CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
The verdict or settlement would be for some sort of $$ and potentially also equitable relief (say, an injunction).
But it doesn't really matter how a settlement is paid. Props? A leasehold? A house in another state, such as Florida? Stocks? Money? The donor store merch? S & H green stamps? Whatever is valued equivalent to the settlement or verdict will do.
Oops, almost forgot - YouTube is up - I believe Axa discussion starts after an hour (?):
As always, many thanks for your kind support.
Last edited:
DOES seem like a fairly obvious ploy that SHOULDN'T work, huh? If you're about to get sued and lose your assets, selling them to, uh, yourself doesn't seem like a way to keep them safe. Law should be able to blast right through that, and then you've lost the assets PLUS the money you (and others) kicked in to try and buy them. Not like it's a disinterested 3rd party, he's going to sell them to a group of which he's no doubt the majority owner of. Or at least controller of, doubt he'll put in enough money to own the most shares or whatever.
DOES seem like a fairly obvious ploy that SHOULDN'T work, huh? If you're about to get sued and lose your assets, selling them to, uh, yourself doesn't seem like a way to keep them safe. Law should be able to blast right through that, and then you've lost the assets PLUS the money you (and others) kicked in to try and buy them. Not like it's a disinterested 3rd party, he's going to sell them to a group of which he's no doubt the majority owner of. Or at least controller of, doubt he'll putin enough money to own the most shares or whatever.
Happens all the time here in the UK
Last edited:
Lazy cross-post to follow:
A common argument from Axanar supporters (all 30 or so of them) is that “Star Trek belongs to the fans.”
I wanted to break down that argument a bit and get to the heart of why it is a poor defense for Axanar or any other fan production.
First, let’s state the obvious: Star Trek™ as an entertainment franchise, business interest, and intellectual property belongs to CBS, Paramount, and other affiliated entities. While millions of individuals enjoy the past and present productions created under the Star Trek™ brand, they don’t own anything more than the physical media/streaming access they have purchased.
To illustrate: you may enjoy visiting a Disney theme park, even perhaps purchasing high - level season tickets, spending thousands of dollars annually on merchandise, or even purchasing special “behind the scenes” packages or a brick on one of their “legacy” walls/sidewalks. But at no time does such financial investment allow you to charge admission, sell Disney merchandise without a license, or charge other individuals to see films and pictures from your visits. You may be a “fan” but you don’t and never will own The Magic Kingdom.
Second: the attempt to create a monolithic group entitled “the fans” is almost universally motivated by a self-serving desire to justify a particular subjective viewpoint. “The fans” hate JJTrek. “The fans” will never tolerate anyone by James Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise. “The fans” want something better from CBS. “The fans” want Star Trek to sign an agreement with LEGO. The arguments are virtually infinite, but almost every single time they could be reworded – “I want something/don’t want something.”
So whenever a person claims that Star Trek “belongs to the fans” what they are really saying - in part - is “Star Trek should be whatever I want it to be, and I am tired of not being able to determine the outcome of the franchise by making anonymous posts on Facebook or obscure Trek bulletin boards.”
Third: Science fiction fans are rarely enamored of new ideas, and if content creators simply pandered to nostalgia and the wishes of vocal fans, popular franchises would slowly grow stale and die. Slavish devotion to familiar characters and settings is not the recipe for continued success, and fortunately most content creators are willing to inject new and fresh ideas that eventually fans will embrace and then use as a weapon to browbeat the creators and tell them “it needs to be just like this.”
Finally: the “fans” claiming to own Star Trek are often those who invested many thousands of dollars into DVDs, toys, and other materials. They often feel that this “investment” gives the right to have a larger say in the future of the franchise. However, were that to be the case then all entertainment franchises would develop a tiered class system, with a handful of big spenders able to impost their whims on the rest of the fans. That would be terrible.
So where does that leave Axanar?
Although the Axanar team regularly acknowledged (in fine print ) that they did not “own” the copyrights to Trek, they also just as regularly used Trek (and other franchise’s) logos to promote their own production. While claiming to be an innocent fans when the attention was turned on them – they were happy to appropriate Trek logos and copyrighted elements without even a fine print disclaimer, and they also were happy to bask in the attention given them by some of “the fans” and repeatedly claim that they were different, that they were an “independent” endeavor and that they were ‘making Real Trek.’
The actions of the Axanar team are analogous to a “fan” building – on Disney property - a tribute to Splash Mountain and accepting donations to fund the ride, parking, employees to build and maintain the ride, and offering Splash Mountain themed concessions. At some point they stopped being “fans” and started becoming “thieves.”
In addition, by fostering an Us V Them attitude, they allowed “the fans want this” to become another self-serving subjective argument. Leaving alone the notion that “fans” had no idea what Axanar was going to bring to the table besides static FX shots and talking heads with giant lens flares in the background – claiming that “Trek belongs to the fans” is an awfully convenient way to justify continued financial gain on the part of Axanar’s main creative team. Axanar does not speak for Star Trek fans because NO ONE DOES. Each fan has his or her own preferences, and while fan productions may appeal to certain fans that does not mean that fan productions are given proxy power, able to represent the wishes of fans in negotiations with CBS/Paramount.
