Found picture of Alec as a child
I guess it can be funny ... but whoever created this meme cannot even spell "Chekov" right.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I guess it can be funny ... but whoever created this meme cannot even spell "Chekov" right.
Unless they're talking Anton and not Pavel. Don't know if that gun-wielding Russian's head had a moptop or not.
Of course. I was just curious about monetary damages. Would infringements from an unproduced script be the basis for monetary penalty, even if most of them never saw execution? The answer i've been given is yes, so my question has been answered to my satisfaction.
Unless they're talking Anton and not Pavel. Don't know if that gun-wielding Russian's head had a moptop or not.
No moptop.
Yes, once you have been here 14 days and made 14 posts, you get PM privileges and can add an avatar. Welcome!
I didn't realize this was supposed to have so many canon characters in it, so it looks like C/P will have plenty of direct infringements to go after, even before they get to the stuff like ship designs and alien races.
That's a really good question ... and I'm sure the lawyers here can answer it better. But I believe they could still seek statutory damages, if not actual damages, which I believe someone else mentioned could range from $100 to $150,000 per infringement.
Let's distinguish between "it's infringing/can the owner seek damages?" and “it's infringing/will the owner sue for it?”
Copyright law is clear, and it’s a very simple calculus:
A. If someone, without the permission of the copyright owner, makes a copy or derivative work of copyrightable subject matter, that is an infringement. Done, finito. Whether or not the person intended to infringe is irrelevant. (In fact, copyright infringement is a “strict liability” offense - no intent to infringe necessary, and a lack of intent isn't a defense, except in the case of criminal copyright infringement. Let's leave "criminal copyright infringement" out of this for now.))
B. If there is an infringement, the copyright owner has the right to see damages (limited only by affirmative defenses such as fair use, that may relieve the defendant of paying damages.)
That’s it.
Now, in your scenario - the writer creates and submits a spec script. It (by definition) copies some significant copyrightable aspect of ST. Therefore, by definition it is infringing, and the studio has a right to seek damages under the law. Whether the script was submitted to the studio or to a third party (or kept in a drawer) has no bearing on the fact that copyrightable subject matter was copied without the owner’s consent. An infringement has occurred
But just because the studio has the right to sue doesn’t mean they are going to (and most often, they don’t). If they sued for every little thing like that, the law might be on their side, but karma isn’t.
Now, there is the situation of a studio welcoming spec scripts (much more common in the old days than today- heck, it’s how Gerrold got “Tribbles” in front of Roddenberry.) That’s probably a different case. Remember, infringement is “doing something without the owner’s permission”. If the studio invited people to create derivative works for purposes of submitting them to the studio, then the creation of that derivative work isn’t being done without the studio’s consent. correct? So no infringement to create and submit a script pursuant to an invitation by the copyright owner. (But you’d want some pretty clear evidence to back up your claim of being “invited” if you relied on this.)
Bonus question: if the studio invited the creation of spec scripts, and then rejected the script, can the writer turn it into a book on his own? Depends on the facts:
1. Scenario 1 - studio invites spec scripts but only for the purpose of submitting to that studio - arguably doing something else with the work would be infringing, because your right to create the work in the first place was limited to a very specific purpose. ANy other use crossed the line for which you were given permission (a/k/a a "license").
2. Scenario 2 - studio says “write spec scripts but, by delivering to us, you agree we own all submissions.” Looks like the studio owns the script now so the writer can’t do anything with it, right? But that may not be true. Under U.S. Copyright law, the writer would need to affirmatively sign a document transferring his rights in the script to the studio. (oral assignments and the like are not valid).
In any case, unless the writer assigned his rights in the entire script to the studio in writing, the writer would be free to rewrite the script to excise all of the infringing material and repurpose the original work the writer created (i.e., by replacing all ST aspects with new ships, characters and settings, while retaining the same basic story and beats.) In fact, this is what Ranahan is hinting Axanar may be doing, when she talks about the script still being in flux and therefore may not be infringing anymore by the time it is filmed.
