of fan video Hidden Frontier) keeps deleting this article because of his own selfish agenda against it's facts. (Hidden Frontier has been seen to have contained numerous pirated copyrighted and trademarked elements in it without the benefit of licenses or aggreements from the copyright holders.) In Carlosp own arrogant manner, Carlosp singularly & biasly judges the article's veracity and removes the article completely. This is unfair. Especially, when it's a work in progress...more & more factual Internet links are being added to demonstrate the article's factual nature about fan video copyright and trademark concerns. This is Carlosp censureship.
'Questionable Future' inaccuracies
First, you're free to leap to whatever conclusions you want about my motivations but at least I sign my name to my comments and my edits.
Second, being a so-called "work in progress" is fine, but it doesn't entitle you to create links to things that simply don't appear to exist and then you turn around and claim that they support the assertions you make. That's not the intent of the "work in progress" nature of Wikipedia.
I don't have a problem with copyright concerns being identified with regard to fan films. I do have a problem with you claiming that Viacom or Paramount has said something, citing a Web site, and there appearing to be no such claim on the page that you link to. That's a dishonest presentation of your opinions, not a factual representation of what Viacom or Paramount has stated.
I'm willing to take the time to point out each instance of this type of dishonesty in your article. Since you're so "certain" that your assertions are true then why don't you shore up your sources instead of hiding behind the claim that it's a "work in progress." That claim does not exempt you from Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources. And, once again, unlike you, I have the courage of my convictions to sign my name to this --Carlos 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Documenting inaccuracies of "Questionable Future" article
OK. Fine. You reposted the article with continuing, obvious and egregious inaccuracies, so I will document them below and request -- yet again -- that you either shore up your sources or leave the article removed. If you repost -- again -- I will submit this documentation with a request for mediation to finally resolve this dispute. Let's start with your very first so-called "source."
The Fictional Viacom Press Release
- In summer of 2005, Viacom issued a press release, press release archive page [9 stating they are closely examining the current Internet growth of Star Trek fan video producers who are allegedly corrupting Viacom's intellectual property rights concerning Paramount's Star Trek trademarks, copyrights and other license properties.
Leaving aside the grammatical awkwardness of your first sentence, what do we find at the Viacom press release archive in the summer of 2005? Nothing remotely related to what you claim should be found there. Here's the listing of press releases from Summer 2005 on that page:
- 9.19.2005 Viacom Co-Presidents And Co-Chief Operating Officers Tom Freston And Leslie Moonves To Speak At The 14th Annual Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference
- 9.15.2005 Anthony Ambrosio And Joanne Adams Griffith Named To Senior Human Resources Posts For Post-Spin-Off CBS Corporation And The New Viacom
- 9.9.2005 DeDe Lea Named Senior Vice President, Government Relations, Of New Viacom
- 9.9.2005 Viacom Co-Presidents And Co-Chief Operating Officers Tom Freston And Leslie Moonves To Speak At The Merrill Lynch Media And Entertainment Conference
- 8.23.2005 Viacom Announces Multi-Year Advertising And Web Search Distribution Agreement With Yahoo!
- 7.29.2005 Joseph Ianniello Named Senior Vice President And Treasurer Of Viacom
- 7.22.2005 Viacom Completes Sale Of Its Famous Players Canadian Theatre Chain To Cineplex Galaxy LP
- 7.21.2005 Viacom Inc. To Report Results For Second Quarter 2005 And Host Teleconference Call / Webcast On August 4
- 7.20.2005 Viacom Announces Quarterly Cash Dividend
- 7.20.2005 Viacom And DIRECTV Sign Long Term Carriage Agreement
- 6.23.2005 Jay Kushner Named Vice President And General Tax Counsel For Viacom
Also, even if this fictional press release existed, good Wiki sourcing should have taken us directly to the press release you cited, not to the archive directory.
Next, let's examine your sentence:
- ... fan video producers who are allegedly corrupting Viacom's intellectual property rights... [emphasis mine]
Who is making this allegation? Certainly not Viacom, at least not at the "source" you cited earlier in the same sentence. You? Well, according to Wikipedia policy, you can't cite yourself as a source just because you hold this opinion.
Misquoting the 'RespectCopyrights.org' Web Site
Further, you claim:
- Legal departments are very concerned about the proliferation of video file downloading websites distributing these disputed Star Trek fan videos using production elements without expressed permission of the owners...
What legal departments? You don't identify them in your text. Instead, you seem to rely on the "source" you link to. Let's check out that out, shall we? That link goes to respectcopyrights.org's home page, where we find absolutely no reference to which legal departments you might be referring to, no reference to Star Trek, to Trek fan videos, to what "dispute" you nebulously refer to, or which production elements you're referring to. At best, your claim is a mischaracterization of what respectcopyrights.org states. That Web site is battling peer-to-peer filesharing of entire Hollywood films.
