CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[TribbleTrouble1]

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

Sigh, talk about tone deaf. I haven't seen the full so called transparent financials that they released, but others have implied that things like private donations, the donor store, and the retroactive donor packages were not included in their revenue totals. Is there a poor soul who has gone through those financials who can confirm whether or not that's accurate? Those financials were not certified by an auditor either, were they? They were just produced internally?

 

[Admiral Cain]

Where does the donor store money go??

Are they saying they make this stuff for no profit? I don't recall seeing this on the annual report?

Someone enlighten me.

This is not on the annual report. Neither is any of the other direct donations vis Are Digital. And we don't know where the $574,000 that was raised in the most recent IGG fundraiser went. We probably will never see that report.

 

[Admiral Cain]

Sigh, talk about tone deaf. I haven't seen the full so called transparent financials that they released, but others have implied that things like private donations, the donor store, and the retroactive donor packages were not included in their revenue totals. Is there a poor soul who has gone through those financials who can confirm whether or not that's accurate? Those financials were not certified by an auditor either, were they? They were just produced internally?

Yes I am one of those poor souls lol. They weren't produced by a CPA, just Alec. And all that extra fundraising is not accounted for in the Axanar Annual Report. Major questions about that.

 

[dahj]

After reading the article: Lol - for an IP firm they really don't get copyright law.

I think they get it just fine to know they can't win this. They have to make up some defense though, if for nothing else than to maybe convince CBS to settle and not drag this out for ages.

Also, it seems they took this case because of free publicity, every article I see mentions them as one of the top IP firms, that's sure to bring some (paying) clients in. So for the lawyers this is already a win, they might even be fine with it going to trial for more free media exposure.

 

[wtriker1701]

Why would anyone "love" that? It's equivalent to saying "I hope the court legitimizes car theft so I can drive a Porsche."

I'd guess the correct analogy would be: Build your own soapbox, call it a Porsche and sell it. Ferdinand has to look the other way.

EDIT: Ion beat me.

 

[Mudd]

The morality of copyright is a black and white issue as far as I'm concerned. If the owner says "no," then no.

The owner of Star Trek has been willing to let other folks play with their property for a while now. I've never talked to a fan film producer other than Peters who was confused about the studio's right to put an immediate stop to all of this.

 

[Trekkin]

The arguement that fan films are 'original stories' is also somewhat flawed, for the same reason G. R Martin suggested fanfic isn't the best way to hone in writing skills. With most fan productions, two of the biggest components of writing a story (characters and setting) has usually already been completed by others. Thats not saying a lot of work is not put into said plots by the fan-writers, but the story simply wouldn't exist (in its current form) without a lot of the work having already been done. It's still a derivative work, just like TNG was an authorised one to TOS.

Removing trademarks and copyrights even just for fan films (on that basis) would basically be using a faulty premise to remove credit from those who earned. And of course, would set a precedent that could have a snowball effect down the road.

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.

Except of course, celebrities get that response because 'being viewed' is their business and they spend time actively encouraging people to watch them. I don't completely agree with that position, but that's how it is.

Producers of Star Trek have never presented themselves as being providers of people's arts and craft supplies. That's like claiming I shouldn't get upset if people tear self-designed clothes off my back and pass them on, because I made the choice to wear them in public where others could see them.

 

[Albinator]

I find it interesting how many folks seem to immediately see this as a black and white issue. [...] 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.]

It sounds like the way you want it to work is exactly the way it's been working. So I don't see your problem.

it seems they took this case because of free publicity, every article I see mentions them as one of the top IP firms, that's sure to bring some (paying) clients in. So for the lawyers this is already a win, they might even be fine with it going to trial for more free media exposure.

That publicity only works if the result is win or positive settlement. If they lose in court or the settlement includes shutting down production, I can't see how it helps them. Unless they can come away with NO monetary damages, which would be a defacto win in a certain light.

