CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I don't buy that end of the argument. IIRC. they went to CBS/Paramount, and walked away with no guidance, but CBS/Paramount issued a statement last summer indicating that there was no agreement and that this project was not authorized. You can't get implied consent out of that
I agree that CBS/Paramount have that right. I also often feel that there should be some legal allowance for fan works. It comes down to the question of: should someone own the universe, or just the stories told in it? Not a question that's easy to answer morally IMO. Legally is another matter entirely.
Of course, just for clarity, I do not think Axanar can currently be considered a fan work, and I don't think it would fly in this case even if everyone in the universe agreed with my perspective on fan works. Too many people profiting, even if they refuse to see it as such.
Legitimate would equal legal in the context of my comment.
And I was all set to agree about it being a potential disaster for the studios, but on further reflection, I'm not so sure it would be. They could still be plenty profitable, especially when you consider the potential involvement of fan loyalty. It's not quite so cut and dried I think.
Not that I think it'll end up mattering in the end.
No, not really. It's more like, "Ford can build and sell a car that looks just like a Porsche, but with a Ford engine in it, and a different interior."
I mean, let's be realistic here. Axanar is using a universe created by someone else -- but as far as I'm aware, the story itself is something that they created themselves. It is based on a Star Trek story, but the meat of the story they're trying to depict was not created by CBS. Just the setting.
All of this is academic, however; I still don't think it's going to fly. And as I've stated before, I really don't want Axanar to be the test case for something like this anyway.
I found that rather odd myself.
Not sure what Trademark law has to do with anything here. Dennis was commenting on my comment, which was about the fair use argument, not the waiver argument that everyone has been saying is trademark-related.
But you're right, the media companies would fight it tooth and nail, all the while giving new meaning to CYA when it comes to C&D notices.
In fact, the only public statement CBS has ever made about Axanar was a negative one: We didn't authorize this movie and we'll take action to protect our property.
Any claim that Peters has made to the effect that he had conversations with anyone at CBS and that there was any uncertainty about what they wanted are just that - claims, and at this point not worth a spit.
Any allowances should be at the owner's whim-- as they are. If you had a nice backyard, how would you feel if the government allowed your neighbors to play in it against your consent?
Why is that the question? Because you want a specific answer? Besides, what makes the Star Trek Universe the Star Trek Universe? Copyrighted things like "Starfleet", "Klingons", "Vulcans", "The United Federation of Planets", etc.
You make no sense.
I wasn't trying to debate the legality as the law is currently understood; as I've said before, I feel that this case is a slam-dunk in that respect. Current legality aside, though, the issues behind intellectual property aren't nearly so clear-cut on a moral level. In my opinion, theft is when you deprive someone of something tangible. What does paramount lose if someone makes an actual fan film (as opposed to something like Axanar, which I do not currently see as a fan film)?
That was a rhetorical question, btw. I'm well aware of the other side of the argument, and sometimes even agree with it.
To a question I asked way back in this thread, just how different does a work need to be before it qualifies as unique enough to be owned by whoever created that work? Everything is based on other things. How do you codify that line into law? I don't really think you can. It's a judgement call, any way you slice it.
Your opinion is undoubtedly different than mine. That's fine; neither of us have to judge this case. I suppose we're also getting off topic a bit, since none of this is likely to matter in the context of the case under discussion. I don't think Axanar will qualify for fair use (even under any variation of my ever-changing opinion of how things should ideally work), nor do I think this "waiver" defense is going to fly.
And again with the flawed analogies. It's more a question of "how would you feel if your neighbor copied the exact layout of your back yard, but with a different shrubbery over by the pool?"
It's very hard to deprive someone of something that doesn't exist in the physical world, hence why intellectual property is such a hot-button topic in a lot of arenas. Ever want to have a fun discussion about this sort of thing? Hit up a group of geeks about software patents. I hope you're in the mood for a fiery debate, 'cause you'll certainly get one.
Me? I'm gonna stop arguing this now. All I will say in closing is, I think there is room for a compromise between fans and the studios that will make all parties happy. Though trying to obtain it via the legal system is probably not a good start...
I can't imagine that the Trek alumni involved in fan films would be happy with a ruling like that. Depending on what their contracts are like, the removal of copyright and trademarks would end up cutting into their royalties. Especially with 'fanworks' legal defintion being somewhat fuzzy.
For eg. Somone could make a movie like 'Galaxy Quest', stick Tribbles and The Guardian of Forever in it, and never have to acknowledge or pay Gerrold or Ellison at all. 'Fanwork' doesn't mean 'not for profit' after all, so there's no reason why they couldn't.
Well, besides the terrifying prospect of being the poor schmuck on the receiving end of Ellison's personal wrath.
For eg. Somone could make a movie like 'Galaxy Quest', stick Tribbles and The Guardian of Forever in it, and never have to acknowledge or pay Gerrold or Ellison at all. 'Fanwork' doesn't mean 'not for profit' after all, so there's no reason why they couldn't.
Well, besides the terrifying prospect of being the poor schmuck on the receiving end of Ellison's personal wrath.
Bah. I missed a quote earlier. Entirely. Hate it when that happens...
I make perfect sense; maybe you just don't want to consider the implications of the question. It's called "food for thought."
What does make the Star Trek universe, the Star Trek universe? Even that is not as easy a question to answer as some would like. There are definite things you can point to, but what is the minimum that must be present before it's "the Star Trek universe"?
Again, rhetorical question. It's a judgement call in the hands of the court that decides the issue.