Next, in the same sentence, you claim that the respectcopyrights.org Web site addresses "... Star Trek fan video home websites that also use alleged pirated copyright, trademark and franchise licensed Paramount intellectual properties. "
Odd sourcing here since you start off the sentence saying this information comes from respectcopyrights.org, but you wind up the sentence with a CNN link (I'll get to that in a second). The link to respectcopyrights.org's home page that you supplied refers not at all to any "Star Trek fan video home websites." I'm not even sure what those are.
Mischaracterization of CNN Link
OK, let's take a look at that CNN link that you claim has something to do with Trek fan videos, piracy and Paramount. What do we find there? The lead of the article was:
- NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that software companies can be held liable for copyright infringement when individuals use their technology to download songs and movies illegally.
No mention of Star Trek, fan videos, or Paramount. The article was specifically about Grokster and how it encouraged illegal filesharing of songs and movies. Interestingly, the article itself notes that the Supreme Court decision "did not address the question of whether the technology at issue in the case -- known as file-sharing, or "peer-to-peer" -- is illegal."
So you misused your source, and mischaracterized what it said. The Grokster case was about illegal sharing of entire copyrighted works. Fan films are derivative works under copyright law; they are not venues for distributing entire Hollywood films. You continue to misuse the CNN source by claiming:
- This possible illegal re-use is especially prevalent in digital mediums.
Leaving aside the grammar problem (it should be media, not mediums), the CNN article is not at all about re-use of production elements as you claim. Furthermore, it's unclear precisely what you're claiming at all.
Claiming a Stargate 'Source' is About Star Trek
Let's examine your next claim:
- These copyright and piracy concerns have been discussed on some Internet fan video bulletin boards with various results.
Which copyright and piracy concerns? The ones in the actual sources you cited above? Or the ones you misconstrued in your citations into claims unsubstantiated by examining your sources? Even assuming that you properly characterize these discussions, what do we find when we click? Nothing about Paramount, Viacom, Star Trek, or Trek fan videos. Instead, we find a discussion about a Stargate fan film whose producers were trying to sell their DVDs. Sure, there are copyright and trademark concerns there, but not piracy ones.
And what does this sentence really mean anyway? People "discussed" and there were "various results"?? What results? And what did they mean? The whole sentence is vague, compounded by the misapplication of your source.
Unfair Characterization of Trek Fan Film Producers
In the same paragraph, you claim:
Is there some reason you don't specifically identify Hidden Frontier as the production you're targeting, instead of generically accusing all Trek fan film producers? (Full disclosure: I am one of the producers of Hidden Frontier.) And why are you taking us to task for failing to make definitive public statements about a Stargate fan film discussed on an entirely different BBS than ours?
Furthermore, yet again, you mischaracterize what we find at the two sources you provide here. What we find at both discussion threads are indeed definitive statements from two Hidden Frontier producers about our stance with respect to Paramount and its Trek copyrights. Executive Producer Rob Caves says in that discussion thread:
- So, yes, Paramount could sue any of the fanfilms, fans, file swappers, gamers, or whoever is encroaching on their copyright. Since there is no money exchanging hands with fanfilms, there is almost zero chance of Paramount re-couping even their legal fees if they were to sue.
You may disagree with that assessment, but that kind of disagreement should be backed up with sources, not your personal opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for your personal disagreements with fan film producers about copyright issues.
Internet Rumors That Don't Exist
Further troubling is your citation of "rumors" to substantiate your already mischaracterized notions about fan films and Paramount:
- However Internet rumors have been rampant on these matters.
Exactly what is this claim supposed to mean? That because Hidden Frontier's producers haven't made definitive statements (even though they did at the very links you provided), Internet rumors are somehow filling the gap? And what "rampant rumors" do we find when we click on your link to TrekBBS? None. There's only an error message:
- We cannot proceed. There was a problem looking up the post in our database.
Karen Carpenter's Relevance to Star Trek Fan Films?
In what seems an odd reference, you cite IMDB as a source for information about cease-and-desist orders:
- In the past, copyright & trademark owner plaintiffs would send out a cease and desist demand letter to suspects threatening with court in order to immediately stop the pirating.
In another bad example of Wiki sourcing, you force readers to find their own way to the point you're trying to make about copyright owners of Carpenter's songs stopping distribution of this film. But let's take you at your word here for a second. Your case here would be stronger if you showed the precise relevance to fan films, which is the topic of your article. The Karen Carpenter movie isn't a fan film at all; it's a biography (hilariously, acted out by Ken and Barbie dolls) that appeared to have misused Carpenters' music.
Is there some reason why you didn't find a cease-and-desist example that was more reflective of the point you're attempting to make in this article, about fan films' "questionable future"? So far, none of the sources you cite call into doubt the future of Star Trek fan films, leaving the assertion solely as your opinion, which is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.
