Talk:Fan film

message: There is a reference, but this section is completely false, there is no grey area regarding copyright and trademark in this type of scenario, suggesting they might is buying into one of the biggest misconceptions online, people seem to think copyright and trademark only exists of you aim to make money.
Czarnibog (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality section

message: Note: Starwars.com and TheForce.net use "Fan film" as two words. See here for evidence. - Dr Haggis - Talk 18:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll leave it at that, then. Thanks. QuantumAdam 18:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two words

message: Addition: Added C2F Cinema, which is clearly another internet fanfilm source. Extended fanfilms.com description, as they host other films as well.. as seen here.  --GrgurMG 11:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: C2F

message: I deleted the statement "Fan films are very expensive to produce" because the phrase "very expensive" is only meaningful when the cost of something is (at least implicitly) compared to the cost of something else ... and fan films are inexpensive compared to the films they are inspired by. --Metropolitan90 09:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very expensive? 

message: I'd like to see some mention of describing fan films by method of production ...
* Live action
** Costumes, scenery
** CGI effects, Chromakeying (Greenscreen)
* Virtual reality
** Stop motion eg Lego Brick movies
** Machinima incl. Sim Movies
** CGI animation incl. Anim8r, Blender, Lightwave ...
The reason I bring it up in talk first is because it might be stretching the bounds of the definition of a fan film. Is a Sim movie a fan film? It is video created by fans. --Kirok 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production types 

message: Hello there. I notice a lot of links have recently been deleted on this page. I'm the director of one of the films for which a link was deleted, so I admit I have a vested interest in this, but I'd like to appeal against the deletion. The Movie: Yeah No Yeah No was the winner of the Red Dwarf fan film competition, and was released on the Series VIII DVD in Regions 1, 2 and 4. That DVD has sold hundreds of thousands worldwide. So yes, the link may be to self-published material, but non-notable? As the article says itself: "among the first fan films to be commercially released by a property's original creators". If the film is referred to in the article, surely it deserves a link? --IanIanSymes 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about fan films in general, not about specific fan films. A link to your site would be acceptable in an article about your film, but not here. Mushroom (Talk) 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 83.217.164.35 keeps trying to insert language to the effect that a Fox C&D letter was a "failed attempt" to shut down a Max Payne fanfilm, eventually adding link as a source - however, that link quite clearly shows that the Fox C&D *did* shut down the Max Payne fanfilm - the filmmakers did decide to continue the production, but without the Max Payne elements, making the continued production an original story, and no longer a fanfilm. The original wording ("Fox Studios, which used a cease and desist letter to close a Max Payne short that was in production") is the more accurate description of these events, and the changes mentioning "failed attempt" strike me as very POV and appear to be pushing an agenda on the part of the anonymous IP - since, in fact, the Fox C&D did shut down the fanfilm. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Payne edits 

message: I presumed that fan films were a type of fan labor and thus the article should sport a link to the fan labor article --  TheRealFennShysa reverted this edit, so I have to ask: is that assumption incorrect? If so, why?  To my knowledge (which may be faulty) fan films are labor-intensive works created by fans of a media property to celebrate, explore or criticize that property -- which is the same as the definition of any other creative fan work (fiction, machinima, video games, art, music videos, ...).  So, what am I missing?   I see 3 potential paths forward:
# edit this article so it is clear why fan films do not count as fan labor (without necessarily calling it out as "not fan labor" -- simply saying "fan films do not XXX" where XXX is a necessary condition for fan labor activities) -- fwiw, a clearer definition of a fan film or a well-known example of one would really be helpful to me to have in this article as well, since I am going off my experience with faux-trailers and personal recollection of Star Trek fan films, and after reading the article I wasn't 100% convinced that is what it was discussing, 
# edit the fan labor article so the definition is clearer (and attested) as to the reasons why it would (not) include fan films, or
# include the link to fan labor in this article (perhaps caveated however is appropriate), 
Multiple paths might be called for -- first am looking for an explanation since I admittedly have little background in fan films and could be missing something fundamental.... Elatb (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are fan films a type of fan labor? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fan film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091113153613/http://fancinematoday.com:80/2009/07/01/ghostbusters-video-game-gives-fan-films-a-shout-out/ to http://fancinematoday.com/2009/07/01/ghostbusters-video-game-gives-fan-films-a-shout-out/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section Fan film#Non-authorized fan films describes a film called Georgie with no mention of whether or not it is actually an authorized fan film. Is it non-authorized by virtue of the fact that the owners of the source material haven't said anything about it? in contrast with the other examples which describe the rights holders objecting to the fan films being made.
i guess another way to ask the question might be, does this article have 2 sections (fan films made with permission, fan films made without permission) when it should have 3 (films the copyright holder approves, films to which the copyright holder objects, and films about which the copyright holders have said nothing, possibly including films the copyright holders do not know exist)?
--173.67.42.107 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  authorized fan films or non-authorized fan films