I make perfect sense; maybe you just don't want to consider the implications of the question. It's called "food for thought."
What does make the Star Trek universe, the Star Trek universe? Even that is not as easy a question to answer as some would like. There are definite things you can point to, but what is the minimum that must be present before it's "the Star Trek universe"?
Again, rhetorical question. It's a judgement call in the hands of the court that decides the issue.
Personally, I think the creator's/IP owner's wishes should be the guiding principle. The act of creating an original world, populating it with characters, and bringing a story to life, can be an intensely personal experience. While some artists willingly allow others to piggy-back off of their work, other artists find they have put too much of themselves into the work to be comfortable seeing fans adapt that world or those characters for their own purposes.
As far as the law is concerned, I would like it to remain more conservative with respect to protecting IP rights. It's the best way to protect the artists who don't want fans playing with their work, but allows the ones who don't mind to just look the other way (or even endorse fan works if they choose).
As far as the law is concerned, I would like it to remain more conservative with respect to protecting IP rights. It's the best way to protect the artists who don't want fans playing with their work, but allows the ones who don't mind to just look the other way (or even endorse fan works if they choose).
I have a question:- can Peters declare himself bankrupt to avoid having to pay fines and such like when he loses this case?
I think the minimum might be whatever is the minimum element which can be individually protected legally.
If captain america beamed aboard the Enterprise, and his backstory was never referenced, then the design of his costume would I am guessing probably still be protected, as would his name(s). working from the outside in, if a copyrighted universe or macro feature were distinctly enough copied, it might be enough. A ship design might be enough. A set of features of a hypothetical race might be enough. A Trek cobra phaser in Defiance might be enough.
Morally? The person who created said universe. Or the owner of the IP if said creator sold it.
As in legal to sell?
If you meant legal to sell, it would certainly impact the studios ability to profit, you have basically done away with copyright if anyone can make something under Fair Use, as you are suggesting.
But, suppose the studios figure out a way to make a profit. Ok. Fine. No big deal for them.
But copyright goes both ways. What about the writer who just had a book published to pretty good success. Say Harry Potter. What you are suggesting is no one would need to license the book to make a movie. It's fair use. It's transformitive! Warners could make their own Harry Potter movies and not pay a dime to Rowling.
Or say you wrote a book. And it found its way to Spielberg's desk...
You're right, it's not going to happen. And it shouldn't. Copyright is how even the small writer, not just the corporate monsters, make a living.
Giving fanfilms carte blanche to do what they want with someone else's property and allowing them to profit or damage the brand? I don't think that's right, morally or ethically.
A portion of Axanar's new fullfillment blog. Two takeaways:
1. They haven't shipped persk from a fundraiser that was over 14 months ago!
2. She, one of the few fulltime employees, a person made full time because she would handle all of the perks shipping, will need to hire some one else to actually get that job done.
Oh but she did get moved into her new office!
You've ignored the far more interesting part of her update:
"Meanwhile, the Donor Store has been bustling, with many new and/or back-in-stock, super-popular items… which often wind up selling through within a couple days’ time! Be sure you check the store regularly, as well as the Facebook Donors Group (where store news is always posted, first), so you don’t miss out on something you’ve been wanting."
Neil
"Meanwhile, the Donor Store has been bustling, with many new and/or back-in-stock, super-popular items… which often wind up selling through within a couple days’ time! Be sure you check the store regularly, as well as the Facebook Donors Group (where store news is always posted, first), so you don’t miss out on something you’ve been wanting."
Neil
Jesus.
I find it interesting how many folks seem to immediately see this as a black and white issue.
I do not advocate carte blanche appropriation. In point of fact, it's my opinion that, assuming you leave aside the various other surrounding shenanigans out of Camp Axanar (and there are so many!), ST:C and the like are actually much more egregious violators than Axanar, and on pure copyright grounds those are the ones I'm more likely to say should be stopped. They're a much more direct copy of "Star Trek".
[note: since people seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth: I'm not advocating that someone goes and tries to shut ST:C and such down; seems to me they have some kind of agreement with CBS, verbal, implied, or otherwise, so that's fine. I'm talking purely on the content of the shows, both for them and Axanar, absent other considerations.]
As I said earlier, I support the idea of reasonable compromise. This does not mean allowing people to willy-nilly take and profit from other peoples' IP.
IOW, perhaps the line should be "no profit, and no commercial sale or distribution" or something along those lines. Whatever. The point is, there is room for negotiation there -- to find a position that allows fan artists to create their art, while still protecting the livelihoods of the people who create these things for a living.
FWIW, the argument of "I created this concept so I should be able to control it completely" carries about as much weight with me in this context as a celebrity saying "I don't want to be photographed." If it offends you to see others create new things by modifying or building on your work, then keep it out of the public eye. That's my opinion on the topic in most areas of intellectual property, as unpopular as that may be.
This does not mean that I think there are no IP rights that should be protected, however. Being able to create art based on something is an entirely different matter than being able to profit from it. It's even different from being able to create something that somehow slanders (for lack of a better word) the original art (eg. porn based on Star Trek is actually something I think should be prohibited if that's what CBS wants, though it appears that's not the case today).
But anyway, I'm kinda tired of defending my position on this issue, since it really serves no purpose. If there was an actual debate happening here, I'd continue, but it's really been more "i'm right, you're wrong". Not much point in going 'round in circles. [edit: this last is not really directed at Professor Zoom, who did make some reasonable points. Partly, I'm just tired and cranky. Going to bed now, in fact.]
- Status