tell me again how a business startup that has "liabilities" on the books for the first few years is by definition "nonprofit".
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
tell me again how a business startup that has "liabilities" on the books for the first few years is by definition "nonprofit".
My favorite part of it is the blatant and unapologetic cash grab price hiking from the listing page to the actual item pages for example, the "Ares" starship model kit ... $84.95 ()
Except, OH NOES! It's not! It's actually $101.95!
Yeah that is too much for me to buy a model , I mean that is more expensive than Federation models
Maybe they are thinking true fans will buy because it will soon be gone and become a 'collectors item'.
No surprise that I agree with @mkstewartesq - C/P aren't suing on the donors' behalf. What happens, at the end of the lawsuit, may turn out to benefit the donors at least a little bit, but it is rather separate. The beneficiaries of any settlement or verdict, assuming the plaintiffs win (either at the district level or on a hypothetical future appeal) will be CBS and Paramount and not the donors.
Donors have other remedies and potential remedies, with varying chances of success and/or levels of eventual satisfaction:
Donors have other remedies and potential remedies, with varying chances of success and/or levels of eventual satisfaction:
- Get in touch with whatever they used to send their donations (e. g. a credit card company, Paypal) and ask them to launch an investigation (this may be the most likely means of bringing results to donors)
- Ask the Axa establishment for a refund (some refunds have been provided although my understanding is those have been for the later campaigns, such as for the full-length film. I don't believe refunds are being given for donations to Prelude but if I am wrong, then I welcome a correction) (this has some chance of success)
- Contact the California Attorney General's office
- Contact their own state's Attorney General's office, or the similar governmental functionary in their area if they are outside the United States
- Contact their local crusading consumer affairs reporter and ask them to investigate
- Contact their local or state representative(s) and ask them to look into potentially regulating crowdfunding (probably won't help current donors but it may help future donors to other future campaigns)
- Explore their options with a competent IP attorney experienced in such matters, and bring either their own private civil lawsuit or gather up other donors and bring a class action suit.
If this is indeed the case and Lord Alec's ego is left relatively intact, I fear this will get a lot messier and we may not ever have a chance of seeing him shut up.......
For anyone who worked for the private for profit California S corporation called Axanar Productions, Inc and did not have their hours tracked, and get paid at least minimum wage plus overtime on a regular payday are eligible to file a wage claim against their employer. The State of California makes it relatively easy:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm
Last edited:
There probably are more ways to mess up Trek or other SF franchises, but for now I'd be fine with this abuse getting stopped. And honestly, I am glad that the people who are causing trouble here are focused on the non-reality of Trek rather than something important, like quality control for medicines, or political decisions about water supplies, or deciding what to do with military forces. In a way its Trek taking one for the team.
I know there's one sentence that mentions that the defendants may have enjoyed "financial benefit" from the production, but where does it say in the Complaint they're being sued for more than "copyright infringements"? Someone else has mentioned it elsewhere and I can't find it. jespah, any help?
Only one of the people in this photo is being sued for paying themselves a salary based on an IP they don't own.
I believe the citing of the financial benefit is to open the door to that data being used to help assess potential damages.
I 100% agree - C/P are not suing on the pledger's/donor's behalf. That being said, I DO believe ANY settlement proposed by C/P will include repayment of funds to pledger's/donors (along with the requirement that they 'quit'/terminate the lease of the Ares Studios location, etc. <--- And it's not because C/P care about we who pledged/donated (in fact C/P wishes we never pledged a cent, because if we hadn't they wouldn't have had to sue); BUT they'll want to make 100% sure that they show Axanar Productions (and Mr. Peters in particular) gained ZERO financial or property benefit from illegally using the Star Trek IP to accrue the money they have for Axanar.
If there is no settlement (and I don't think there will be) - C/P will make sure that whatever they find (and there is more than enough already IMO) will cost Axanar and Mr. Peters MUCH more then they accrued via pledges/donations to maker sure it's shown that you CANNOT gain in any way from this type of illegal activity. C/P will NOT (as a gesture) refund any money to pledgers/donors as they are taking this action (the lawsuit) strictly to protect their Billion dollar IP - and their ability to profit from it via licensing, etc. <---- They will do whatever it takes to make sure that is the ultimate outcome of all this.
That said, If enough Axanar donors are upset, they could look into filing a separate class action suit (and if the C/P trial evidence presented proves a misuse of donor funds, that evidence could also be used in that separate action) in an attempt to be reimbursed for some amount (you'll never get 100% back of what you pledged in a situation like this.
