• 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.
Sgt_G said:
You know, if Marvin Gaye's estate could win their case against Robin Thicke / Pharrell Williams for "Blurred Lines" (they won that? really?? did the judge not have ears???), and now Justin Bieber / Usher are being sued for "Somebody To Love" because it has "the same beat pattern, time signature, and similar chords" as another song ("same / similar"?? really???), I really don't see how Axanar can possibly think they are "different enough" to not be infringing on the Trek copyrights.
Click to expand...

Actually, what the Robin Thicke/Pharrell outcome demonstrates to me (though I disagree with the outcome- but I was not consulted; their loss) is that juries are inclined to minimize the "legalistic distinctions" between two works and focus instead on finding similarity when they feel that a defendant is "ripping off" a plaintiff.

Which bodes very poorly for Axanar if their case actually makes it to a jury. I and other lawyers can argue all day long over what is or isn't copyrightable subject matter in Star Trek - but a jury is much more likely to disregard that and say "now, come on - this is a direct ripoff of Star Trek. Anybody can see that." And judges do not overturn jury verdicts lightly.

M
 
carlosp said:
It's a question of accountability. A PR person should still be held accountable for what he says.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A PR's job is dependent on building trust with the audience who would receive their message, whether it's a reporter, a detractor or a supporter. Writing a missive like Baldwin did erodes whatever trust he had built with the so-called haters-cum-detractors.

Karzak said:
Too true. It's a shame that this -- accountability -- has been the missing ingredient in this entire Axanar mess.

Count me among those disappointed to see Bawden color the detractors so broadly and unfairly, if only because of the measured and factually-based approached you have taken in dissecting everything that has transpired thus far, Carlos. You didn't deserve that.
Click to expand...

I admire @carlosp and what's he's done with Axamonitor. He's remained objective, factual and professional about his coverage.
 
BillJ said:
Especially, considering they are all over the internet admitting what they are doing is a copyright infringement.

Alec Peters is a lawyer... :lol:
Click to expand...
Legal training is like logic...
tumblr_lueqoj2NGJ1qebtweo1_500.png
 
muCephi said:
....
At a minimum they would have to start priming their donors for an 'attorney expenses' fundraiser, and that's assuming they come out of it able to make a film so they can justify fans paying the attorneys....
Click to expand...

Kickstarter does not come out and say it's not allowed, but they do say that projects have to be for making something. See:
https://www.kickstarter.com/rules

Indiegogo is even less clear about this but the gist of it is they want the projects on their platform to have a product of some sort (even if the product is to produce an off-Broadway show) at the end of it.

But there are crowdfunding platforms that specialize in this. I can't vouch for quality or reliability. Here are 4 I found.
https://www.fundedjustice.com/en
https://invest4justice.com/
https://crowddefend.com/
https://www.lexshares.com/
 
Sgt_G said:
You know, if Marvin Gaye's estate could win their case against Robin Thicke / Pharrell Williams for "Blurred Lines" (they won that? really?? did the judge not have ears???), and now Justin Bieber / Usher are being sued for "Somebody To Love" because it has "the same beat pattern, time signature, and similar chords" as another song ("same / similar"?? really???), I really don't see how Axanar can possibly think they are "different enough" to not be infringing on the Trek copyrights.
Click to expand...
That was the thought I had on my way to work today. Copyright law - at least in music - can protect the owners of a little snippet of music (for example the Duh dunhhh from Law & Order) so the idea that you can break down the IP to little pieces and then safely reconstitute them into something else is a joke.
 
mkstewartesq said:
Actually, what the Robin Thicke/Pharrell outcome demonstrates to me (though I disagree with the outcome- but I was not consulted; their loss) is that juries are inclined to minimize the "legalistic distinctions" between two works and focus instead on finding similarity when they feel that a defendant is "ripping off" a plaintiff.

Which bodes very poorly for Axanar if their case actually makes it to a jury. I and other lawyers can argue all day long over what is or isn't copyrightable subject matter in Star Trek - but a jury is much more likely to disregard that and say "now, come on - this is a direct ripoff of Star Trek. Anybody can see that." And judges do not overturn jury verdicts lightly.

