Talk:Star Trek spin-off fiction

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)

Self promotion

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

You claimed:

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.

Unsubstantiated Allegations

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

File:Mpaa.jpg

Screenshot from respectcopyrights.org says something different from what the author of 'Questionable Future' claims

Further, you claim:

Legal departments are very concerned about the proliferation of video file downloading websites[1] 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 cites "... and Star Trek fan video home websites that also use alleged pirated copyright, trademark and franchise licensed Paramount intellectual properties. [2]"

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 makes 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.[3]

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:

Star Trek fan video makers have made little definitive public statements on this topic.[4] - [5]

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.[6]

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[7].

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 [8]

I found quite a few problems with your "archive page":

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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. [9]

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.

Conclusion

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 censoreship 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 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)

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)

Intrepid Entry

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

Reminder about how to handle disputes

Wookiepedian 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)