• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
I found this little gem at the Axanar Online Pressroom.
Announcement%201_zpsbiik6knq.png

Since when has CBS/P "officially sanctioned" Axanar? I'm not a lawyer but that looks like fraud on Alec's part.
 
urbandefault said:
If he actually said he "can't be there offficially" he might not show up for a screening. If he's not physically there, can he be held responsible? I think yes, but he probably thinks no.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, there's no way he won't be there. His ego is too big.
Click to expand...

You'd have to go back some pages here, but there was a link or image that showed him saying it. My understanding was that he would be there in person - hence my suggestion that we all go dressed as the CBS and Paramount logos to tick him off.

Indysolo said:
Superman II. It's mostly footage shot for Superman - The Movie, but the image of Terence Stamp was shot for STM but not used there.

Neil
Click to expand...

Never actually seen the Superman films
 
Michael Hinman said:
So if a judge owns an Apple product, he also should not be allowed to hear a case involving Apple?

Or what if television itself was part of some type of lawsuit. Would he be ineligible because he owns a television? :)

Usually conflicts of interest, at least at a government level, must be very specific and show actual potential of bias.

If he donated money to Axanar? Yes, conflict of interest. If he donated money to other fan films? Maybe a conflict of interest.

He owns some Star Trek DVDs? Not a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Micheal...Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking, there...you and others are correct. Must have been having a Moment!
 
urbandefault said:
I listened to the podcast this morning, and I think I know how you will answer this question.

If you were the judge in this case, and based strictly on copyright, how would you decide? Just based on the complaint, without any testimony or argument?

That's a big question, but it's what we all want to know. :)

Other legal eagles are free to weigh in here.

But just the facts, ma'am.
Click to expand...

First off, thank you for listening.

I'm sure it's no great surprise I would rule for plaintiffs. I see this as wholesale, obvious, blatant copying. The defense knew this IP wasn't theirs. Plaintiffs never gave them permission to use any part of it, either implied or tacit or direct, and never allowed them to infringe. There is no parody and no fair use. There is no transformative use. The waiver defense should fail.

In the realm of damages, I look at it as 'but for'. It's proximate cause, e. g. what happens in the presence of the infringement? What is caused by the infringement, or runs in tandem with it? To my mind, the following things happen:
  • A commercial space in Valencia, California is leased and renovated, with items stored therein and people keeping offices there.
  • Conventions are attended by people performing promotional duties.
  • Certain awards are given by various independent groups.
  • Infringing articles are designed, created, and mailed out, by both a fulfillment team and at least one known independent vendor (the coffee company).
  • Crowdfunding is obtained, which in turn provides profit for crowdfunding platforms.
  • Scripts, props, costumes, makeup, hair styling, special effects, story boards, and the like are created or altered to fit the infringing artwork.
I consider most of those to be damages that should be awarded to the plaintiffs, most likely in the form of articles (e. g. the leasehold, the models, the costumes, et al) rather than monetary funds. However, monies should be awarded to the plaintiffs in order to make up for a shortfall, e. g. if 10,000 patches were created and only 4,000 remain to be awarded to the plaintiffs, the remaining 6,000 should be awarded to plaintiffs based upon fair market value for same. The independently granted film awards can be retained by the defense. The crowdfunding platforms should be sent at least a sternly-worded letter that they are on notice and should police their own project runners better in the future, but that would not be a part of any verdict or settlement - that would be up to the plaintiffs, although I believe it would constitute a prudent move on their part.

My means of granting the award may or may not 100% fly, particularly with references to the monetary value of the merchandise, but those are my own ideas.

Thanks for asking.
 
I'd assume then, that the rent already paid, the salaries paid, production costs like sets that can't be liquidated for original value, are "nonrecoverable profit" that could be awarded?
 
muCephi said:
I think that "officially sanctioned" stuff has been up for a long time, and my best guess is the may have thought it would be more suspicious to disappear it than to leave it out there.
Click to expand...
That header is a link to an AP article dated March, 2015. I've seen Alec & Co make a lot of ridiculous claims. The "officially sanctioned" one is one of the most cringy.
 
Red Shirt said:
It's the inference I'm pointing out.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, Red Shirt, I got that. But in this case he/they couldn't be legally nailed for saying,"...officially sanctioned by CBS/Paramount." I just wonder if it was worded that way to mislead?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm trying to build the perfect summary post that I can copy/paste whenever this subject comes up on the various sites I read. My goal is to describe the situation clearly and simply, so someone who has no idea what is going on will understand the meat of the situation. Here is what I have thus far, and please share any feedback:

For anyone new to this subject, allow me to summarize:

1) Axanar raised $1,000,000 by using the Trek IP without permission.

2) The Axanar team then paid themselves a salary with some of that money.

3) The Axanar team then used some of that money to build a sound stage that they stated they planned to rent for profit.

