There was also the Garth of Izar book. I skimmed the beginning on Amazon and it opens with Kirk dreaming about the battle at Axanar.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
There was also the Garth of Izar book. I skimmed the beginning on Amazon and it opens with Kirk dreaming about the battle at Axanar.
I too am curious how it would pass the duck test
- You give me money and I give you a bluray - what am I describing a donation or a commercial transaction?
All true. Any material developed and published by a legitimate licensee of CBS is owned by them. This includes books, comics, role-playing games, video games, toys, etc.
Besides, the "Battle of Axanar" was actually mentioned in the episode, so the name itself is owned by them, particularly in context as a battle fought within the fictional Star Trek universe fought between the Federation and Klingons. They might even have a case if another franchise tried to use the term "The Battle of Axanar."
Separately, what I find particularly interesting is this note from Memory-Alpha, regarding the fact that the TOS episode never specified who the opponent in the war was:
"According to the FASA source book The Four Years War, the battle was fought between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. This is also highly unlikely, as the history implied by TOS: "Errand of Mercy" indicates that the Federation had been involved in a strictly "cold" war with the Klingons during that time. In addition, Garth's reaction to the fact that Kirk seems to have successfully made peace with the Federation's opponents in the battle would exclude the Klingons as a potential enemy."
Based on the information, it could very well have been a race we've never seen, or someone like the Andorians, Tellarites or if you want to be creative, the Suliban.
source: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/item/prelude-to-axanar-bd
The full press release is out now.
Axanar Productions Signs Winston & Strawn as Legal Counsel in Copyright Infringement Suit.
Valencia, California-based Axanar Productions has engaged Winston & Strawn as legal counsel to help defend it against claims made by Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios.
(Valencia, CA) – Alec Peters, Executive Producer of AXANAR, a feature-length film financed through crowd funding and direct donations from fans, announced today that the company producing the film, Axanar Productions, has engaged Winston & Strawn, one of the leading IP practices in the country, to provide legal counsel in its lawsuit with CBS Studios, Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corporation. Representing Axanar Productions and Peters will be attorneys Erin Ranahan and Andrew Jick from the firm’s Los Angeles office. Winston & Strawn have agreed to represent Axanar Productions and Alec Peters on a pro-bono basis.
The suit, filed by CBS and Paramount on December 29, 2015, seeks to stop Axanar Productions from producing a fan film set in the Star Trek universe. The suit also asks for damages from the production company, its chief executive Alec Peters and a host of unnamed defendants who were involved in the production of the short film PRELUDE TO AXANAR.
“We’re pleased to have our case taken up by Winston & Strawn,” said Peters. “The knowledge, credibility and reputation they bring to this matter will certainly help us work things out with CBS and Paramount in a professional manner and, we hope, to a mutual benefit so we can go on and make a Star Trek film fans have told us they want to see.”
In the meantime, Axanar Productions has suspended fund-raising activities for the feature production and has announced a delay in principal photography until the fate of the lawsuit can be discussed in more detail with counsel. “We want to produce this film,” said Peters. “And we want to respect the rights of the owners of the intellectual property on which our film is based.”
A formal response to the lawsuit will be prepared and delivered to the court by the extended deadline of February 22nd.
# # #
AXANAR and PRELUDE TO AXANAR are projects produced by AXANAR Productions in Valencia, CA. Axanar For more information on AXANAR and associated production efforts, visit: www.startrekaxanar.com. For downloads of visual assets and other editorial content related to Axanar Productions projects, please visit: www.axanarpr.com.
Neil
Last edited:
Pretty damning photo.
Yeah. Only thing that makes it stand out is the lack of the words "Star Trek" on the spine. Not sure how much that counts for.
Huh. I had not realized "The Axanar" were featured in Enterprise.
Probably not much. I'm not sure presentation on the spine means anything in court, but if it did there are plenty of slipcases that Trek various DVD's use that do not use the Trek title, and some that use no text at all.
One could argue that the font and graphics when used together are enough to be a violation.
Would the difference be that Axanar is not listed as a non-profit? I'm a bit confused, here about why it should matter or not if Axanar was engaged in commercial transactions. For example, PBS gives out products in exchange for donations all the time, but they're truly a non-profit. The amount that needs to be donated is always more than the cost of the product ($35 for a mug? $125 for a DVD?). PBS then uses the donations as part of its budget, which would included administrative costs (and salaries). Of course, PBS has permission to use the products, or developed them themselves.
I'm just a bit confused about why this was something that would get Axanar in trouble other than they were giving out things that ripped off CBS/Paramount IP. Or, I'm reading it all wrong, and the problem is only that they were using CBS/Paramount IP as inducements to donate.
Also in the entirety of it all, the profit or non-profit thing doesn't really matter (as has been said by someone about every ten pages in this thread
). It's how they used CBS/Paramount IP and the financial scale of it all that got them into trouble.
Guess who showed up and starting throwing his law degree around.
I"m sure his legal team loves this.
"Your honor, we've run out of numbers...so let's start over. This is exhibit 1."
Man, he just can't take it when people aren't fluffing him. The man is a psychopath.
No.
And you'll notice they don't use other people's copyrighted material on the rewards. When they do, such as Sesame Street, it is their own programs, used with permission.
By the way, i'm pretty sure the reason people file as non-profits is solely for tax purposes. It would not affect this sort of thing, to my knowledge.
I cited prior a case where Luis Vitton sued a Darfur non-profit CHARITY and won, because they were selling posters and shirts that used a luis vittton bag on them. ALL PROCEEDS went to charity. To victims of genocide.
Talk about bad PR. But they won, and while i'm sure there were some critics, it did not hurt their business.
I cited prior a case where Luis Vitton sued a Darfur non-profit CHARITY and won, because they were selling posters and shirts that used a luis vittton bag on them. ALL PROCEEDS went to charity. To victims of genocide.
Talk about bad PR. But they won, and while i'm sure there were some critics, it did not hurt their business.
Yeah. That's what I meant. So maybe I did have it right. The problem itself is not the give-aways. Sorry, I'm just not thinking clearly, today. I've got to figure out how to get 28 inches (and growing) of snow off of my driveway.
The first thing he needs to hear from his legal team: "Shut Up!"
Guess who showed up and starting throwing his law degree around.
I"m sure his legal team loves this.
"Your honor, we've run out of numbers...so let's start over. This is exhibit 1."
Man, he just can't take it when people aren't fluffing him. The man is a psychopath.
But he posted only around 10 times. Remember, he also paid himself, but it was only minimum wage.
Neil
Right. If the giveaways had been limited to, say, autographs from the cast, or products they purchased legally, than it would be OK.
For example, if they just went to a flea market and bought 100 Star Trek action figures real cheap and then gave them away as rewards for more money than they paid, I think that's OK, because they did not create the reward, so it is not infringing. In that scenario, they're simply a reseller of Trek goods, and they're using the proceeds to fund a project. The film would still be infringing, but the commerce portion would not be a problem.
Of course i'm not a legal scholar, so if i'm wrong somebody please enlighten me.
I may have put my foot in my mouth, but I just couldn't help myself and responded to someone claiming the Axanar film was the Star Trek fans have been asking for - which was the post just above mine there):
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-axanar-lawsuit-defense-paramount-cbs/comment-page-1/#comment-1852184
I think that plays into doctrine of first sale. Once you own something you can sell it. That's why people brag about being "authorized retailers". Bragging is about all you can do you can't stop some one from selling something.
- Status