My application to appear on the Dream On, America TV show, Star Trek episode has made the first cut. The Los Angeles office of ABC has asked me for a video pitching my proposal. My dream proposal involves the Birth of the Federation II game development. To complete the video I would like some better resolution examples of the ship models developed so far. Please will the members that have built models send me a picture of one or two models they feel are the best? Also look for the models that are most easily recognizable as Star Trek. My email address is

Flanagan@cableone.net

PM's sent to notify the modelers.

Good luck with this, Kenneth, the whole community will be behind you!

wow. I remember having read something about this application thing from you some time earlier..this "Dream on" you mean the comedy series? I actually don't know that much of American TV productions anyway. Anyway's right..what exactly will this appearance (and the video you'll need to get in) be about? I mean will you play as an actor or what (sorry I just don't get it seemingly )?

Im worried about the legalities of this. Television appearence will force the holders of the IP of trek licence to respond. They will either allow or deny the project to continue.

Maybe im over worried about this but still.

About pics, erm i supose i can whip up the romulan bop as thats finished. Maybe the miranda from a perspective i duno as its still unfinished.

I might still have that video you made me of your untextured Miranda hidden somewhere in my backups Skeeter. I'll see if I can dig it out if you want, Skeeter.

For those concerned.
One might try contacting an Attorney for informaton rather then speculate yes? Make that a Copyright attorney.

Hmm Think on this, the Legal Eagles of the show "Dream On" will have gone over all this information with the same from Paramount, otherwise they would not have placed such an offer out to the public.

Also, BECAUSE what you are making IS FAN FIC, and not being sold for a profit, they wont mess with anyone.

Now how do I know this information? Easy. I look up Copyright Attorneys
on the net, find out which ones will offer advice for free and ask questions.
You will be amased at what they will tell you and even research for you!

I contacted many because of the story I was writing on Romulus. Since I had there attention, I also asked about the games, of course without mentioning who or where they are being made or developed. Nor did I mention this site.

Hope that helps calms many folks. If not try what I suggested.

*Sorry this is not a speech, but an alternative to being worried.*

indeed. ("fair-use" law aside here)

it's just bad manner not to ask the owner of a legal right to use their content and to promote it and distribute the resulting work as free for download like we do currently. It simply does not work that way. If we want to make a 100% legal game, than we should scrap star trek theme totally. It's the brain-work of gene roddenberry & co., period.

The wikipedia entry for star trek fan projects (films mainly) sums it up pretty clearly, it's "sublegal" meaning as long as they don't mind, you don't need to worry. Of course we know that already but if it ever comes to the mind of paramount to dry out fan project swamps, they can do it and they can do it quickly.

So far Paramount has shown just one sign of legal activity in this corner, and that letter is pretty old (from the mid 90's) and went to a former st site which copied a lot of "stuff" (don't remember what exactly that was) from paramount. The link to the letter can be found on that wiki-page I mentioned.

To sum it up, we all need a written permission of Paramount, if we wanna make sure, nothing could ever happen to free download. Of course, we as the developers don't necessarily need the game to be copied & downloaded around since we mainly do it for ourselves here but it certainly would be a loss if that case happened.

It's btw. not so much about the money, no, they start to loose money even when we don't charge any download fees (which we don't of course but that's not the point here!) at that very moment when they decide to make a commercial turn-based st game or anything else close to botf. At that point, we begin to become nasty competition for the big money sector and then we can pull some very warm clothes on cause it will get cold in here

of course, only if anything's planned on their side which I'm not so sure it's not cause of the recent failures (Legacy..) and if our 4 botf2s here really start to go off (in a certain amount of downloads and publicity) then I'd wonder if they don't either buy us off or just kick us in the legal butt

Don't take these brainstormings of mine too serious but maybe there's a dot or two in those remarks that aren't too far-fetched .

Thanks Skeeter. I got your file and will look at is soon. Monday is plenty of time Trashman. We will shoot the video in studio this coming week. Editing will follow that and this is where and when the stills pictures you send will be used. Just to be safe I assure you I will not use the name of BOTF II.

I spoke with a media relations officer for a well-known organization here in the US. They have given me permission to use their name and have granted me thier support in other ways. They have already been in touch with ABC and Paramount about this program. I cannot say more at this time. It does, however, give me the feeling of being swiped along by fait. Many elements are falling in place with blinding speed. I must reach into my sole for the courage to rise to this occasion. It could still all come to nothing but it does not feel like it now. If you wish it was you doing this be careful what you wish for. Thanks for your support.

Put it this way if Paramount did have a problem with it then surely they would be aware of the project already? I agree with Skeet

I am sudent of law and I have found this thread very interesting, In first place my knowledge is with in European continental law not Anglo Sakson (common law).

For purpose of this tread I v done little research in Digital Milennium Act, Net Act and related web pages!