-----

For most fan productions, number 1 isn't usually an issue as long as as all of the money is being invested in the project, and no PROFIT is being made. Although, admittedly, most fan productions don't raise anywhere near that much money, and the more money raised the bigger the red flag. That said, numbers 2 and 3 are where the real problem starts, so here goes...

No, it is NOT wrong for a non profit organization to have paid employees. Organizations like the Red Cross are examples of non profits with paid employees.

However(and this is the key point), if you don't actually work for the Red Cross, you can't print off their logos, then go down to the mall and raise money, then keep some of that money to pay yourself. You cannot profit yourself using the Red Cross brand without their express permission. Likewise, you cannot profit yourself using the Trek brand without the IP owner's express permission, which Axanar did not have.

The same logic described above also applies to the sound stage. They cannot use funds raised by using the Trek IP without permission, then use those funds to build something that will make them a profit.

So, the part where they absolutely screwed themselves was where they decided to start profiting. Now, here is their defense: the project was taking all of our time, and we needed money to live on. This is an excellent example of a fake problem. The project was taking all of their time...because they *DECIDED* to spend all of their time on it. No one was forcing them work on it. So they cannot create a fake problem, then use that problem as an excuse to break the rules.

Long story short, epic fail.
Click to expand...
 
T'Bonz said:
Kind of surprised at the Lin post. That won't go over well...
Click to expand...

Probably not. But it certainly be handled quietly, behind the scenes.

Karzak said:
No one is reading more into the Tweet however than Alec Peters, and in true Alec Peters fashion, he's milking it while he can.

Has Burnett commented on it yet?
Click to expand...

He had a Facebook post about it this morning. He took it postiviely, as a sign of support, if I remember correctly. (I don't feel like going back to look.)
 
HIjol said:
Oh, yes, Red Shirt, I got that. But in this case he/they couldn't be legally nailed for saying,"...officially sanctioned by CBS Paramount." I just wonder if it was worded that way to mislead?
Click to expand...

well that's interesting.. "CBS Paramount" was the name of the CBS tv production company ("CBS Paramount Network Television") only between 2006 and 2009, according to Wikipedia. Is this what you mean?
 
No no, just accidentally left out the slash...CBS/Paramout

I edited the post to correct...nice Google catch! Thanks, I try hard to be accurate, but...

:bolian: :shrug: :biggrin:
 
The_Grand_Nagus said:
I'm trying to build the perfect summary post that I can copy/paste whenever this subject comes up on the various sites I read. My goal is to describe the situation clearly and simply, so someone who has no idea what is going on will understand the meat of the situation. Here is what I have thus far, and please share any feedback:
Click to expand...
If people want more of a legal look into things, I cover it all (but I warn you, it's long because this stuff is kinda complicated) - http://www.gandtshow.com/author/janet/ (most recent 5 on the list). Thank you for taking a peek.
 
jespah said:
First off, thank you for listening.

I'm sure it's no great surprise I would rule for plaintiffs. I see this as wholesale, obvious, blatant copying. The defense knew this IP wasn't theirs. Plaintiffs never gave them permission to use any part of it, either implied or tacit or direct, and never allowed them to infringe. There is no parody and no fair use. There is no transformative use. The waiver defense should fail.

In the realm of damages, I look at it as 'but for'. It's proximate cause, e. g. what happens in the presence of the infringement? What is caused by the infringement, or runs in tandem with it? To my mind, the following things happen:
  • A commercial space in Valencia, California is leased and renovated, with items stored therein and people keeping offices there.
  • Conventions are attended by people performing promotional duties.
  • Certain awards are given by various independent groups.
  • Infringing articles are designed, created, and mailed out, by both a fulfillment team and at least one known independent vendor (the coffee company).
  • Crowdfunding is obtained, which in turn provides profit for crowdfunding platforms.
  • Scripts, props, costumes, makeup, hair styling, special effects, story boards, and the like are created or altered to fit the infringing artwork.
I consider most of those to be damages that should be awarded to the plaintiffs, most likely in the form of articles (e. g. the leasehold, the models, the costumes, et al) rather than monetary funds. However, monies should be awarded to the plaintiffs in order to make up for a shortfall, e. g. if 10,000 patches were created and only 4,000 remain to be awarded to the plaintiffs, the remaining 6,000 should be awarded to plaintiffs based upon fair market value for same. The independently granted film awards can be retained by the defense. The crowdfunding platforms should be sent at least a sternly-worded letter that they are on notice and should police their own project runners better in the future, but that would not be a part of any verdict or settlement - that would be up to the plaintiffs, although I believe it would constitute a prudent move on their part.

My means of granting the award may or may not 100% fly, particularly with references to the monetary value of the merchandise, but those are my own ideas.

Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...
And thank you for responding in as much detail as you could stand to provide. :)

I got a big kick out of hearing you get so wound up over this. It's pretty much the same way I sound when I'm explaining this stuff to my wife. :techman:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top