CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Corran Horn]

What does CBS have to lose in this?

Beyond the small percentage of 1% of all Star Trek fans that even know what Axanar is, I mean.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

What does CBS have to lose in this?

Beyond the small percentage of 1% of all Star Trek fans that even know what Axanar is, I mean.

They have nada to lose.

All they're thinking right now is: "Star Wars is racking up the cash and still putting butts in seats, possibly still selling out at different theaters. People are ready for Episode 8. So how can we get some of that crowd ready for the next Trek film and the upcoming series....and retain that crowd?"

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I was digging through the court records on the Carol Publishing case I referenced earlier, and there Paramount apparently did not actually collect any monetary damages. The parties reached a settlement where the publisher simply had to destroy all remaining copies of the infringing books they had in stock. Similarly, I would expect the studios here would require Peters and Axanar Productions to destroy (or turn over to them) any sets, props, costumes, and models developed in connection with Axanar. CBS and Paramount would likely be satisfied with that and not seek further monetary damages.

Peters & Co have entered into commercial deals with third parties. This case is different from the one you quote for that reason - and just because a party doesn't follow up something to which they are entitled to in one case doesn't mean they won't in another.

Often it will come down to whether or not it is in their overall interest to pursue a financial judgment. In the case of the example you referred to, the earnings from the book were probably so low as to not make it worth pursuing the judgment. In this case I think it will depend on benefit vs cost. There is also the question of monies owed to other parties, such as the donors, if the copyright has been breached. Since we're talking about over $1m it could well be that there is a class action against Peters & Co on behalf of the donors, along with any other claims arising out of the termination of the production, and that could also impact what the studio does in terms of enforcement.

But I do generally agree, I suspect the primary motivation of the studio on this occasion is be to send out a message to the fan community illustrating what they will and won't tolerate.

 

[oswriter]

I was digging through the court records on the Carol Publishing case I referenced earlier, and there Paramount apparently did not actually collect any monetary damages. The parties reached a settlement where the publisher simply had to destroy all remaining copies of the infringing books they had in stock. Similarly, I would expect the studios here would require Peters and Axanar Productions to destroy (or turn over to them) any sets, props, costumes, and models developed in connection with Axanar. CBS and Paramount would likely be satisfied with that and not seek further monetary damages.

Peters & Co have entered into commercial deals with third parties. This case is different from the one you quote for that reason - and just because a party doesn't follow up something to which they are entitled to in one case doesn't mean they won't in another.

Often it will come down to whether or not it is in their overall interest to pursue a financial judgment. In the case of the example you referred to, the earnings from the book were probably so low as to not make it worth pursuing the judgment. In this case I think it will depend on benefit vs cost. There is also the question of monies owed to other parties, such as the donors, if the copyright has been breached. Since we're talking about over $1m it could well be that there is a class action against Peters & Co on behalf of the donors, along with any other claims arising out of the termination of the production, and that could also impact what the studio does in terms of enforcement.

But I do generally agree, I suspect the primary motivation of the studio on this occasion is be to send out a message to the fan community illustrating what they will and won't tolerate.

Your points are all well taken. The author in that case was a Bronx assistant prosecutor who garnered quite a bit of sympathetic press in the New York media. While Peters may not be as sympathetic, I don't think Paramount and CBS Studios (or their attorneys) are out to get him personally. This is just business, as they say.

That said, I would argue the third-party deals you mentioned might actually further dissuade the studios from seeking a monetary judgment. If I were in there position, I wouldn't take a dime and just leave him to the mercy of his donors and creditors.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I was digging through the court records on the Carol Publishing case I referenced earlier, and there Paramount apparently did not actually collect any monetary damages. The parties reached a settlement where the publisher simply had to destroy all remaining copies of the infringing books they had in stock. Similarly, I would expect the studios here would require Peters and Axanar Productions to destroy (or turn over to them) any sets, props, costumes, and models developed in connection with Axanar. CBS and Paramount would likely be satisfied with that and not seek further monetary damages.