Carpenter's Relationship to Science Fiction?
Later in the same sentence, you seem to imply the Karen Carpenter C&D order has something to do with science fiction:
- ... and/or studio legal representatives would seize bootleg or gray market science fiction items illegally (without studio license) being sold to the public.
No such information is found at the IMDB source you cited.
A "Neutral" Source With an Axe to Grind
Possibly, you meant for the source you cite next to support the bootleg claims you make:
- Archive page of Star Trek copyright issues 
I found quite a few problems with your "archive page":
- It lists supposed news items about copyright violations related to Star Trek. However, all of these items are undated and unsourced (sure, you have a month and a day for some of these items but no year), making it difficult for anyone to verify these sources, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.
- Absolutely none of the news items on this page have anything to do with Star Trek fan films at all. They're all about fan fiction or Web sites distributing copyrighted materials.
- This page is part of a blog with an axe to grind against Hidden Frontier, making it a less than credible source for what is supposed to be a neutral point of view under Wikipedia policy.
- This page was supposed to support your contention about seizing science fiction materials that are illegally for sale. None of the Star Trek fan films are for sale. They are all distributed freely on the Internet.
"Studio Actions" Having Nothing To Do with Fan Films
Finally, you claim:
- Similar studio actions have taken place in recent decade. 
Actions similar to what exactly? You don't really specify. And what do we find at the Cornell University site you link to? A listing of Supreme Court decisions on copyright law, stretching back 50 years:
- 1994 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. [Copyright - Fair Use - Parody]
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. [Copyright - Infringement - Award of Attorneys Fees]
- 1991 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. [Copyright - Collections of Data (Telephone White Pages)]
- 1984 Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. [Copyright - Fair Use - Sale and Use of VCRs]
- 1974 Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. [Copyright - Cable TV]
- 1954 Mazer v. Stein [Copyright - Useful Objects]
- 1952 F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts Inc. [Copyright - Infringement - Damages]
It's not clear at all exactly what point this laundry list of Court decisions is supposed to illuminate since none of these cases has anything to do with fan films, and you don't cite any sources that provide analysis to substantiate the connection between these cases and your claim that fan films have a questionable future.
As I've thoroughly documented, every single one of your sources poses a problem in supporting the claims you make in this article. That's 12 serious problems in a one-paragraph article. Consequently, I believe I'm justified in deleting the article. If you find sources that actually support your assertions, then I invite you to re-post it. But if you do so with the same or similarly inadequate sourcing, then I will notify Wikipedia authorities. --Carlos 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Responses in general
It appears that "Paramount going after fan fiction productions" appears to have merit because that is what copyright and trademark owners tend to do (with their army of lawyers). But until you can site sources for these actions (that such actions have taken place), your statements about these actions will have to stay out of this Wikipedia article. Val42 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Initial Response to Carlosp censorship of articles facts
Carlosp comments:: 'Questionable Future' inaccuracies First, you're free to leap to whatever conclusions you want about my motivations but at least I sign my name to my comments and my edits.
Response: ++Admirable, but so what? Sorta off topic. Motivations can be personal selfish agenda of censorship of ideas or purely academic interest. I suggest the former with you.
Carlosp comments:: Second, being a so-called "work in progress" is fine, but it doesn't entitle you to create links to things that simply don't appear to exist and then you turn around and claim that they support the assertions you make. That's not the intent of the "work in progress" nature of Wikipedia.
++In as how you are not the creator of "Wikipedia", you cannot strive to interpret or speak for the intent of the Wiki creator. It is solely your opinion that my links "don't appear to exist" since you don't appear to want to verify anything that stands in your way of your fan video producing hobby no matter how copyright illegal it is.
Carlosp comments:: I don't have a problem with copyright concerns being identified with regard to fan films.
++This is patently untrue as evidenced by your weeks of repeatly pulling of any/all postings I make on the subject or anyone else makes/contributes on the article's subject. The fact is that fan videos, fan fiction, any work that re-uses copyright material without official permission is illegal. Whether you like it or not. Further, you demonstrate a huge amount of personal impropriety and conflict of interest in setting yourself (a fan video Hidden Frontier producer involved) up as any sort of impartial Wikipedic scholar to pass judgment on the merits & proof of this article. Your large amount of time/days spent on this matter and your continual exclusion of the entire subject demonstrates this highly and strongly. Instead of adding footnotes to the article, or expanding the knowledge base of it's content reveals your personal biases against this subject being aired here and those failings are unlikely qualifications to judge this article. IMHO: Further more, previous reading of your literary works gives me little pause as to elect you to the role of wikipedia spelling or composition cop.
Carlosp comments:: I have a problem with you claiming that Viacom or Paramount has said something, citing a Web site, and there appearing to be no such claim on the page that you link to. That's a dishonest presentation of your opinions, not a factual representation of what Viacom or Paramount has stated.