Also, some of the most vocal “Trek belongs to the fans” arguments come from those who invested the most money into the Axanar project. Could it be that they feel their investment gives them the right to determine the future of Trek? If so, they are mistaken, and are in danger of advocating a tiered fan system that would lead to creative power being concentrated into the hands of a few big spenders. No thanks.
Finally – all fan films are by nature derivative. They rarely, if ever, come up with new concepts or ideas, and are often rated by how slavishly they adhere to the “atmosphere” of the original. One could even argue that fan films are by nature reductive, sloughing off any new concept that does not appeal to their narrow audience and attempting to make something that precisely imitates the parts of the original product that are most popular. A fan film would never attempt to use a Beastie Boy song in its soundtrack, or introduce a younger version of the main characters or change the race of an iconic villain, or introduce a new crew and new ship set some 100 years into the future or past.
New content is created by the original owners of the IP, and that’s what they need to do. They have a vested interest in keeping the franchise fresh and appealing, they understand the changing needs of the marketplace, and they want to attract (gasp!) NEW FANS. They alone can have the courage to ignore canon, minutiae, and “super-fans.”
So in closing – the argument that Axanar should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants with Star Trek because “Star Trek belongs to the fans” is inaccurate, self-serving, and dangerous to the future of the franchise.
A common argument from Axanar supporters (all 30 or so of them) is that “Star Trek belongs to the fans.”
I wanted to break down that argument a bit and get to the heart of why it is a poor defense for Axanar or any other fan production.
First, let’s state the obvious: Star Trek™ as an entertainment franchise, business interest, and intellectual property belongs to CBS, Paramount, and other affiliated entities. While millions of individuals enjoy the past and present productions created under the Star Trek™ brand, they don’t own anything more than the physical media/streaming access they have purchased.
To illustrate: you may enjoy visiting a Disney theme park, even perhaps purchasing high - level season tickets, spending thousands of dollars annually on merchandise, or even purchasing special “behind the scenes” packages or a brick on one of their “legacy” walls/sidewalks. But at no time does such financial investment allow you to charge admission, sell Disney merchandise without a license, or charge other individuals to see films and pictures from your visits. You may be a “fan” but you don’t and never will own The Magic Kingdom.
Second: the attempt to create a monolithic group entitled “the fans” is almost universally motivated by a self-serving desire to justify a particular subjective viewpoint. “The fans” hate JJTrek. “The fans” will never tolerate anyone by James Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise. “The fans” want something better from CBS. “The fans” want Star Trek to sign an agreement with LEGO. The arguments are virtually infinite, but almost every single time they could be reworded – “I want something/don’t want something.”
So whenever a person claims that Star Trek “belongs to the fans” what they are really saying - in part - is “Star Trek should be whatever I want it to be, and I am tired of not being able to determine the outcome of the franchise by making anonymous posts on Facebook or obscure Trek bulletin boards.”
Third: Science fiction fans are rarely enamored of new ideas, and if content creators simply pandered to nostalgia and the wishes of vocal fans, popular franchises would slowly grow stale and die. Slavish devotion to familiar characters and settings is not the recipe for continued success, and fortunately most content creators are willing to inject new and fresh ideas that eventually fans will embrace and then use as a weapon to browbeat the creators and tell them “it needs to be just like this.”
Finally: the “fans” claiming to own Star Trek are often those who invested many thousands of dollars into DVDs, toys, and other materials. They often feel that this “investment” gives the right to have a larger say in the future of the franchise. However, were that to be the case then all entertainment franchises would develop a tiered class system, with a handful of big spenders able to impost their whims on the rest of the fans. That would be terrible.
So where does that leave Axanar?
Although the Axanar team regularly acknowledged (in fine print ) that they did not “own” the copyrights to Trek, they also just as regularly used Trek (and other franchise’s) logos to promote their own production. While claiming to be an innocent fans when the attention was turned on them – they were happy to appropriate Trek logos and copyrighted elements without even a fine print disclaimer, and they also were happy to bask in the attention given them by some of “the fans” and repeatedly claim that they were different, that they were an “independent” endeavor and that they were ‘making Real Trek.’
The actions of the Axanar team are analogous to a “fan” building – on Disney property - a tribute to Splash Mountain and accepting donations to fund the ride, parking, employees to build and maintain the ride, and offering Splash Mountain themed concessions. At some point they stopped being “fans” and started becoming “thieves.”
In addition, by fostering an Us V Them attitude, they allowed “the fans want this” to become another self-serving subjective argument. Leaving alone the notion that “fans” had no idea what Axanar was going to bring to the table besides static FX shots and talking heads with giant lens flares in the background – claiming that “Trek belongs to the fans” is an awfully convenient way to justify continued financial gain on the part of Axanar’s main creative team. Axanar does not speak for Star Trek fans because NO ONE DOES. Each fan has his or her own preferences, and while fan productions may appeal to certain fans that does not mean that fan productions are given proxy power, able to represent the wishes of fans in negotiations with CBS/Paramount.
