• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here in the UK i'm on the website fine. Nothing's changed from the other day when I checked, Tony Todd is still front and center on the cast list.

You'd think if they could do ONE thing, it would be taking off the big picture of the cast member who publicly said he wouldn't work with them ever again.
 
Website is back up. I am on it now and it includes the new articles (like Gerrolds post) so its not a backup copy.
 
Here in the UK i'm on the website fine. Nothing's changed from the other day when I checked, Tony Todd is still front and center on the cast list.

You'd think if they could do ONE thing, it would be taking off the big picture of the cast member who publicly said he wouldn't work with them ever again.

Further proof that Peters has zero fucks left to give about these items of interest that we are all noticing...

...or he feels he has bigger fish to fry and isn't worrying about it.
 
Ah yes...back up for me too...and they're proudly waiving Paramount's IP in their face with that banner video.
 
I have a question: what happens if CBS has proof they communicated with him in August that they were going to shut him down and he kept collecting money from and making promises to his donors?
 
From Alec's viewpoint things may have seen alright at CBS and he may have talked to his contacts etc. Paramount maybe the main driving source of the lawsuit, and they had to get CBS involved (because they are the main owners of Star Trek). This would explain how Alec was 'seemingly' blindsided by this. It would also explain why other fan films are ok, because they are only pulling from CBS's IP which they have allowed. As soon as Axanar when into Paramount's territory the gloves were off.

Makes sense. Paramount has too much money invested in Star Trek. I would imagine the budget for Star Trek Beyond is 150+Million alone. Plus the main actors have signed on for a 4th film. Anything that threatens this $$ stream is going to get both barrels.

The issue I have with this theory is that, as far as I can see anyway, the elements of the Abramsverse that he's pulled in are quite minimal. Paramount likely knows the CBS unwritten policy, and if they wanted him to not use certain elements, they could have just asked, and IMO probably would have; it's a lot cheaper than a lawsuit if they don't care about the rest of the non-nuTrek IP.

It's more likely that Paramount is involved because this is, essentially, a professional feature film production, and that's Paramount's bailiwick. They may have started it, but if they did, it probably would have happened whether he used nuTrek stuff or not.

JMHO.
 
Ah yes...back up for me too...and they're proudly waiving Paramount's IP in their face with that banner video.

I'm thinking about crowdfunding my own educational video series: "SO YOU'VE DECIDED TO STEAL CBS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY"
 
I have a question: what happens if CBS has proof they communicated with him in August that they were going to shut him down and he kept collecting money from and making promises to his donors?

Speaking hypothetically, the donors might have a cause of action for fraud. But this would require proof Peters or Axanar made intentional misrepresentations with intent to defraud AND the donor reasonably relied on such misrepresentations.
 
Back up here too. And I appreciate the unlicensed use of my IP in your sig, ProfessorMoriarty. ;)

It seemed appropriate to appropriate. :p I would be happy to take it down if you promise not to sue me, but I do appreciate a good turn of phrase and wanted to share your wordsmithery.
 
You'd think if they could do ONE thing, it would be taking off the big picture of the cast member who publicly said he wouldn't work with them ever again.

Further proof that Peters has zero fucks left to give about these items of interest that we are all noticing...

...or he feels he has bigger fish to fry and isn't worrying about it.

I honestly wouldn't fault him for that. He probably does have some sort of license to use Todd's likeness due to his participation in Prelude, so having him on the web site is fine. Disingenuous, but whatever.

What I take issue with is the lack of warning on the fundraiser page that they're being sued. That kinda falls under the "obliged to disclose" category IMO. Some people are probably seeing Prelude on YouTube and then going and donating without ever becoming aware of the lawsuit.

That's a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top