++That is smoke and mirrors off topic and then finely splitting hairs actions to display your OPINION as fact, you are spinning these matters into a fabrication supporting a false premise that your fan video production, Hidden Frontier, is within guidelines. Sadly, Hidden Frontier has been associated with illegal copyright re-use as evidenced by statements made publicly by your own fan video staff on and off your own forum and elsewhere on the Internet. Further Viacom and Paramount (other studio copyright owners too) has made many statements regarding their stand on the present rampant copyright violations by many pirates and the steps they will take to protect their interests. Your refusal to believe those statements has no bearing on fact.
Carlosp comments:: I'm willing to take the time to point out each instance of this type of dishonesty in your article.
++I am not willing to take the time now to counter obviously biased material. But your statement: 'The Grokster case was about illegal sharing of entire copyrighted works. Fan films are derivative works under copyright law'. Neither Hidden Frontier nor any fan video but ESPECIALLY the episodes of Hidden Frontier I have subjected myself to, can never be described as official sanctioned derivative works. It's surely not exempt from international copyright laws and their enforcement actions. ++In conclusion, as I've thoroughly documented that your motivations, opinions, and views pose several problems in supporting the claims you made on this subject, I wish to simply add that your premise, "derivative work" statement is false. This basic error exempts your entire talk page publication from the initial truth proving process and is omitted here.
++Some people may feel this posting is more confrontational. I like to call it a bit more honest.
- So every documented instance I've noted above of your inaccurate sourcing and mischaracterization of source material is all for naught because you think that I don't know what a derivative work is under U.S. copyright law? Luckily, you're not the one I need to convince here. Dispassionate wikipedia editors get to make that call as we strive for consensus. Unlike you, I provide accurate links to back up my assertions. A reasonable person who clicks on the link to the definition of "derivative work" and compares it to my use above will conclude that I'm using the term consistently with what copyright law holds. Please note that I am not making the claim that any fan film has permission to make a derivative work. But permission from the copyright holder isn't necessary to fulfill the definition of the term. --Carlos 12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- K- Point of order on logic -
- In conclusion, as I've thoroughly documented that your motivations, opinions, and views pose several problems in supporting the claims you made on this subject, I wish to simply add that your premise, "derivative work" statement is false. This basic error exempts your entire talk page publication from the initial truth proving process and is omitted here
- Sorry, but this seems to be what is known as an "ad hominem"argument - you are attacking the character of the person making the comment instead of addressing the points he has raised. As regards the idea that his definition of "derivative work" nullifies his points, this could only be so if the definition had some bearing on the accuracy of your links, eg "My link is correct because I have defined derivative work correctly and he has not" I fail to see how this is so. I eagerly await precise clarification of your first paragraph--Kirok 02:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
incorrect derviative works entries, concepts, statements
I would like to point out that some of the basic wikipedia websites entries cited in discussing copyright's 'derivative works' above and the wikipedia entries'contents and footnote links are very faulty. Your derivative works assumptions that you base your arguments are dubiously incorrect.
When you take time to look at the wikipedia's 'derivative works'  entry is badly written (confusing) and has many defective Internet links. Looking on the entries discussion page, dated February 5, 2005, reviewers point out: 'Article needs work ..."
- K- Shall we keep this on track? The question here is if there is a difference between a fan production and copyright piracy which was the subject of the Grokster case which you cited. Carlos' contention was that a fan film was akin to a derivative work and used the Wikipedia article as a source. He qualified his statement by saying "Please note that I am not making the claim that any fan film has permission to make a derivative work. But permission from the copyright holder isn't necessary to fulfill the definition of the term."--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok [K- See my "disclosure" below] - Yes, let's stay with the point already stated clearly BEFORE you tried to change or modify the point. The responder's point was mentioning that Carlos' basic argument was very FLAWED since Carlos used a terrible & weak Wiki article to support his very questionable argument. It is even more ironic that Carlos has done this because his whole argument is saying the original article was not supported by strong website content. Or didn't you see that or are you trying to be obtuse? Are you trying to get off this valid point? [K- No I'm not being obtuse and I'm not wasting everybodies time and the space on this page to engage in clarifying minute points created by your obfuscation. I'll just skip to the end.]
The US Copyright office's website  says about derivative works, "A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version."Also at US Copyright office's website, "WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the original owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work, i.e. derivative works. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the original author.+++
- K- Certainly, as the site says "Only the original owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare ... a new version of that work, i.e. derivative works." however Carlos' qualification makes it clear that he is "not making the claim that any fan film has permission to make a derivative work." We would all seem to be in agreement here.--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok- Carlos statement is somewhat confusing due to his continual incorrect use of many specific legal copyright word terms. Why not be clear in these copyright matters? Fan videos that DO NOT have copyright permission or license are correctly called 'COPIES' and as such are illegal. Only permitted or licensed video could be called correctly derivative works. There is no hard evidence that any fan videos have permission from the original copyright holders. There are many rumors, but no hard evidence. Let's clear up the rumors, shall we?
