Rumor Control: CBS Not Pulling Fan Films From YouTube

“Miramanee?”

Best Star Trek Fan Series, This and Axanar. I hope CBS does see the Potential for a fully Canon – Fledged Series!

I think using an actual screengrab is still asking for trouble – I can´t remember any other fanfilm crossing that line.

Well hopefully someone at CBS realizes that the fan films are unabashed, passionate, committed boots-on-the-ground free marketing. No marketing exec could dream up this kind of eord-of-mouth.

The fan films are also satisfying a need and keeping the flame alive for merchandising in the absence of an ongoing series. This tells me that somewhere at CBS someone understands Star Trek. Bravo.

Since when is “The Paradise Syndrome” —“Miramanee?”
Oh well–

Yes, the screen grabs are pushing it, too bad if these ruined it for all fan productions but so far so good, at this moment.

Just an odd comment: Both “Mind Sifter” and “The White Iris” more or less dissect Kirk. I like that but hope that now the poor guy can get back to full functioning. Seriously– he fell apart in nutrek too (“I’m sorry,” and then he kinda died) so, let’s get Kirk back to normal now, huh?

Here’s my theory: sabotage from someone who don’t like STC or its producers.

@6 NorthStar,

It all crosses the line. The only reason these fan series exist is because CBS allows it. There is no “fair use” defense for any of this. When these productions started off, they were amateur efforts in garages. Now they raise money, hire professionals, launch marketing campaigns, and generate income via web clicks and advertising.

The fact CBS allows an actual copyrighted image from the original production, is really no different than allowing copyrighted sets, costumes, and especially music. I was appalled looking at James Horner’s credits on IMDB that these productions are credited to him in a professional database, just because his music was illegally used without compensation to enhance these fans productions. Do they pay performance royalties to ASCAP & BMI? Do they pay re-use fees to the AFM for the recordings they use? CBS certainly can’t waive any of that. And to that end, you are correct that using a clip of an actress is covered by the Actors union, among others. CBS can waive their fees, but I’ll bet no one consulted the actress, who is the only person who can waive those fees to use her likeness.

@12 Agreed. I originally was of the mind that this was a Youtube copyright algorithim screw up like I myself experienced. However, if this were simply an algorithim screw up, or a question of using the Mirimanee lodge screen grab then thousands of Star Trek fan tribute and music videos which use footage from the TV shows and movies would be getting taken down as well.

On the other hand, it’s incredibly easy to report a copyright infringment via Youtube, and Youtube is usually quick on the trigger to pull the material in question after such a complaint is made.

CBS has always been good to the Fan Films! If anyone wishes to support New Voyages our Kickstarter is now up and Running with some Great perks!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2075083284/star-trek-new-voyages-phase-ii-2015?ref=video

Best to all our fellow fan film series!

@ James Cawley

I’ll be dropping some bucks your way on Friday (payday). The Engineering set is coming along nicely… the more Trek the better I say.

I told folks to not panic… sheesh.

@18 James, as a fellow ST and Elvis (who also liked ST), fan I have to ask, are you any relation to Elvis’ infamous “Hamburger” James Caughley, – just curious and good luck.

LLAP

@23 Garth, yeah and I remember a quote from from Walter Koenig, that stated that the check he received from that episode, was more than what he received from his entire run in TOS.

24: nix one of the “from”s ;^)

@12. There has been plenty of venom spewed their way, that would not surprise me. A shame, as far as fan productions go, STC isn’t bad….

#14. Curious Cadet – June 4, 2015

Copyright is a legal artiface and as such is not listed nor regarded as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. It confers a limited monoply not an absolute one that seeks to encourage the exchange of ideas despite the increasing attempts in recent times to use it to silence them.

Your notions of what fan productions use as “illegal” is based on what seem confused notions to me as to who owns the copyrights to the things used therein in the current state of the law. We can rest a$$ured that the standard industry contracts used by Desilu and then Gulf Western after them back then claimed all copyrights from those people for themselves as a corporate entity endowed with all the rights of a “real boy”, with the sole exception of the episode THE CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER where they botched it and that episode serves as proof that copyrights were conferred and NOT endowed back then.

Specifically in the case of the actress, Sabrina Sharf you can not retroactively bestow upon her rights and other union negotiated compensation which did not exist at the time of her work for hire and which GW’s standard contract claimed for itself to the maximum extent possible, anyway.

It is a fact Leonard Nimoy sought to challenge this in a lawsuit, but he settled out of court which failed to set any legal precedent for your claim for other actors’ image rights in the series in his so doing.

And here from 1996:

“Dybsca says: Hey, you’ve made it big time. You have action figures and a doll out,
which by the way, don’t do you justice. Do you own any? I read somewhere
that you weren’t being paid for products with your likeness as specified
in your contract. Has that been resolved?