Peters & Co have entered into commercial deals with third parties. This case is different from the one you quote for that reason - and just because a party doesn't follow up something to which they are entitled to in one case doesn't mean they won't in another.

Often it will come down to whether or not it is in their overall interest to pursue a financial judgment. In the case of the example you referred to, the earnings from the book were probably so low as to not make it worth pursuing the judgment. In this case I think it will depend on benefit vs cost. There is also the question of monies owed to other parties, such as the donors, if the copyright has been breached. Since we're talking about over $1m it could well be that there is a class action against Peters & Co on behalf of the donors, along with any other claims arising out of the termination of the production, and that could also impact what the studio does in terms of enforcement.

But I do generally agree, I suspect the primary motivation of the studio on this occasion is be to send out a message to the fan community illustrating what they will and won't tolerate.

Your points are all well taken. The author in that case was a Bronx assistant prosecutor who garnered quite a bit of sympathetic press in the New York media. While Peters may not be as sympathetic, I don't think Paramount and CBS Studios (or their attorneys) are out to get him personally. This is just business, as they say.

That said, I would argue the third-party deals you mentioned might actually further dissuade the studios from seeking a monetary judgment. If I were in there position, I wouldn't take a dime and just leave him to the mercy of his donors and creditors.

Well, there is the question of profits acquired by third parties as a consequence of that deal. However, that would likely be a consequential claim dependent on a successful trial outcome...that is unless the court has scope to consider the third parties as "the John Does" named in the proceedings.

That said, I doubt the merchandise revenue was substantial. I think the crowd funding will be the main issue. If there were to be a class action I guess the studio could always join as a party if there were assets to be be recovered. That would likely reduce the litigation costs.

One thing is for certain, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out once the injunction is obtained.

 

[oswriter]

Well, there is the question of profits acquired by third parties as a consequence of that deal. However, that would likely be a consequential claim dependent on a successful trial outcome...that is unless the court has scope to consider the third parties as "the John Does" named in the proceedings.

I think you may be on to something there. If the studios want to destroy all of the merchandise created around Axanar--such as those patches that Peters and Burnett are always crowing about--you'd probably need to bring in at least some of those third parties in as defendants.

That said, I doubt the merchandise revenue was substantial. I think the crowd funding will be the main issue. If there were to be a class action I guess the studio could always join as a party if there were assets to be be recovered. That would likely reduce the litigation costs.

It would be interesting to see if either the studios or a class action firm representing the donors went after Kickstarter and Indiegogo. For that matter, you might even see a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. After all, Axanar's use of donor funds to create Ares Studios arguably makes their fundraising a type of securities offering.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Well, there is the question of profits acquired by third parties as a consequence of that deal. However, that would likely be a consequential claim dependent on a successful trial outcome...that is unless the court has scope to consider the third parties as "the John Does" named in the proceedings.

I think you may be on to something there. If the studios want to destroy all of the merchandise created around Axanar--such as those patches that Peters and Burnett are always crowing about--you'd probably need to bring in at least some of those third parties in as defendants.

That said, I doubt the merchandise revenue was substantial. I think the crowd funding will be the main issue. If there were to be a class action I guess the studio could always join as a party if there were assets to be be recovered. That would likely reduce the litigation costs.

It would be interesting to see if either the studios or a class action firm representing the donors went after Kickstarter and Indiegogo. For that matter, you might even see a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. After all, Axanar's use of donor funds to create Ares Studios arguably makes their fundraising a type of securities offering.

Under Kickstarter's terms of service they state that you cannot use copyrighted properties without permission. I guess a lot will come down to whether or not they were lead to believe that Peters had permission from CBS. I think they'd be off the hook if Peters agreed to the terms on their website disingenuously.

