Right.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I definitely see where you're coming from. I just don't think it's a productive way of categorizing people. "Sides" implies that you have groups of people walking in lockstep without really thinking about the issue at hand. What I'm seeing is a lot of individuals who each have different takes on things. For instance, what would you call someone who still wants to see Axanar get made, but agrees CBS has the right to shut it down if they choose?
Eh, I'm not going to throw blame around. I believe adults--and those close to adulthood--are more than capable of making their own decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions. There are cases in which people are truly forced to join a group, but I'm not sure this is one of them. If someone wants to identify with a side and take a rigid position against people who don't agree with them then that's their choice. I'm not giving them a pass because someone else is apparently encouraging it though.
In any case I agree that there are disagreements in fandom. I think it's important for the health of fandom, however, for the people disagreeing to remember that everyone is a fan and that it is possible to disagree anyway. Rigid group identification and thinking makes that hard, which is why I don't support it.
This isn't an episode of Star Trek. Why would CBS give two shits about Peters' honor? He stole from them.
Who, exactly, has CBS lost face to? A few internet whiners? I'm sure they'll figure out how to recover.
In the end, I bet even Peters is thinking the best he'll get is s settlement where he cannot do 'Axanar' as a Star Trek film; BUT, Paramount CBS won't pursue damages, and he can keep Ares Studios as 'his studio' to do other non-Star Trek productions in concert with Mr. Gerrold - and they'll rework the Axanar story/script into something that props up Mr. Gerrold's 'Star Wolf' concept (that Gerrold was unable to successfully KS.) As for the Axanar Backers who might be upset with such a deal - I'm sure Alec thinks he can sway enough of them after the settlement that no one will bother with a Class Action suit to return backer money to those dissatisfied.
^^^
However, even the above all played out like this, Mr. peters COULD still face criminal action from the California Attorney General's office or even the FTC for not following through on his KS promises of Axanar being an independent Star Trek film, etc. It wouldn't be the first time a state or the FTC went after a KS recipient for not following through - and IF the CBS/Paramount V. Axanar case gets a lot of media coverage either regarding the trial (if/when it occurs) OR any settlement deal Axanar manages to make with CBS/Paramount; it might make it high profile enough that the CA AG ior the FTC might instigate their own legal actions.
And as I've said before, IF Axanar's defense is going to be "Our film was designed to be offered via internet digital streaming exclusively; and what we were planing may have even spurred CBS to announce a new Star trek series for their internet streaming service..." <-- I don't know if that will fly once the court learns Axanar had Pledge tiers and were themselves promoting 'professional quality DVDs/Blu-Rays created by the person responsible for features on legitimate CBS/Paramount Star Trek DVDs/Blu-Rays that are still on the market; and the fact such 'professional quality' DVDs/Blu-Rays of '"Prelude to Axanar" were created and distributed to backers alongside the digital version of "Prelude to Axanar" made available via Youtube. The blatant merchandising of T-Shirts (that are using 'minions' from yet another IP held by Dreamworks, which I'm sure will be brought to the court's attention as evidence of wilful disregard by Axanar towards IP's they have to license to); Axanar Coffee; the USS Ares model kits, etc. will again be brought up to show their pattern of willful disregard towards CBS/Paramount copyrighted Star trek material; and it will be hard to defend those physical items as part of a 'digital only' Star Trek film. Also, while 'garth' could be considered a 'one off' character; 'Ambassador Soval' IS a major recurring character from 'Enterprise'; and the role was reprised by the original actor in the role <--- That's going to be hard to defend no matter what.
But, like I said, I have a feeling Mr. peters is just hoping for a settlement that lets him effectively retain control of Ares Studios for his use; and he thinks he can keep 'Axanar' donors from doing a Class-Action for the backer money; and that the CA AG and FTC won't file any criminal charges either. As for the pro-bono law firm: They'll see such a settlement (where Peter's doesn't loose his studio and financial shirt); as something they can tout to impress potential paying clients (Hey we got a favorable settlement for a client WHOLLY abusing the Star Trek IP from CBS/Paramount <--- YES, we're THAT good!)