Also, some of the most vocal “Trek belongs to the fans” arguments come from those who invested the most money into the Axanar project. Could it be that they feel their investment gives them the right to determine the future of Trek? If so, they are mistaken, and are in danger of advocating a tiered fan system that would lead to creative power being concentrated into the hands of a few big spenders. No thanks.
Finally – all fan films are by nature derivative. They rarely, if ever, come up with new concepts or ideas, and are often rated by how slavishly they adhere to the “atmosphere” of the original. One could even argue that fan films are by nature reductive, sloughing off any new concept that does not appeal to their narrow audience and attempting to make something that precisely imitates the parts of the original product that are most popular. A fan film would never attempt to use a Beastie Boy song in its soundtrack, or introduce a younger version of the main characters or change the race of an iconic villain, or introduce a new crew and new ship set some 100 years into the future or past.
New content is created by the original owners of the IP, and that’s what they need to do. They have a vested interest in keeping the franchise fresh and appealing, they understand the changing needs of the marketplace, and they want to attract (gasp!) NEW FANS. They alone can have the courage to ignore canon, minutiae, and “super-fans.”
So in closing – the argument that Axanar should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants with Star Trek because “Star Trek belongs to the fans” is inaccurate, self-serving, and dangerous to the future of the franchise.
Enjoying a product or service doesn't entitle you to sell it as your own. I can't, because I like Wendy's, get donations to build my own Wendy's restaurant and say "this is true Wendy's that people love" and that I own Wendy's branding because I love Wendy's more than Wendy's does.
My view is probably more pure SF. I think Trek states the unconscious hope that when we encounter more advanced life forms, we will be able to present a state of mind that is recognized as a conscious inquiring peer, not as harvestable life forms, or as pests.
Stories that explore how we would somehow bridge this gap seem to have value; but even then, with something like the Borg that truly tries to posit the alternative of collective mind, the writers eventually end up falling back on revealing a 'human' underneath as the solution to communication and "equivalence".
By contrast, the idea that we would encounter relatively equivalent-technology, similar ego-structured (needing to have "honor" or "prove" anything) species who would engage in pewpew from manned ships in a duel, is fan service.
In truth, if a life form that can travel between stars gets pissed off with us, they just have to deorbit some kuiper belt objects, or introduce a genetically dominant microbe, which does not produce oxygen, into our oceans. or if they are looking for fireworks, attach a few stardrives to a rock and aim it.
To be fair, "Orions" and all sorts of other things are fan service too.
And then a lot of it just projecting our internal mental angst onto bumpy nosed stand-ins.
On the whole, I just don't think the pewpew has ANYTHING to do with what lies ahead in encountering the unknown, and coming to terms with it.
If the injunction also gets the part about destroying any Trek-related IP infringements (wasn't that in there?), they won't be able to resell it.
Last edited:
I agree with most of your post. But it's interesting that you oppose this system of an elite few being able to wield creative power over Star Trek; because that is exactly the system that exists now. And if not this what other alternatives are there? Democratically elected representatives of "the fans" forming a council to make creative decisions for Star Trek?
I think you misunderstand me. I DON'T oppose the current business model (a few creators preparing material for the masses) as it is the traditional model for entertainment content creation and it is highly accountable to the consumer. In short, if we don't like it, we don't buy it, and the content creator(s) is/are out of a job.
Can you imagine the machinations involved if "fans" somehow had a democratic process of creating new content? Can you imagine how terrible that new content would be?
Could it be worse than Insurrection or Nemesis, or even the JJ Abrams movies?? Sadly, I think it could.
The question in this post exemplifies the dangers of democratic content creation.
MSgt. I was with you on Insurrection and Nemesis. But I like the reboots.
SSgt KennyB ;-)
Because unlike certain groups (like say Axanar Productions) FASA understood the ONLY way to legally market and profit from something based on Gene Roddenberry's 'Star Trek' IP (which Paramount owned at that time) - they had to request, and be granted a license to do so from the owners of the IP (again Paramount); for which they were charged a fee (IE One way Paramount makes its money from the Star Trek IP.)
Simple as that.
^^^
Um, IMO (as someone who's watching Star Trek first run since 1969 - and it well aware of GR's attempts to personally profit via the Star Trek IP - even after he sold it lock, stock and barrel to Paramount in 1969); you just descfribed GR's personal 'vision' for Star Trek to a 'T'; so I guess it could be said Paramount/CBS really ARE holding tight to "Gene's Vision".
How dare you sir?! I will take my limited edition Bat'leth out of its original packaging to challenge you!
I've been rewatching TOS recently and this viewpoint sits less and less well with me with each passing episode. Take out the cheese, sixties cultural viewpoints, and ham acting, and insert some modern production values, a pinch of modern social niceties and more dynamic cinematography and the two sit very well side by side, IMHO. Kirk is constantly going off half cocked on a dubious mission flanked by the dry wit of Mr Spock and Bones' grumpy borderline racism. They're always getting captured, escaping, having a shooting or punching match and finally giving a rising speech to the locals. I've just watched The Enterprise Incident - I could see JJs crew doing that story in a heartbeat, almost without changes.
- Status