CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[jespah]

Regarding the other kickstarters where donors got their money back, did the risk of failure happen? Meaning, if this happens the project will fail.

Peters told them how they might lose their money.

I'm sure some people might try and get their money back, but there's a great defense: We told you CBS might shut us down, and you still donated.

It's sort of like gambling and then sueing the casino because you lost money. Unless the casino rigged it....

And I don't think Peters planned on CBS stopping them.

My guess is that donors could try (long-shot, I feel) arguing it was a purchase and sale, e. g. they purchased the perks in exchange for a film being made. Or maybe that the items purchased through the donor store (models and posters and tee shirts as I understand) had perceived added value because of the potential for the film being made. No film, then value (possibly) is decreased. Or maybe it's increased due to rarity and novelty value?

If it's ruled that these are purchases and sales then we are potentially even hitting quasi-contract territory. Fan provides shared consideration (funds) in exchange for a film being made. A defense to that would be impossibility, that the film cannot be made because of a loss in the IP lawsuit. If this happens, BTW, then it hits crowdfunding directly, as one of the pillars of crowdfunding is the donors absorb pretty much all of the risk.

Fans could also potentially sue on the theory that value for Axanar merchandise would (in theory) decrease if a generic science fiction film, unattached to Star Trek were to be permitted under the terms of a ruling or settlement.

It kind of depends on a ruling on who can/will absorb the risk. In a situation where the terms of an agreement are 100% against one of the parties (in this case, the donor), courts may decide to intervene for equitable reasons. After all, the donors have no bargaining power whatsoever, except to not donate. But once they're in, they take on all of the risk. How hard do project owners have to work in order to assure a project goes forward or at least they tried? Where is the due diligence line? That line may be drawn in a court room (and not necessarily on the Axanar case, BTW).

 

[Noname Given]

In his defense, his last actual post was yesterday and 2+ pages ago, so everyone else who also needs to let it go.

To be fair, I posted one response on the the situation as I saw it (as did some others). Mr. Hinman seems unable to accept others may have a different view as to what he posted; and seems hell bent to want to get someone to say: "Okay, you're right."; and continues to repost his same point of view multiple times. I dropped it after my one response because I accept the fact that on this issue, the only real consensus I could see was: "we agree that we disagree"

 

[stampersand]

First, any addresses that were shared were part of PUBLIC DOCUMENTS that were created by Alec Peters or those associated with him, not me or anyone else. They are accessible by ANYONE (thus, are a "public document.") If you have an address that is so sensitive that you can't have, it discussed, then here's a suggestion: DO NOT USE IT IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

However, it is one thing to look up this information, public as it is. It is another to take that information and hand it to a group of people without a whole lot of context which potentially contains a large number of people who want to go vigilante. People are still responsible for considering the context of the situtation (such as, it is probably fine to yell "Fire!" when there is none, in an empty theater, or even a full theater if it is obviously a part of a performance; it's a whole different thing to do so in a crowded theater where the receivers are oblivious to the context of why it was shouted... they'll usually, understandably, jump to the conclusion that there is a fire in the theater, and then stampede).

 

[Tom]

Just Looking, there are 24 people on KS that gave over $1000 and 25 on IGG that gave over a $1000, those are the ones that are going to be hurting the most.

BTW please drop the House topic. Talk about beating a dead horse.

 

[dahj]

^^
I'm guessing people who are likely to drop $1k on a kickstarter don't much care if they lose $1k.

 

[aalenfae]

My guess is that donors could try (long-shot, I feel) arguing it was a purchase and sale, e. g. they purchased the perks in exchange for a film being made. Or maybe that the items purchased through the donor store (models and posters and tee shirts as I understand) had perceived added value because of the potential for the film being made. No film, then value (possibly) is decreased. Or maybe it's increased due to rarity and novelty value?

If it's ruled that these are purchases and sales then we are potentially even hitting quasi-contract territory. Fan provides shared consideration (funds) in exchange for a film being made. A defense to that would be impossibility, that the film cannot be made because of a loss in the IP lawsuit. If this happens, BTW, then it hits crowdfunding directly, as one of the pillars of crowdfunding is the donors absorb pretty much all of the risk.

Fans could also potentially sue on the theory that value for Axanar merchandise would (in theory) decrease if a generic science fiction film, unattached to Star Trek were to be permitted under the terms of a ruling or settlement.

It kind of depends on a ruling on who can/will absorb the risk. In a situation where the terms of an agreement are 100% against one of the parties (in this case, the donor), courts may decide to intervene for equitable reasons. After all, the donors have no bargaining power whatsoever, except to not donate. But once they're in, they take on all of the risk. How hard do project owners have to work in order to assure a project goes forward or at least they tried? Where is the due diligence line? That line may be drawn in a court room (and not necessarily on the Axanar case, BTW).

I do know that Kickstarter lists this disclaimer when you pledge to a project:
"Kickstarter is not a store.It's a way to bring creative projects to life.
Kickstarter does not guarantee projects or investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. It is the responsibility of the project creator to complete their project as promised, and the claims of this project are theirs alone."

