Main Site | Join Robin Hood Coop | Projects | Events | Blog | Media | Forums | Mailing List | Twitter | Facebook

Star Wars fan films for charity

The so called fan films that are made by thousands and are seen in internet, in Youtube etc., made by amateurs but also by professionals that have at least some experience in filmmaking, must be shown without profit. There is netpage fanfilms net that has over 3000 fanfilms, far from complete list because some of the most recent fanfilms seem to be missing there and that list is mostly fanfilms from early 2000s.
Rules are that fanfilm must not make profit for their maker. But how about fanfilms that do not make any profit to fanfilm maker but make profit for charity organization? For example Unicef, Doctors Without Borders etc. charity organizations that work in poorest areas of the globe and bring help to people that have most acute need for help, because they are dying of starvation, they don t have medical treatment etc. If it would be possible to donate all money earned from those fanfilms to charity for people who have most urgent need, that would not violate the rule that fanfilm must not generate profit for fanfilm maker. Another way is that fanfilm maker donates fanfilm to charity organization, so of course then fanfilm maker is not able to make profit.
That would allow distribution of fan films for profit, but that profit goes to charity organization. Fanfilm makers have nothing to lose because they have no profit anyway. What are then the rules for fanfilm distributor? Is distributing company, like movie theatre film distribution company, allowed to have some profit from selling movie tickets to fanfilms whose ticket price percentage of film maker goes to charity organization and film distributor gets its usual share, or there is less profit for distributor also (some of ticket sale percantage profit that goes to distributor goes now to charity), or also distributor is not allowed to have any profit, and 100% of ticket price goes to charity? If at least some part of movie ticket price goes to film distributor that would make fan films easily available in nearest cinema.
Fan films are sometimes crude, but some are made at professional way. Most popular fan films are Star Trek fan films (Star Trek actually started whole fan film thing) and Star Wars fan films.
It is generally accepted that Disney Star Wars films (“new trilogy” films) are just mess, and that Disney spoiled whole Star Wars thing when Disney bought that “franchise” from George Lucas at 5 billion dollars. It has been also reported that Lucas is much disappointed about the way how Disney treated Star Wars.
So Lucas now has 5 billion dollars of money but he cannot make Star Wars the way he used to be, all must go through Disney “development hell” and almost all of Lucas s own ideas and scripts for Star Wars are rejected by Disney staff, it has been reported.
So how about George Lucas making his own Star Wars fan films? He has about 5 billion dollars money which he earned by selling away Star Wars franchise, can he give something back to fans? Those fans that made Star Wars so big thing through the years, and those fans earned Lucas his billions. If Lucas for example invests one billion of his 5 billion fortune for making for example 10 fan films each with 100 million dollar budget, he now can make those films exactly the way he wants them to be made, and such Star Wars films that he wanted them to be, not Disney-spoiled mess. And because profit from those films are donated to charity, he will have tax rebates (money donated to charity means tax rebates) so he actually can have some or most of that 1 billion back, although he then can make 10 Star Wars films of his own with approx. 100 million dollar budget each. If those “fan films” are popular it will generate large sums of money for charity, for example for Unicef, Doctors Without Borders etc., and this money will help millions of people in poor countries enormously, save millions of lives from hunger, starvation, death and sickness.
One aspect of making fan films is that donating money to charity is noticed in taxation, donations for charity are approved in tax rebates. Fan films by nature must make no profit for their filmmaker. So making a fan film and donating profit for charity (or simply donating that whole film to charity) is not perhaps so costly if some or most of that film s expenses are covered with tax rebates.
And then fan films would make lives of millions of people in poor countries better, save their lives from starvation and sickness, perhaps several million deaths could be prevented each year if fan films, there are thousands of them, fan made TV / internet series etc., could make money for charity and that money is directed to those people that need it most in poor countries.
How about distribution of fan films for charity? There are already thousands of fan films made, and perhaps over hundred are made each year. Makers of those films are not allowed to earn money with those films, so they can for example give that film (copyright) to some charity organization, that makes sure that filmmakers themselves do not have profit, which is the rule for fanfilms. Nowdays situation is that fanfilm have neither profit nor distribution, but when donated to charity it will have at least distribution and people would see it more often than in some obscure Youtube netpage where those fanfilms are hidden and they are difficult to find. Or filmmaker keeps copyright to itself and gives all money generated with the film to charity. If distributor is cinema distributor, selling movie tickets, if no profit is allowed then arrangement where distributor s cost of film distribution are covered, but no profit is allowed to fanfilm distributor, it will make no financial loss to fanfilm distributor and no profit. At least then film distributors could distribute fanfilms donated to charity without financial loss. The profit that normally goes to film distributor goes now for charity too. This same goes for DVD distribution and digital distribution too. Or if fanfilm rules are set only for filmmakers, not for distributors, the distributor can have normal ticket sale percentage profit.
There is whole segment of film industry, “fan films”, that are not allowed to make money. Still there is interest among people to see fanfilms, but they lack distribution. Some of those are no-budget turkeys but some are quite good. If donated to charity (or profit from them donated to charity), those films could be the way to earn money for charity organizations, save lives of people, and those fanfilm filmmakers have nothing to loose because they can not make money of their productions anyway, but their products could save millions of lives, if all fanfilms worth watching would have proper distribution.