Individual pledgers/donors could also bring the situation to the attention of the CA Attorney General and try to get the state to do a criminal investigation and possibly bring separate criminal charges if the AG's office feels the results of their investigation warrant it - and then they would probably present such evidence before a Grand Jury - and try to get charges pressed, etc.
But yeah, in the end C/P aren't doing anything for the sake of the fans/pledgers/donors. C/P are doing this specifically to protect their interests; and they hope to send a clear message that abuse of their copyrights for ANY sort of financial/material gain WILL NOT be tolerated - and will be met with serious legal action.
Last edited:
^ This. AP 'sorta told' donors money would go towards studio that would make other productions; the fact he can't make his Axanar film as promised is all that nasty C/P fault
I think as a donor the question would be, was it your intention to *just* give him a studio? The second Kickstarter argued I think that they needed to build infrastructure in order to deliver the film first, and secondarily, rather than renting, buy and then use it for future indirect benefit to fans. But not *just* to buy him a studio.
Here's the complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660454-Startreklawsuit.html
The claims are for:
- Copyright infringement (page 11 of the document, against all defendants)
- Contributory copyright infringement (page 12 of the document, against all defendants)
- Vicarious copyright infringement (page 13 of the document, against all defendants)
- Declaratory judgment claim for relief (page 13, against all defendants)
To amplify what others have said (which is most of what I seem to do around here because there are already so many smart cookies here like @jespah and @muCephi):
1. The Complaint only alleges copyright infringement in various forms - nothing else. My references to trademark infringement, unfair competition, etc. referred to claims C/P could or might bring when they amend their complaint. But we won't know until that document is filed, and they may elect to bring none of them.
2. Any reference to "financial benefit" in the current Complaint is there to serve the copyright claims, not to open the door to other matters relating to the money Axanar took in or how they spent it. As far as I can see, that reference serves at least three (3) copyright-related purposes
- first, as @muCephi noted, it opens the door to alleging damages, including a claim for defendant's profits (if any);
- second, the presence of a financial benefit would go against (not destroy, but go against) an argument of fair use, as infringements done for "commercial" (versus "non-commercial") purposes are less likely to be deemed to be fair uses of the copyrighted work; and
- lastly, "financial benefit" is actually one of the legal elements C/P will have to prove to prevail on one (1) of the grounds of infringement - the count for vicarious liability for infringement. Generally, to make someone vicariously liable for someone else's infringing activity (say, to make Alec or Axanar liable for infringement done by one of the Does), you generally have to prove that they (Alec or Axanar in this example) (i) had the right or ability to control the infringing activities of the Doe, and (ii) received a direct "financial benefit: as a result of the Doe's infringement.
M
I noted upstream comments culled from elsewhere on the net that the game piece maker for Axanar is maintaining that Axanar told them the maker was acting as a "vendor" to Axanar, and therefore (I think they were saying) shielded from any claims of infringement. What do you think of this concept, and how it may play out for the game piece maker?
As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, copyright infringement is a "strict liability" offense, meaning you are liable if you make the copy, even if you did not know that doing so was an infringement and did not intend to infringe. "Intent" really only goes to how much damages you are liable for. Making a copy (shorthand for "infringing item") at someone else's request or direction is no defense. In fact, tying into the above, the maker would be liable for direct infringement and the person who told him or her to make it may be liable for contributory infringement or vicarious infringement depending on the facts (and may also be liable direct infringement (again, depending on the facts). So that claim doesn't hold water.
This is why, for example, the copyright laws had to create a special exemption for photocopiers in public libraries - under the law as written, the library would be liable for copyright infringement if they allowed a patron to copy a page from a copyrighted book on their photocopiers. It's only the specific exemption under the law that protects them. This is also why do-it-yourself photo labs in places like Walmart have signs saying you can't use their equipment print photos of pictures unless you own the copyright in the picture (not enforced too often - but that's why it's there.)
M
Side note - I'm a lousy typist and it shows in every post I make. Is there an edit button hidden somewhere that I am just missing? As the saying goes, "I do my best proofreading after I hit 'send.'"
M
M
Bottom of the post but it does go away after a while.
Interesting, thanks. Too bad, another casualty of this endeavor.
you have to be 2 weeks old on this board to get the edit button, apparently.
At the bottom of each post are clickable links to Edit or Delete or a Report the post.
- Status