It'll be interesting to see how far CBS/Paramount will go either way: IE - if they decide to settle; or decide take it to trial and try to make an absolute scorched earth example of Mr. Peters and Axanar in ruining him(and anyone associated with him in the endeavour), financially as a clear statement that any infringement that provides profit/fgain to the infringing party WILL be prosecuted to the fullest extent by CBS/Paramount.)
I'm not sure...
..why you would post an almost identical post... again? Within 2 days?
Please forgive me, but I fail to see the importance of the re-post. Or did I miss the context...?
Remember my prediction Alece will be back in the prop business after this? Right from the start, he seemed most perturbed by my Propworx remarks. I had only posted a few posts IIRC before he banned me. He handled me all wrong. If he had appealed to me instead of attacking me, or just ignored me, I probably would not have devoted so much time to it. Seriously cut back on my Farmville crops.Once he banned me, there was no longer anything to stop me from telling the truth about him.
Don and I heard from a forum member today: "... you’re both mentioned by name, this is what Alec posted in his forum today:"
“You know, the haters, lead by my cbyerstalker and Internet bully Don Hildebrand, have made a lot of wild claims about Propworx. So let me set the record straight.
Propworx has never screwed a customer. EVER. Sure, you will get customers who are not happy about something, and we certainly make our fair share of mistakes, but we have always made every problem right. ALWAYS.
So while Don and Lyn can go on about how evil we at Propworx (and in particular me) are, they cannot point to one single customer who has ever been screwed by Propworx.
And as to our 2012 bankruptcy filing? Well, again, not one single customer lost a dime. Basically it was almost entirely MGM we owed. While we are disappointed we couldn't fulfill our obligations, that is business. You live and learn. And considering that MGM had just come out of a $5 Billion bankruptcy themselves, well, Don Hildebrand rants are rather ignorant and laughable trying to make them sound like a victim. I don't hear him saying anything about the hundreds of thousands of MGM stock holders who lost billions in the MGM bankruptcy. Does he advocate not watching MGM movies now? Does he advocate not driving GM or Chrysler cars since they went through bankruptcy? Bankruptcy proceedings are a part of business sometimes.
Oh, and I do think the # 1 Republican contender for President has had FOUR bankruptcies, and we consider him one of the countries best businessman (though I certainly don't want him for President!).
So the next time some insane hater rants about me and Propworx, ignore them. We have facts on our side and hundreds of very happy customers. And most of them are on this forum.
Alec”
Submitted for your consideration by Lyn, an "insane hater". Now that he has thrown down the challenge, time to start compiling complaints re Propworx, and there were lots of them. From overpriced shipping, to ridiculous delays in shipping, to incomplete hero costumes from BSG being completed with generic items, to shill bidding (he admits bidding but since he is a collector, it is not shill bidding) and way more. Don, you must know half a dozen off the top of your head.
..why you would post an almost identical post... again? Within 2 days?
Please forgive me, but I fail to see the importance of the re-post. Or did I miss the context...?
Alec has crossed so many lines under the pretense of making a "fan film" I doubt CBS/Paramount is interested in doing him any favors. Why should they, CBS/P owns the IP Peters is making a profit from. Using your analogy, he's hanging himself with a rope of his own making.
CBS and Paramount don't give half a crap about losing face, or helping Kickstarter and Indiegogo's PR. They are concerned with Alec Peters and company's attempt to compete with them by making a Star Trek feature length film.
Kickstarter and Indiegogo's management are probably biting their nails to the quick waiting to see how this will affect them.
This is way past making a fan film. Heads will roll, companies will be bankrupted, seas will rise, lightning will strike people dead.
I can't wait.
Yeah, i'm not seeing where CBS has to "save face." They're taking this forward and they have nothing to worry about as far as their reputation. This is THEIR copyright and they will not look bad for attempting to protect it, even if against all odds they lose the case.