Also from the Stanford Law School Center's website derivative works page  'If you are an author or an artist and you want to use all or part of someone else's creation in your work, you may run into problems with claims that your art is a derivative work."
- K- Another excellent source, but it also gives qualified support for the case in favour of fan productions. I would direct you to "What is fair use and how does it relate to Fan Fiction?" and "Is FanFic an illegal act of creating derivative works?"--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok- Fair use does not cover fan fiction. Fair use statute states that using printed material for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Fan fiction poems, stories and scripts have none of these elements. Paramount has won its legal copyright suits against these fan fictions defendants.
From it's FAQ page  "Can I take a character from a movie, like Chewbacca from Star Wars, and use it in a play with a very different plot and otherwise different characters?" Answer: Probably not. The people who hold copyright in Star Wars own the characters as well as the plot, the filmed images, etc. Placing a distinctive fictional character in a different context or medium is still copying that character, and therefore infringement.++
- K- This is taken out of context. The questions on this page are all about using derivative work for commercial purposes. A fan film is by accepted practise not to be used for commercial purposes & acknowledges Viacom copyrights … and does not usually use characters from professional productions anyway.--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok- Copyright laws protect all intellectual properties no matter what the final re-use is. Many of the major Star Trek Fan video makers agree with me. The unlicensed or non-permitted property use is the violation. The copyright warnings say, "All content is protected by intellectual property laws and ANY use other that for private or public non-commercial purposes is STRICTLY PROHIBITED."
And some copyright case law says on this website  "DERIVATIVE WORKS. "Although a derivative work author usually has been authorized, through license, to incorporate the previous work into his derivation, he does not gain thereby a copyright in any preexisting material.+++
- K- The Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C. website you have quoted is a very detailed source, but it deals with the question: "When should you advise a client to register a derivative work with the United States Copyright Office? The answer may be any time you plan to enforce the client’s rights in court." Again, C's qualification deals with this - I can't think of any fan film which would be so bold as to want to commit such a spectacular suicide by trying this.--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok- I am trying not to repeat myself but your and your quoting of Hidden Frontier's 'Carlos' repetitive incorrect comments are forcing me to repeat the fact. Fan video and other fiction are illegal unprotected works and so are only called 'copies', are not protected works of any kind. I hope you see the difference. Unprotected & illegal = 'copies'; copyright licensed & protected = 'works'.
Clearly this law protects the original copyright holder from others illegally using these intellectual properties elements without getting first permission from the originator of the work. The law adversely affects writers of Star Trek fan fiction as represented in Star Trek video episodes and in Star Trek fiction, UNLESS those works were deliberately allowed by permission of the original Star Trek copyright holder. ViaCom/Paramount' owns the complete rights to Star Trek and has so for decades. Star Trek fan video makers using the many elements of Star Trek intellectual properties without ViaCom/Paramount's permission are not protected. Those producers and works are in direct legal jeopardy from the original Star Trek copyright owners initiating a 'cease and desist' order of the piracy of the original owner's Star Trek copyrights and filling a Federal court copyright theft case.
- K- I would suggest instead that we look at the informative Chilling Effects Clearinghouse website you introduced us to and see what it has to say about Piracy. I would particularly direct your attention to the section in their FAQ that elaborates on "Is all copying piracy?" where it says ... "To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider, in part:... [Snipped] ...(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Courts balance these factors, placing an emphasis on the fourth, however rulings have been unpredictable." I would suggest that this evidence to support my contention that this is should be considered a commercial rather than a legal problem.--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok- Your comment is misinformed again about when the element of 'commercial purposes' comes into this court decision. That element only becomes part of the copyright case after the defendants are found guilty of copyright infringement and the case moves into in the penalty phase. If the court feels that the re-use was widespread or limited will affect the level of fines the defendants will pay to the plaintiffs for their illegal re-use of the plaintiff's intellectual properties.
AND…. Carlos Pedraza, posted this comment about Hidden Frontier's copyright and 'derivative works' issues.
- K- I Snipped most of this post  about the difference between Copyrights and Trademarks. Its interesting but immaterial to the point in contention.--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok- I am sorry you made that narrow minded judgment. Those topics mentioned are part of this matter. Star Trek elements in videos and in fiction are BOTH copyrighted and trademarked protected. I have seen too much incorrect rumor and misinformation spouted by so-called informed video fans. I wanted to clear up those matters by posting the facts here. Your actions demonstrate something otherwise and only adds to the confusion of these issues.