As for all the extra donor dollars, I would imagine that CBS/Paramount will want an independent auditor to go through all of their financials and records as part of the trial and/or settlement. They're going to want an accurate accounting of what has been made off of their IP.

 

[steam235]

Picking on the Fulfilment Girl seems a bit low, and at any rate pretty irrelevant to the main action. Many a KickStarter has found itself in the bind of winding up with far more supporters than it could actually service in timely fashion.

My apologies, I didn't mean to make any personal comments. The office comment was probably pilling on. it was late when I posted; my intent was to make 2 points.

1st another example of cost over run. We were told that a full time employee would be handling perk fullfillment. Now it seems that won't be enough.

2nd. It's an example of something that I thought was getting done actually isn't getting done. I've seen alot of people getting patches and perks. I didn't know that they were from the prelude kickstarter and not the 2014 kickstarter.

 

[Search4]

Incompetence is the hallmark of this whole enterprise.

 

[stampersand]

That's like claiming I shouldn't get upset if people tear self-designed clothes off my back and pass them on, because I made the choice to wear them in public where others could see them.

If you mean people copying and passing on your self-designed clothes, that is 100% permissible, regardless of how upset it will make you. :P You can copy, manufacture, and profit from other people's clothes design. You just can't use any company trademarked logos which may be affixed to them.

 

[KennyB]

Winston & Strawn lawyer to represent moviemaker funded by 'Star Trek' fans

Shocked that there's no comments on the article!

 

[Mudd]

They know at this point that they're not going to be allowed to produce Axanar as described. They're working on avoiding payment of substantial damages.

Show that what they did was not egregious by the standard of what CBS had been permitting up to this point; paint the entire project as a misunderstanding based on excessive but essentially honest zeal for creating what they thought was a fair, previously permitted use of the IP, and agree to halt all activities and (probably) surrender/destroy the assets created that directly violate copyright.

 

[Campe]

New Captain's Log at Axanar.

A lot of this is non-news or old news (they can't talk about the suit; they are still taking donations through the donor store) but there is an interesting wording of note down at the bottom of this. In discussing whether production has stopped, Peters indicates "we will have everything ready to roll cameras when the suit is settled."

Not that I think this is a surprise to anyone and perhaps "settled" is a poor choice of words on Peters' part. Just thought I'd put that out there though.

 

[dahj]

Peters indicates "we will have everything ready to roll cameras when the suit is settled."

Even if CBS benevolently agrees to some sort of a settlement where they don't take him for every penny he's got I very much doubt the production will be allowed to continue in any capacity that is even remotely associated with Star Trek.

 

[Albinator]

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?"

Your own analogies are flawed as well. Because you don't copyright lawn layouts. Characters and IP are copyrighted. To be able to use them-- even with different actors and homemade sets-- is DIRECT USE not a copy.

 

[Tom]

Even if CBS benevolently agrees to some sort of a settlement where they don't take him for every penny he's got I very much doubt the production will be allowed to continue in any capacity that is even remotely associated with Star Trek.

He is saying that to keep the backers happy even though he has no way of knowing what will happen. There could be some type of settlement, but as you said, 'Star Trek' Axanar will never see the light of day. At this point I'm sure his main concern is keeping the studio and not having to pay damages, then he can make a non Star Trek version of Axanar, or Star Wolf , Etc..

 

[Albinator]

I think it's worth mentioning that his hiring a prominent attorney I doubt will deter or intimidate CBS/Paramount. They know the Axanar team. Have worked with them. If you ask me, the reason they hired outside counsel was because they didn't expect him to roll over and needed a team that could put real time and effort into pursuing this litigation.

 

[Campe]

Even if CBS benevolently agrees to some sort of a settlement where they don't take him for every penny he's got I very much doubt the production will be allowed to continue in any capacity that is even remotely associated with Star Trek.

I really hope that's not how he thinks this is going to go. He will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Mudd]

If it weren't against the law to steal, would it be moral?

Because that's the thinking behind claims that this is a morally ambiguous situation. It is not.