Another aspect of making fanfilm is that they are totally free of economical constrains of other films. Because fan films are not allowed to make profit, (not profit for their makers), they are completely free of usual compromises that plague commercial films. Because commercial films must sell there is many artistic restrictions what the end product must be. However fan films offer complete artistic freedom for their makers, although not much of a budget. But for that small amount of money they can make such kind of film what they want. For example film length, in IMDb The longest films of all time is list of longest films. Commercial films are often edited down from much longer material. Sergio Leone s “Once upon a time in America” had 8 hours of possible length that was edited to 5 hours 35 minutes or something like that? If that was the “almost 6 hour version” length, but released version was much shorter. In fanfilm there is no limits for film runtime, and some small budget Star Wars fanfilms have over 2 hour length and are longer than official Star Wars films. There are no artistic restrictions whatsoever (except small budget) in fan films. Violence and pornography is forbidden but the same goes for all films that have unrated distribution. Director of fan film can make film just the way he/she likes, and edit it just the way he/she likes. Sam Peckinpah was going to make small, couple thousand budget film after he was ousted out of Hollywood, but died before that. If there is way to donate fan film to charity, and fan films can then earn money for some charity organization, fan films could then actually save lives of people, in Africa etc. That means fan films need some kind of distribution where money generated by films donated to charity goes to charity organization. Same for any film that is donated to charity, not just fan film of some franchise like Star Wars or Star Trek. If film, any film, not just fanfilm, is donated to charity, director has complete freedom to make own artistic decisions because film is not gonna make profit for their makers. But it can perhaps make money for charity organization.

Fan films is class of media that is not allowed to make profit for their makers. Another form of media that make no profit for their makers is free music software, like free softsynths (VSTs and “standalone”) and free DAWs (digital audio workstations). Unlike fanfilms that are forbidden to make money for their makers, free music software is voluntarily given without cost (although that is copyrighted material, owner of copyright / maker of music software allows “selling” his/hers stuff without cost).
Distribution channel is internet. But in countries in Africa internet is usually very costly. So in continent where poorest people live has also most costly internet connection. So although free music software has no cost, internet line price is often costly, and low quality, and large files cannot be perhaps not be send at all through bad connection. Therefore distribution using cheap DVD ROM discs is more suitable in those areas. Then those discs must have some price. Selling this software at some cheap price, several dozen free VSTs in one DVD ROM in low price, one dollar or few dollars. Distributor perhaps needs some percentage of sale price, but most of price can be donated to charity organizations that work in Africa. Not only Africa, poor countries in Asia and South America can use this way of music software distribution. And while music software is sold it also collects money for charity organizations working in same country where music software is sold. DAWs / audio editors and audio effect VSTs can be sold also, not just softsynths. Both “standalone” software and VST / VSTi standards. Although several music software programs can be grouped to one DVD ROM, large programs like Csound with some “wrapper” like Csound Blue can be sold in DVD ROM without other programs, so then DVD ROM has only Csound and its “wrapper”.
There is also lots of abandonware software, like old computer (PC, Apple, Commodore, Atari etc.) games and other old computer software. Those can be used with (free) emulator. That abandonware material can also be sold putting different collections of it in DVD ROM discs and then sold in development countries at low price.
There are also lots of feature films that are shown in youtube, for example thousands of Bollywood films, and hundreds of russian film classics that Mosfilm has put to youtube. They have very small amount of profit when using youtube as distribution channel. And in Africa etc. internet is costly, so although youtube may be free internet cost of watching two hour film can be expensive, compared to small amount of money that people have in those poor countries. So also feature films that are shown in youtube can be collected to one DVD, using large amount of video compression so several hours of material fits in one DVD, dual side DVD for example. Film copyright holders can be paid same amount of money that is paid in youtube viewing per film. Most of one or two dollar cost goes however to charity organization, although DVD has several films, and some percentage of cost goes to DVD distributor also. Even in western countries DVD films are sold at 1 or 2 dollar cost in supermarkets in cheap cardboard sleeves, in third world countries DVD distribution would be even cheaper. Cost of manufacturing DVD discs (and Bluray discs also) is almost nonexistent in bulk factory order from China or India etc. So most of DVD price can go to charity, although in DVD has several films, and DVD selling cost is only one or two dollars. Also there is thousands public domain films, that for example Mill Creek Entertainment sell in 50 film or 100 film packs in video compressed DVDs. Instead of normal DVD video compression movie file can be in DVD ROM disc and some more effective and modern (free) video compression can be used, so more films fit in one DVD.
So charity organizations in third world could collect money in third world selling computer software and films, and it would have no negative effect to owner of that copyrighted material. Fanfilms are not allowed to make profit, public domain films are free, feature films put to youtube can be put to DVD also and paid same amount of money that is paid per youtube viewing, and computer software that is either freeware (or copyrighted but distributed for free) or abandonware that will not make profit anyway. But all this material can make money for charity organizations in third world countries.
Memory cards and USB sticks are another method of distribution, but then software / movie piracy is a problem, so cheap DVD discs in cardboard sleeves are then best solution for distribution? Actually Bluray disc manufacturing is almost as cheap as DVD discs, but BD-ROM is not used anymore in computers, not in large scale. So cheap BD-ROM stations in computers are needed? Or simply use DVD ROMs and DVD discs, they are everywhere. Perhaps DVD ROM discs can be coated with “Durabis” coating of Blurays or similar coating to prevent disc damage. There are methods like “iLok” to prevent software / digital material copying.