"The issue with "Yesterday's Excelsior," Act 1, is specifically copyright because of the use of actual footage from the ST movies. I doubt Paramount would specifically allow their use. But at the very least, any use by HF of photos, footage or any other creative property actually produced by Paramount should explicitly acknowledge the proper copyright ownership is included in the episode. So at least no one can be accused of trying to claim a specific creative was an original production. HF, like any fan fiction, is properly regarded as a "derivative work," subject to no copyright protection of its own. Check out New Voyages' legal disclaimer at the footer of their homepage to see how they present the explicit acknowledgement of Paramount's copyright. For its part, Paramount suffers fan fiction or fan films only at its pleasure.
- K- Interesting... and your point is? This paragraph is consistant with the stated general fan film stance (a) They acknowledge the copyright ownership of the original Star Trek copyrights (b) They do not divert revenue from Viacom by accepting money (c) By being predominantly an "original work of authorship" they are by definition an unauthorised derivative work (d) They are non-confontationist and admit that they exist by the sufference of the copyright owners. I see nothing in any of this that supports your contention that fan films are copyright piracy.--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Dear Mr. (fan video maker) Kirok- I was showing by a direct quote from Carlos' Hidden Frontier bulletin board to other informed fan video fans that he was still incorrectly using the wrong confusing 'works' term (and not the correct 'copies' term) in his misinformation about these copyright legal issues. If you understand the correct use of the 'works' legal term in the copyright discussion, there is no such thing as 'unauthorized works'. That is wrong and clearly confusing. The using of other owner's copyrighted intellectual properties without permission is clear copyright piracy. It can't get any clearer than this unless you wish to have a day in court to inform you.
+Finally+: I find it very telling that it is a group of fan video crewmember who have argued and deleted this whole article with it's valid topic. With the complete article deleted, I guess they think this sensitive but interesting related topic will be less discussed in the public's knowledge. I wonder why they didn't choose to add or build on the article's pertinent copyright facts concerning fan video makers, since they had 'inside' information to contribute. They could have made the article better. They only wished to completely censor the article's topic. I feel that unrelated parties should be more unbiased to speak on these fan video matters. The fan video maker actions here are very suspicious. dec-05 [K- Paranoia aside, I see nothing suspicious. However you are right that these issues need to be addressed objectively. I was hoping that someone more qualified than I would do it, but in their absence I'll start the ball rolling, see below]
Response to response
I wanted to see if you're supporting your writing, as you assert. I checked the first four links in the disputed paragraph and found that they aren't relevant to where they are linked in the article. So you get no points for the links.
Second, myself and many other Wikipedia editors, give less weight to comments and edits made by anonymous users. After all, registration doesn't even require your real name. Myself, the longer that a user remains anonymous and making highly controversial edits, they lose what little weight they have.
Note that I'm not the person who checked all of the links and disputed each of them. Each of them were well-written and well-formatted. (Someone who bothers to learn the social and technical rules of what he's editing.) I just checked out your links and found them seriously wanting. While I find what you wrote believable, because of what companies and their armies of lawyers have done before, I suggest that you look in to your own links and try again for relevance. Val42 06:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Made entry a little less of an advertising puff piece :) In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the cast and crew. --Korvar The Fox 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's probably a good call. Thanks Mike. :) Nick-C 17:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Reminder about how to handle disputes
The Wookieepedian reverted an edit, claiming it's OK to leave an article posted while the dispute is being resolved or until the disputed sources in the 'Questionable Future for Fan Films' article are corrected. Sorry, but this goes against wikipedia rules.
I'd also encourage people involved in the dispute to re-read the rules about how the Talk pages are supposed to work so we keep in mind that the aim here is not sniping but working to achieve consensus based on verifiable sources. --Carlos 12:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems the fan video (Star Trek and other genres) copyright issue has hit a nerve with all this 'drama' involved. This is a valid maybe an uncomfortable topic of discussion for some here. I think Wiki can discuss all such topics. Disagreements are among posters. It does seem questionable that one Wiki account member, who has heavy connections to a specific fan video is consistently singling out this article’s valid topic by doing all this complete topic deletion. Then in his discussions on the matter, he is establishing his interpretation of the Wiki rule requirements for this article to pass his muster. This seems unfair to the topic airing in these entries. Anyway, in the cause of impartialness and fairness, it could be argued that he should stay out of this censoring process and recuse or disqualify himself from judging this topic. I would like to see this topic handled more equitably than presently. It needs to be posted.
RE: Posting Controversy
No one appears to be doubting the validity of copyright discussion vis a vis fan video productions. The dispute appears to be over one anonymous poster's lack of verifiable material. It has already been established that some of the links do not exist at all, while others are related to the discussion only tangentally, if at all.