M
And, unrelated to any prior post - but I’m gonna throw this out there so that I don’t get beaten up if this all goes south for C/P six months from now, as we are largely talking at hypothetical levels - using current law - and may forget that the facts do matter.
U.S. copyright law changed drastically in 1976. Before 1976, U.S. copyright law was a minefield of technicalities, where simple missteps could put a cloud over ownership or even throw a work into the public domain.
For works created before 1976 (such as, say, every single episode of TOS and every single TOS script), the 1976 law attempted to retroactively give these works similar (but not the same) protections to works created after the new 1976 law went into effect. But the 1976 law did not “fix” any defects that may have arisen before 1976, and it did not “rescue” any works that may have inadvertently fallen into the public domain due to lack of compliance with pre-1976 legal formalities.
So every discussion we have about infringement - and Axanar’s liability for same - does have to recognize the possibilities that either (i) there is some oddity about the law in effect when the scripts and episodes were created that could allow a loophole for an “infringer” to slip through, or (ii) someone somewhere along the line forgot to cross an “t” or dot an “i” and the protections for pre-1976 ST are not as strong as we are assuming.
We’d like to think that a studio system like C/P wouldn’t let those things happen - but humans run studios, and humans can make mistakes. Or bad deals - I find it almost unfathomable that a studio with such an emphasis on licensing and control today previously gave Gene’s family an incredibly broad (and apparently perpetual right to also market their own ST merchandise with Lincoln Enterprises and its successors. But they did.)
So don’t rule out the possibility that, no matter how clearly we see “right” and “wrong” here, there could always exist some technical deficiency or peculiarity in pre-1976 law that nonetheless gives Axanar some wiggle room.
- M (your reliable wet blanket since 1968)
U.S. copyright law changed drastically in 1976. Before 1976, U.S. copyright law was a minefield of technicalities, where simple missteps could put a cloud over ownership or even throw a work into the public domain.
For works created before 1976 (such as, say, every single episode of TOS and every single TOS script), the 1976 law attempted to retroactively give these works similar (but not the same) protections to works created after the new 1976 law went into effect. But the 1976 law did not “fix” any defects that may have arisen before 1976, and it did not “rescue” any works that may have inadvertently fallen into the public domain due to lack of compliance with pre-1976 legal formalities.
So every discussion we have about infringement - and Axanar’s liability for same - does have to recognize the possibilities that either (i) there is some oddity about the law in effect when the scripts and episodes were created that could allow a loophole for an “infringer” to slip through, or (ii) someone somewhere along the line forgot to cross an “t” or dot an “i” and the protections for pre-1976 ST are not as strong as we are assuming.
We’d like to think that a studio system like C/P wouldn’t let those things happen - but humans run studios, and humans can make mistakes. Or bad deals - I find it almost unfathomable that a studio with such an emphasis on licensing and control today previously gave Gene’s family an incredibly broad (and apparently perpetual right to also market their own ST merchandise with Lincoln Enterprises and its successors. But they did.)
So don’t rule out the possibility that, no matter how clearly we see “right” and “wrong” here, there could always exist some technical deficiency or peculiarity in pre-1976 law that nonetheless gives Axanar some wiggle room.
- M (your reliable wet blanket since 1968)
@mkstewartesq
Thanks for that detailed reply. It was just that your answer of 'yes' that I quoted had me going 'eh'?
That's what I like about this thread, that you can ask questions, and get informative and detailed answers. Thanks again to all the learned folks here, keeping simple ol' me up to speed!
Thanks for that detailed reply. It was just that your answer of 'yes' that I quoted had me going 'eh'?
That's what I like about this thread, that you can ask questions, and get informative and detailed answers. Thanks again to all the learned folks here, keeping simple ol' me up to speed!
ah the old Donmoor shirts, they were great
PS where did you get my grade school class photo
PS where did you get my grade school class photo
Found picture of Alec as a child
But Soval and the Vulcan ships we see in the Vulcan scene were created in 2001.
Yes, and Robau is from 2009.
- Status