 

[Franklin]

Amazing. On the Kickstarter and Indiegogo sites they basically claim they are out-Trekking "Star Trek". "Fan film" is in quotes as they stress using all professionals (which probably means almost all are union people, who as others have said upthread, almost certainly don't give away their skills for free). They say it will be the quality of "Star Trek" fans want to see because it "feels" like "Star Trek". They also call it a "feature film," saying they are trying to prove a feature-quality "Star Trek" film can be made on a small budget. They say one of the actors, Richard Hatch, is learning Klingon for his role. Yet, isn't the Klingon language the explicit IP of CBS and subject to copyright protection?

My God, prior to starting this project, wouldn't they have a lawyer vet their overall business plan and statements about it for potential IP issues or other red flags about non-profit status before they released it all?

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I just hope that none of this affects Aurora - that show/series is great

I hope so too, that show is one of the only two fan shows I watch (the other being Phase II.) I don't want to see the Vinings (Tim & Jeanette) affected by this dumbassed turd Alec Peters's megalomania towards CBS & Paramount. As others have stated here, I'm glad I didn't donate any money to this production.

 

[Balrog]

My God, prior to starting this project, wouldn't they have a lawyer vet their overall business plan and statements about it for potential IP issues or other red flags about non-profit status before they released it all?

Peters is a lawyer. He probably (and quite arrogantly) vetted it himself.

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client" - Honest Abe Lincoln

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

I was just wondering about something. Although we can speculate about this, that and the other... Is Axanar Productions and Ares Studios two legally separate companies?

Also... Kittens Recreate Kirk v Spock

 

[Karzak]

Is Peters' behaviour reminding anyone else of a certain Captain Garth of Izar? Perhaps he's immersed himself in the character a little too much...

LORD GARTH!

 

[yenny]

I've found this pdf https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/c2b64a34-377a-42f4-98c5-631e327a356e.pdf It's 54 pages long, y'all should read it. According to past castes that are in it. Axanar production might have a chance of continue filming the battle of Axanar. But CBS and Paramount still have the chance of controlling of how the story is told or completely shutting it down. That if the court decide that uses of a supporting character is a copyright infringement. But everything else may not be consider infringement. Like the uses of race and ships, except for the Enterprise. It would be consider a infringement in changing the location of where she was built. Also according what was written in the pdf, Fan Films don't have the right to fair uses castes, cause they are consider noneducational.

 

[Amaris]

I was just wondering about something. Although we can speculate about this, that and the other... Is Axanar Productions and Ares Studios two legally separate companies?

Also... Kittens Recreate Kirk v Spock

Ares Studios is its own company, and is producing Axanar, if the website is to be believed: http://www.axanarproductions.com/ares-studios-launches/

Also, this little snippet may hurt them:

The leasing of this warehouse is due to YOU the donors, and thus you are all part of this project. And, it enables us to not only produce “Axanar”, and other Star Trek and Sci-Fi projects, but to bring you Sci-Fi Film School and Axacon, the coolest Star Trek convention ever, where you will actually get to be part of your own film on the Axanar sets.

Intellectual property? What's that?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I was just wondering about something. Although we can speculate about this, that and the other... Is Axanar Productions and Ares Studios two legally separate companies?

Also... Kittens Recreate Kirk v Spock

That would be interesting to learn, because Peters now says that "Ares Studios" is only what they affectionately call their rented warehouse/soundstage.

From the comment section of Trekmovie.com's article on the litigation:

339. Alec Peters - January 1, 2016
So many misstatements of fact in this article (written anonymously I note) and legal opinions that are utter trash. (I am sorry, did Trekmovie get a lawyer on staff?)

No one bothered to call me for comment. And EVERYONE knows how to get a hold of me at Trekmovie.

And as to the total misstatements here in the comments? UGH.

NO ONE is profiting from Axanar.

Yes, it is a full time job for a few of us. If you don’t like that, too bad.