"It does seem questionable that one Wiki account member, who has heavy connections to a specific fan video is consistently singling out this article's valid topic by doing all this complete topic deletion." Thus far, the lack of verfiable, relevant links brings the validity of the topic under question. As I understand it, his article needs to be bolstered with external citations from reliable sources that are also relevant. No one disputes that copyright law is relevant to fan productions. But if a person claims that Viacom has made an announcement in detail and then cannot produce that announcement, their credibility accordingly suffers.
More points of disclosure:
- Kovar & Nick C authors = USS Intrepid video crew. Whiting & Carlos authors = ST: Hidden Frontier video crew
Re: More points of disclosure. I believe you'll find both Carlos and Korvar already mentioned their affiliations. Furthermore, we would rather not be dragged into an argument that thus far has not involved us. Nick-C
This page has already reached 36Kb, well past the 32Kb suggested limit. Much as I would love to rebut some of the statements here (You can read what I have to say here), I believe a decision needs to be made as regards to whether this page should be split or have extraneous material summarised. --Kirok 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Go ahead and add to it. The 32kb size is suggested, not required. The Wookieepedian 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- OklyDokely--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Legal Issues section
This was the best I could come up with at short notice. Feel free to add or edit with any verifiable content. The conjecture and opinions of experts is great, even from people who are prepared to put their personal reputation on the line but from....?--Kirok 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Even More points of Disclosure: To call me a "fan video maker" is a joke! It is true I've made two music videos as trailers for the Trek United fan film campaign <sarcasm>Quelle horreur! my secret is out!</sarcasm>. I am primarily a Fanzine editor and writer. My nom de plume is an innocent vanity that can be easily cracked by a little research, it is simply a consistant online persona, and to see something sinister in it is pure paranoia.
--Kirok 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[Fruitless argument deleted from here to make space for real issues: refer to history page for details--Kirok 09:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)]
Opening section deleted, presumably by To** <sigh> ... 220.127.116.11 citing "Removed opinions and vague statements". It had an apocryphal story attributed to Lucas & Roddenberry. In mentioning this I was highlighting the way in which Lucas has successfully handled the transition of Star Wars into an out of production franchise that is thriving because he is caring for his fanbase by making it interactive - ostensibly at the suggestion of Gene Roddenberry. The quote following was just one of many in which Gene showed he supported his fans productions. My point was that Lucas has shown that it is a good commercial decision to allow organised, self-policing fan productions. I don't think that is an opinion, it is quantifiable, commercial success. Is it vague? Perhaps I should expand on it for 18.104.22.168? I'll leave it out for now, but I would be interested to hear you justify your deletion.
More importantly he deleted the whole paragraph about the legal, ethical and constitutional debate that the C&D's generated! What the ...? Not only does that go back in but I could double the size of it if you wanted to show the magnitude of the social outrage that the C&Ds caused. Explain please, 22.214.171.124 (this is getting tedious). This is accredited, high profile, legal and professorial opinion! We are to believe you above them? I think not. Give us counter points of similar weight that negate them if you want them out.
His other major deletion was a paragraph which had a number of verifiable points which I can give sources to - sorry I feel that this is relevant too and it goes back in. Or does 126.96.36.199 have some reason for people not knowing that fan productions have attempted to keep a low profile? The second half of the paragraph was to show that their current higher profile is not of their own making.--Kirok 09:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good day, sir. ;) The Wookieepedian 21:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Guys, don't fight in here, this is the war room! The Wookieepedian 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that the alien menace from the New Jedi Order series? If so, wouldn't the Star Trek Yuuzhan Vong Invasion be a Star Trek/Star Wars cross-over or at least should credit Star Wars? DrWho42 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Yuuzan Vong... in Star Trek?!? Now this I've gotta hear! What's your source for this? The Wookieepedian 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's in the article, actually.. =P Right betwixt Star Trek: Intrepid and Tales of the Seventh Fleet.DrWho42 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Listing Unfinished Fan Videos
This wikipedia entry is hilarious. Most of the fan projects listed haven't actually been completed, some aren't even past the script phase. I dunno, to me that's like entering a recipe card to a cooking contest, but apparently the "we have big plans" type of promotion is a big part of the fan film community.
- I must admit that 188.8.131.52 has a point, Whilst I do not advocate elitism, I think that listing of fan films here should either be restricted to a minimum standard or be categorised. These are the categories I have used in my own work ...
Fan film - Has produced episodes, not just trailers.
Fan film in production - Has started filming
Fan film in pre-production - Hasn't started filming, has a script & is preparing for filming
Fan film concept - Has a web page and is developing ideas for script and production.