So Kickstarter already reminds donors that they are not purchasing goods, and that Kickstarter won't take responsibility for failed projects. I'm not sure about IndieGoGo

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

I'm aware of the options, I'm just wondering about the success. Again, Peters said the risk would be CBS shutting them down. And that is what, most likely, will come to pass. If you know the risk, and it happens, how can you later go "I should get my money back."?

Welll, the person posting in question "Are Axanar donors actually paying for the production or to fund another business??" posting as GarthofIzar and 'saying' he is Alec Peters said: "And yes, anyone who actually donated, can get a refund by asking."

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

I do know that Kickstarter lists this disclaimer when you pledge to a project:
"Kickstarter is not a store.It's a way to bring creative projects to life.
Kickstarter does not guarantee projects or investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. It is the responsibility of the project creator to complete their project as promised, and the claims of this project are theirs alone."

So Kickstarter already reminds donors that they are not purchasing goods, and that Kickstarter won't take responsibility for failed projects. I'm not sure about IndieGoGo

I understand they think of themselves that way, but how long, or how many failed projects before that is challenged, directly?

 

[stampersand]

Axanards strike again! Can you smell the irony in these?

To be fair, the title of that video (ie., "Intellectual Property thief Terry McIntosh [...]") was pretty much asking to be taken down (it would fall under defamation... if it had been rephrased as "Terry McIntosh, who is involved in a lawsuit over misuse of Intellectual Property, [...]", that would likely be a different story).

The hyperbolic and defamatory language, so easily thrown around these days, disturbs me (regardless of who the recipient is).

 

[Squiggy]

 

[Professor Zoom]

It kind of depends on a ruling on who can/will absorb the risk. In a situation where the terms of an agreement are 100% against one of the parties (in this case, the donor), courts may decide to intervene for equitable reasons. After all, the donors have no bargaining power whatsoever, except to not donate. But once they're in, they take on all of the risk. How hard do project owners have to work in order to assure a project goes forward or at least they tried? Where is the due diligence line? That line may be drawn in a court room (and not necessarily on the Axanar case, BTW).

That's interesting. That the owner of the project has to do their best to mitigate the risk. Which is certainly a good reason for Peters to fight the CBS lawsuit, he then might be on the hook for the donors.

 

[stampersand]

And I don't think Peters planned on CBS stopping them.

It was probably Paramount that initiated pursuing this. Alec asserted that Axanar was to be a film/movie, and this (film) is Paramount's territory. Supposedly, Alec and CBS had been in communication over Axanar. If this is true, CBS may very well have been fine with what they were doing, but there was no indication that I have seen that Alec ever interacted with Paramount, and Paramount probably took a look at this and thought, "Oh, heck, 'No!'"

 

[jespah]

That's interesting. That the owner of the project has to do their best to mitigate the risk. Which is certainly a good reason for Peters to fight the CBS lawsuit, he then might be on the hook for the donors.

That's something I'm wondering about, regardless of how the IP suit goes - are there obligations to the donors?

 

[BillJ]

It was probably Paramount that initiated pursuing this. Alec asserted that Axanar was to be a film/movie, and this (film) is Paramount's territory. Supposedly, Alec and CBS had been in communication over Axanar. If this is true, CBS may very well have been fine with what they were doing, but there was no indication that I have seen that Alec ever interacted with Paramount, and Paramount probably took a look at this and thought, "Oh, heck, 'No!'"

CBS wasn't fine with it. There was an article in TheWrap that said they were exploring their options in August of 2015.

 

[stampersand]

BTW please drop the House topic.

Apologies if that was in response to my post... I was reading posts from the point I left off from my last visit.

 

[BillJ]

http://www.thewrap.com/how-1-1-million-star-trek-fan-movie-has-escaped-studio-shutdown-so-far/

“CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved,” a representative from the network told TheWrap. “We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights.” (Paramount did not return TheWrap’s request for comment.)

 

[stampersand]

CBS wasn't fine with it. There was an article in TheWrap that said they were exploring their options in August of 2015.

Ah. I missed that. I'll have to look it up.

 

[KennyB]

Is he sitting behind the keyboard with a bottle of gin in his hands? For a lawyer and a man with superior intellect he can't spell/type at all. Does he not see the little red squiggly lines under his words?

 

[Franklin]

I'm aware of the options, I'm just wondering about the success. Again, Peters said the risk would be CBS shutting them down. And that is what, most likely, will come to pass. If you know the risk, and it happens, how can you later go "I should get my money back."?

I tend to agree. The risk that CBS may shut down the project was clearly stated and therefore known to all donors. However, it is also in the KS rules that if those seeking donations can't produce the product exactly as promised, they must make an effort to provide a comparable product, whatever that may be. I think the basis for a complaint by donors would be if there is absolutely no product (feature-length movie) of any kind produced by Axanar. But if everything is completely "de-Trekified," and a science fiction movie with starships, aliens, and a major battle is produced, then that might be a satisfactory fulfillment of the project, at least by what KS says.

If I had given $100 or less to them for the production (even $1000), I think I'd eat the donation even if no product is produced. Who hires a lawyer over a $100 loss? Especially if the chances of getting it back are problematic.

 

[BillJ]

Ah. I missed that. I'll have to look it up.

I dropped a link and the relevant quote in the post right after yours.