And no, we are not building a for-profit studio with Axanar donations. We built a sound stage that we lovingly call “Ares Studios”. (Yes, we would love to make for-profit movies at some future time, but haven’t even done anything about that).

If you want to discuss any of this with me, join the Axanar Fan Group on Facebook where we discuss everything about the production in an open, honest, polite way. But note, no trolls.

Alec Peters
Executive Producer
Axanar

Seems like a lot of backpedaling on their previous statements about their production. A lot of redacting, retconning going on now, considering their previous statements about the studio space.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

More from David Gerrold on the Axanar situation and lawsuit.

To be honest, it feels disingenuous, especially when he says he has no dog in the fight. He works as a consultant to the Axanar production, giving notes on the script. He "showruns" New Voyages. And Ares Studios had stated their intention to produce one of Gerrold's works.

What's even more disingenuous is that last year during the Hugo Awards controversy Gerrold got mad at me for creating a joke blog and Twitter account under the name "Noah Ward". Gerrold had used that same pseudonym for a couple episodes of Logan's Run in the '70s and had it registered with the Writer's Guild, which he felt meant that nobody else can ever use that name for anything ever again. He seemed to believe that the WGA name registration is legally binding and would be upheld by a court. Unlike, apparently, copyright.

 

[Franklin]

My God, prior to starting this project, wouldn't they have a lawyer vet their overall business plan and statements about it for potential IP issues or other red flags about non-profit status before they released it all?

Peters is a lawyer. He probably (and quite arrogantly) vetted it himself.

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client" - Honest Abe Lincoln

That explains so much!

 

[Karzak]

No one is profiting off Axanar?

Burnett's comments in the past (the Blastr article in August 2015) declare otherwise:

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

More from David Gerrold on the Axanar situation and lawsuit.

To be honest, it feels disingenuous, especially when he says he has no dog in the fight. He works as a consultant to the Axanar production, giving notes on the script. He "showruns" New Voyages. And Ares Studios had stated their intention to produce one of Gerrold's works.

What's even more disingenuous is that last year during the Hugo Awards controversy Gerrold got mad at me for creating a joke blog and Twitter account under the name "Noah Ward". Gerrold had used that same pseudonym for a couple episodes of Logan's Run in the '70s and had it registered with the Writer's Guild, which he felt meant that nobody else can ever use that name for anything ever again. He seemed to believe that the WGA name registration is legally binding and would be upheld by a court. Unlike, apparently, copyright.

What about that kid that played Boxey in the original BSG?

 

[nx1701g]

I was just wondering about something. Although we can speculate about this, that and the other... Is Axanar Productions and Ares Studios two legally separate companies?

Also... Kittens Recreate Kirk v Spock

That would be interesting to learn, because Peters now says that "Ares Studios" is only what they affectionately call their rented warehouse/soundstage.

From the comment section of Trekmovie.com's article on the litigation:

339. Alec Peters - January 1, 2016
So many misstatements of fact in this article (written anonymously I note) and legal opinions that are utter trash. (I am sorry, did Trekmovie get a lawyer on staff?)

No one bothered to call me for comment. And EVERYONE knows how to get a hold of me at Trekmovie.

And as to the total misstatements here in the comments? UGH.

NO ONE is profiting from Axanar.

Yes, it is a full time job for a few of us. If you don’t like that, too bad.

And no, we are not building a for-profit studio with Axanar donations. We built a sound stage that we lovingly call “Ares Studios”. (Yes, we would love to make for-profit movies at some future time, but haven’t even done anything about that).

If you want to discuss any of this with me, join the Axanar Fan Group on Facebook where we discuss everything about the production in an open, honest, polite way. But note, no trolls.

Alec Peters
Executive Producer
Axanar

Seems like a lot of backpedaling on their previous statements about their production. A lot of redacting, retconning going on now, considering their previous statements about the studio space.

I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't someone getting a salary be someone profiting?