Anything less is really just a wannabe which only deserve a single line if that. I can't find a single thing on the web about "Star Trek Yuuzhan Vong Invasion" without a single reference I think it should be struck--Kirok 11:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not an unreasonable suggestion. Nick Cee 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not in favor of vaporware being listed in the encyclopedia. IMO it should be completed and reasonably notable to warrant inclusion, otherwise we'll get every kid with a Handycam or an MPG maker wanting his/her homemade Trek episodes listed. 23skidoo 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, having seen many fan films announced and never made, or films having shot for a while and then never finished, I think this section needs to kept down to completed films only - and not only that, but films that have achieved some kind of public notoriety, at least, as the poster above notes. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that something like that Yuuzhan Vong thing will never get made. TheRealFennShysa 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can understand your point, and I too do not want to see frivolous entries detract from the substantial contributions of others, but it depends on the focus of this article: is it professional extensions on Trek canon or is it Fan produced extensions? The two deserve entirely different criteria for consideration.
- On the one hand any professional production deserves to be compared critically with others of its media, whether it be a novel, a game or a comic.
- On the other hand for a fan made production considerations of technical quality and expertise have only marginal significance. This is because the fan production is not meant for sale or any other consumption for the general public - it is meant for the enjoyment of the fans who make it and the fans who watch it. To judge them on the same level as professional productions goes against the whole spirit of their creation.
- If their significance needs be gauged, test it against the effect that they have made on fandom, in this case, Trek fandom. You might think that a minor fan film that is not as critically aclaimed as, for example, NV, HF or Exeter is of less significance. Have you considered its regional or national significance? Have you considered the breakthroughs that might have been made in using freeware or open source software for its CGI? The size or age of the cast or crew and their level of expertise? All of these innovations are of significance in the study of Star Trek, indeed SciFi fandom.
- If this causes an insoluble confusion, I think fan productions should be given their own article distinct from professional productions.--Kirok 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps they should be in their own article - but I think the issue of notability still applies... when a simple Google search on one of these film titles, say, Star Trek: A New Beginning brings up only one page or so of results, and the only major mention is the Wikipedia article, then they need to go - that saya to be some kids tossed their little video project online, and they're the only ones who know anything about it, and it's not noteworthy... the concept/announced films being listed is ludicrous, and should all be deleted, until they have something viable to show...
The entry on "Yorktown 2" is ludicrous - There are only sparse Internet facts about this Star Trek Vhs fan video being the FIRST initially produced and could be the 'Grandfather' of this fan video genre. Little specifics are known and more information is sought - ???? That kind of unsourced entry should go... TheRealFennShysa 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. It's also an example of an AFD magnet, too, should the fan videos section ever be spun-off into its own article. 23skidoo 19:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- AFD Magnet? I've reduced the Concept groups down to a single line, but frankly I don't think the Yuuzhan Vong entry should stay - any calls to keep it?
- A little more info in 'Yorktown 2' fan video, I have found that George Takei is supposedly acted in this fan video. I would like to know more about it. I still am having problems with unfinished but hyped factoried fan videos to take precident over finished and primiered fan videos. It doesn't seem very balanced or fair to any fan film makers. Netwriter 05:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the significance that fan produced material has had, not just on Star Trek fandom, but on Science fiction as a genre and the effect that Trek fandom has had on society, I feel justified in creating a seperate article for "Star Trek, fan made productions" For today all i have done has been to cut and paste the Fan production material from on article to the other, so no-ones material has been lost.--Kirok 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I checked the link that you gave above. No article. I checked for other articles with similar names. There are none. I then checked for other edits by this same user. There are none. The cut was done, and the paste hasn't shown up for over an hour now. That's a long time for just a cut-and-paste "from on article to the other, so no-ones material has been lost." Until the material shows up, I've reverted the "article split" that wasn't. Val42 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Bud - I'm searching for the reason it didn't take! I added the material and hit the page save then went to the talk page to make an entry about it. When I came back to look at something it wasn't there! The creation page says ...
"If you recently created this page and it has not yet appeared, it may be due to a delay in updating the database, or the page may have been speedily deleted. Please wait and check the deletion log before attempting to recreate it."
Either (a) The save didn't take or (b) it was a speedy deletion
I've checked the deletion log and the article isn't marked for deletion nor does the article seem to fit any of the criteria for apeedy deletion. How long am I supposed to wait?--Kirok 04:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not an administrator, so I don't know how long it could possibly take. But it should not have taken as long as it has been. Try the edit again. But make sure that the new article is there before deleting the information from the old article. Val42 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The article has been created and I copied and pasted this time so the original material is still there. I'll leave it there until i can be certain the the article doesn't evaporate with the morning dew!--Kirok 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Corrected link! I had a semicolon instead of a comma!--Kirok 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've checked again and the article hasn't disappeared so I'm going to delete the material from this article and start developing the new article.--Kirok 12:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:StarTrekComic2001.jpg
Image:StarTrekComic2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:STMissionToHoratius.jpg
Image:STMissionToHoratius.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The related link doesn't seem relevant to the article, wouldn't a link to Memory Beta be more appropriate. The ST Expanded link probably should be removed. The Star Trek fan productions articles might be a better place for that link. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)