This are results:


A copyright is not a single right but rather is a bundle of several rights, each of which is unique. These are the rights to reproduction, derivative works, distribution, public performance, public display, and digital transmission of sound recordings. The acquired right to utilize copyrighted material under one of these rights does not imply the right to use it under another (for example, purchasing a copy for home performance does not give the possessor the right to perform the material at a theater).


1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.

Price erosion occurs in two ways. First, if the infringing item is a close substitute for the
legitimate product, it effectively increases supply which, in turn, decreases price. Second, the counterfeit or pirated items may depress demand for the legitimate product either by reducing its
exclusivity or by tainting its reputation, thereby creating pressure to lower prices. The infringement thus affects not only the lost sales replaced by the counterfeit or pirated item, but also the sale price
of the legitimate items.

3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."

False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain. Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.

It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission.

4) "My posting was just fair use!"

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations.
It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it .

5) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."

False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.


6) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."

It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do.


Intellectual properties are protected in same way in Europe to!

This is only a guideline for our game developers in Europe end U.S.A!

a student of law? funny, well first, that we have one here and second well I know as I said a lawyer and I can say, it's hard work no matter what people say ..

well to your findings, pretty much everything matches with my rather general remarks about it and to sum it up, we'd need to put some sort of letter together and simply ask those guys from Paramount if we can continue to use star trek content.

it's always a give and take in law matters (I know some stuff there as I mentioned ), well if they decide to drain us cause they want to make their own 4X-game they can do it now and I doubt much guys will notice on the net no matter how hard our protest then would be cause we'd be sued all personally then and that makes you keep your mouth shut real soon

as I said, we (the developers) don't need the public download, so we are ourselves in good cover under the fair-use and private-use act but well with nearly 500 downloads we still are but as you pointed out, if that thing (and I think if 3D combat would be implemented someday then the game reaches all kinds of players and can really hit moon ground to put it that way. I mean just look at the comments in our BotE Chat, ppl want 3D combat and a good one, auto-combat sucks for most graphic-"fixated" players ).

so it's either business as usual or we ask them or if the thing gets outta control (one thing that is on the one hand nice (and still far in the future if at all ) but on the other dangerous..) well then we'd have to pull the plug. I don't think we get sued cause there is no game currently announced from paramount which we would make competition on.

it's a thing to be seriously considered and since we got 2 playable versions out (ours with light AI soon, that's another big point towards completion), it maybe just about time to do so.

well, that's a thing to be discussed in private and will all major guys here together so I just throw that one in the round here.

thx for looking the stuff up btw. and well it's up to the devels now but I think legal stuff is too important to just sweep over even if it is strongly unsure if our games really will "go off" someday. I mean just look at botf, wasn't much of a success back then, I mean it hasn't drawn the money out of the teenies' pockets, it's a game for the more serious strategy guys amongst us and they may be not significant enough in numbers


P.S.: I don't think we should wait with that until there is publicity if at all, I mean writing to them could lead into sudden closure demand of the whole afc, so that's really to be strongly considered. On the other hand, if they are against this all here it's better we know it now than later when much more (economic..) damage's done which adds up to the lawsuit.

Just my opinion: Get the answer from Paramount now, get their blessing. It would be a quick but painful end (if it's one ).

Malvoisin,

You make a strong point! well several of you do.

Perhaps it might be wise if we or I should say the Devs, have someone who knows how to write in a corporate (legal) format, to submit this information to Paramount. That way, at least all the I's would be dotted and the "T"'s would be crossed.

I'm just a game player, with no intent other then playing a better game, as most of us are.

This is just an idea.

of course.

it's in some ways nuts what we do here. We think they don't do us any harm trusting on the goodwill of them and the bad press they would face if they decide to dry us down publicly.

That is a strong point too, don't wanna doubt that.

BUT we or better the other afc site (this domain for god's sake ) serves an illegal (it is, there is no way around) copy of botf1 and well that's ok as long as we don't reach a critical mass here but Zeleni made a good point with the game companies.
As long as jig serves that botf iso we better don't say anything about legalities here ... and don't write letters for that matter

Even if hasbro (a living and healthy company with the full rights on botf!!) does not say anything now cause it's simply not worth it considering our small community here, they will certainly if they smell business in here. Maybe they arrange with us and let us cheaply make a sequel to their botf for them and buy us off with a neat small sum (small for them compared to the costs of making a botf2 on their own) but maybe not.

Too much maybes for me here

If I were a devel, I'd be quick as hell and get hasbro and paramount to support me (who says one cannot arrange something like I said before?). It's all about getting into business. I don't think this communism idea of making it all for free will be appealing for them, I mean no I don't want to charge money, no that be certain death here in many aspects, but I think you have to look the other way round on this, they might wanna and well they got all the right to enforce their wish.

well since I am no devel, that's just my opinion but I think to just sit and wait for anything to happen may get hard on the devels later cause nobody will help em when they get civil lawsuits here I fear...

just one more thing, better to know how they see us now than later, could get troubling then. Problem's clear, site could be forced to close down, but well if they don't want us, they can just go to hell in my opinion..