Terry Farrell: We’re trying to resolve that as we speak. I have 3 dolls and have seen them. ”

http://www.reocities.com/trekguide/transcripts/farrell.txt

It is clear even when compensation is specifically negotiated in the Trek actors’ contracts in latter years that the studio still didn’t feel particularly compelled to act on compensation for using their likeness any more than it did with Leonard back then. I have to suspect the law can’t be as strong as the case you are trying to make against non-profit organizations’ use in this particular instance.

Your case for Horner’s music is interesting. But it seems based solely on the fact that he is credited as its originator by the imdb.com and NOT based on your personal witness that it was used beyond the uncompensated “sampling” that the courts have continually ruled is allowed under copyright law.

# 25. Son of Captain Garth – June 4, 2015

” Yeah, reusing an actor’s image is an entirely different matter; in effect, you are hiring them for a performance and even the studio has to follow that guideline. Back in ’96 (?), the Original Seven had to be paid again to use their footage for the DS9 tribble episode.” — Son of Captain Garth

That had to do with things negotiated in their contracts, NOT because any actor hired in the 1960s inherently had any such rights. And, again, the dispute was settled out of court:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-14/entertainment/ca-45870_1_star-trek

“Four original cast members from the 1960s TV series “Star Trek” have received a collective $1 million from Paramount to resolve a long-simmering dispute over merchandising royalties and other matters, while ensuring their future appearances on behalf of the entertainment franchise.

Although merchandise from the “Star Trek” string of four TV series and seven feature films has generated nearly $2 billion worth of retail sales, four of the actors in the series that started it all reportedly had received less then $85,000 between them before last month.

James Doohan (who played Scottie), Walter Koenig (Chekov), Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) and George Takei (Sulu) maintained that they were contractually entitled to 2.5% of the money Paramount made marketing their images from the TV series and feature films in which they appeared.” — ”4 Original ‘Trek’ Actors Settle Dispute for $1 Million : Television: The quartet who played Scottie, Chekov, Uhura and Sulu reach agreement with Paramount in a dispute over the marketing of their images.” | LA TIMES | September 14, 1995|DANIEL HOWARD CERONE | TIMES STAFF WRITER

#37. Prodigal Son – June 4, 2015

“Case in point, dude. Even if this was in error, this shows how easily stuff can get taken down if a big corporation requests it.” — Prodigal Son

Pointless speculation on your part as the BIG corporation says it didn’t instigate this which means there’s absolutely no evidence that whatever caused this could be employed in service of that. A glitch is a glitch, not something that can be relied upon nor should it. Also, the revocation of awarded domain names has absolutely nothing to do with YouTube’s video pulling process or it’s heuristic.

Perhaps they can now put the first episode of star trek the new animated series back online as well

#39. Prodigal Son – June 4, 2015

YouTube is NOT an ISP…fact!

You keep trying to equate things that are not equivalent.

#39. Prodigal Son – June 4, 2015

” This more than reinforces my general point..” — Prodigal Son

Arbitration is the fastest method of Domain Name dispute resolution available:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/process.html

And it takes about 45 days. That is a fact!

This does NOT more than reinforce whatever point it was you thought you had.

Also, Michael has been actively developing CBS industry contacts and has been directing his pitch directly at the current copyright holder. This puts CBS in a very awkward position to only go after him and not at the same time shutdown websites used to promote forming other STAR TREK series’ pitches such as those dedicated to the Captain Worf idea. Not to mention all those “novelists” online who claim to be writing the next great Trek novel to submit unsolicited to CBS’ publishing arm.

@34. Disinvited,

I think the misunderstanding here is that I am referencing SAG clip fees. Staring in 1960 any footage of an actor from one TV show could not be re-used in another production without additional compensation to the actor, which further required the fee be negotiated with the actor (i.e. not a set rate). That is the likeness I am referring to. Merchandising is a completely different matter and doesn’t apply to clip from the series used in this fan fiction anyway. Unless they negotiated such a fee with the original actor, or her estate, then that is theft.

As for the music, there are two issues, which have nothing to do with my IMDB observation (that just irritates me). One is the synchronization of music to picture. This is a right controlled by the publishers. There is no “parody” allowed for this kind of use, and the publishers have successfully fought these kinds of uses. However, since Paramount is the owner of this music, they may well have tacetly granted the synchronization rights for fan fiction use (and depending on their contract with Horner may or may not be compelled to require a fee to be split with the composer). The second is more important. That’s the performance rights paid to the composer for the public performance of the music in the film. Horner is entitled to a performance royalty every time the music is performed in the film. Since internet streaming is considered broadcast, on demand streaming is a public performance. Therefore, Horner is being denied income if someone is not paying a performance rights license fee to ASCAP and BMI to be dispersed to Horner. And that is theft.

@ Disinvited

I never equated those terms at all. You are falsely assuming that, and trying to counter my overall illustrative point through strawman minutiae.

Keep trying to work the Kobayashi Maru on me — I give you credit for trying to redefine what I am saying so as to prevail here…lol

@ Disinvited

My response is stuck in moderation….