That's what Fox and Lucas thought too....
wow. Goes to show never discount pop culture <sharknado/>
I am not a lawyer of any description... too.
With that stipulated, I have been discovering more and more court cases being won and lost on similar issues of what seems to be clear cut IP infringements.
I have been searching under IP Bullying (what is it, articles about it, cases using it, successes of cases, explanations of why the case was lost (when relevant), IP holders pursuing the cases, entities bullying into the owned IPs.
Which has led me to Copyright Diluting and IP Dilution which, IF I'm understanding it right, is showing that legal copyright and legal IP holders are being challenged more than I realized with more than I could have imagined success since the issue appears, to me, to be black and white; if it's copyrighted it's theirs. But in courtrooms this does not seem to be consistently holding true.
Quite a few things I'm reading are using terms like 'famous marks', 'non-famous marks', 'non-competing areas' in these litigations. And I'm finding different courts ruling for AND against.
There 'seems' to me at this time, and not being a lawyer of any description, to be a pecking away going on at the existing laws re: copyright and IP.
My speculative conclusion:
As of this posting (in my admittedly uneducated and limited ability to research, as well as fully understanding a lot of the things I am reading) I am now seeing where an IP defense attorney, a Pro Bono attorney, might indeed be seeing a possible opportunity to shape case law because of the blurring on what constitutes IP that has already had successes in some court cases.
EDIT: Actually from replies to this post I now see I shouldn't have included these links because they give the false impression, and understandably so, that the information in them was what led me to my above stated 'speculative conclusion'. Entirely my bad since these were just five of the 30dozen places I went through to find leads to court cases where copyright and IP was being challenged both unsuccessfully, and to my surprise, successfully. Entirely my bad.
Intellectual Property Protection
IP Bullying
Trademark dilution
Copycat Characters and the selective enforcement of IP rights
DuetsBlog
Last edited:
I don't think anybody cares enough outside of these little circles. It'll get a few snippets in the press. So it won't harm nor help CBS in publicity terms. It won't have an impact that way.
They have to do the "scorched earth" example, to dissuade anyone from ever doing this again, either with their IP or someone else's. If one person can get away with this, what's to stop it from ever happening again?
Neil
What are you talking about?
Please explain. If you're referring to whenn Lucasfilm was shutting down fan sites in the 90s, it certainly didn't affect their business short or long term.
Secondarily, the legality of fan sites and web blogs at the time were a HUGE unknown at the time when online websites were in their infancy. It was really completely new ground, and one could very well argue that their actions helped pave the way for the fair use protection online, meaning their attempted takedowns were important to the freedoms we now have legally protected.
Third, these are clearly two very different types of infringement. Making your own for-profit Star Trek film is not nearly the same as using someone's IP on your website to talk about said IP.
There is no such thing, as far as I can tell, as "Copyright dilution". There is Trademark dilution. Copyright is wildly different than trademark, and rights under trademark law are not (yet) being asserted in this case.
Again, Copyright and Trademark are not synonymous. Trademarks are challenged quite routinely. If this was a Trademark issue, they would have a much better (albeit still remote) chance. But this is a Copyright case. Not the same thing.
I suggest thoroughly reading the first one again; I only skimmed it, but it looks like it clearly lays out what each of Copyright and Trademark are. They are not the same thing.
The second is a blog on lots of topics. Was there something specific there you wanted to point out? I didn't see anything relevant to this case, but then I didn't read the whole blog either.
The third is about Trademarks, which are irrelevant.
The fourth is an opinion piece on why two rights holders aren't suing each other. It's interesting, but doesn't really say anything useful.
The fifth is... about Trademark.
This case is about Copyright, not Trademark. There is no middle ground. Axanar infringes, period, full stop. I don't see where they can get around that legally. The only possible defense is a "fair use" defense, and I just don't see that flying. Blatant intent to occupy, and distribution into, the same channel as the original works? That's not something they're going to consider fair use IMO.
- Status