M
Click to expand...
Yep. The side by sides in the Amended Complaint - those in particular were created for a jury. If my 83-year-old mother looked at them, she would see similarities. She would not count stars or compare fonts, I am sure. But I bet she would, at times, confuse the two, if she were in the deliberation room. And that's the sticking point right there. If a jury is confused by the imagery and cannot tell which is the pro and which is the knockoff, guess what? It's actionable infringement.
 
mkstewartesq said:
2. Next, let’s look at things from the other end – how a plaintiff proves that his or her copyright is infringed and wins the case. There are two ways – through “direct evidence” of copying and, where there is no direct proof, by circumstantial evidence of copying:

a. “Direct evidence” – believe it or not, this is actually pretty strict – you really need a confession by a person that he copies, or a photo of them engaged in the act of copying etc. Such direct evidence is actually rare.
Click to expand...

You'd think that but...

We violate CBS copyright less than any other fan film," ..."Star Trek Continues' and 'Star Trek: New Voyages' violate more than we do."
Click to expand...
1. Alec Peters, “Peters: 'Axanar' Quality Spurred Lawsuit,” 1701News.com, February 1, 2016, http://1701news.com/node/1001/peters-axanar-quality-spurred-lawsuit.html
 
mkstewartesq said:
Actually, what the Robin Thicke/Pharrell outcome demonstrates to me (though I disagree with the outcome- but I was not consulted; their loss) is that juries are inclined to minimize the "legalistic distinctions" between two works and focus instead on finding similarity when they feel that a defendant is "ripping off" a plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Though if I'd been on jury, I would have voted less for 'plagiarism/copyright theft' than sincere (or at least well-meaning) homage :)
 
Squiggy said:
You'd think that but...


1. Alec Peters, “Peters: 'Axanar' Quality Spurred Lawsuit,” 1701News.com, February 1, 2016, http://1701news.com/node/1001/peters-axanar-quality-spurred-lawsuit.html
Click to expand...
You want an even more explicit breakdown of how far and wide an expedition Axanar made into Star Trek's intellectual property, how knowing and willful the infringement was?

Here's how director Rob Burnett described it last week in the Blind Panels podcast, contrasting Axanar's approach to infringement with other fan films' (this excerpt comes at around 01:06:29):

The problem with Star Trek fan films is they’re trying to recreate Star Trek. As good as their productions might be … you’re still watching actors that aren’t Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

While they painstakingly recreate the bridge or the props and everything, you know you’re not watching real Star Trek. …

So we wanted to do something totally different, where we’re going to explore a previously unexplored era of the Star Trek universe, create new characters from whole cloth and extrapolate what the universe might be like using all the different sources, whether it was Enterprise, whether it was J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie, whether it was Star Trek novels, whether it was Star Trek games — any place that we could draw what we thought were interesting pieces of source material that were all from various areas of the canon. … We knew… we don’t own Star Trek. We know that. We’re making a movie set in the Star Trek universe.
​
Does that seem to comport with the notion advanced in the defense's motion to dismiss that the Star Trek universe was simply too complex for its producer, writers and director to navigate with regard to copyright?

Instead, copyright fans, what you hear Rob Burnett describe might well be the recipe for building a derivative work, substantially similar to the works upon which it's infringing.
 
Last edited:
carlosp said:
You want an even more explicit breakdown of how far and wide an expedition Axanar made into Star Trek's intellectual property, how knowing and willful the infringement was?

Here's how director Rob Burnett described it last week in the Blind Panels podcast, contrasting Axanar's approach to infringement with other fan films' (this excerpt comes at around (01:06:29):

The problem with Star Trek fan films is they’re trying to recreate Star Trek. As good as their productions might be … you’re still watching actors that aren’t Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

While they painstakingly recreate the bridge or the props and everything, you know you’re not watching real Star Trek. …

So we wanted to do something totally different, where we’re going to explore a previously unexplored era of the Star Trek universe, create new characters from whole cloth and extrapolate what the universe might be like using all the different sources, whether it was Enterprise, whether it was J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie, whether it was Star Trek novels, whether it was Star Trek games — any place that we could draw what we thought were interesting pieces of source material that were all from various areas of the canon. … We knew… we don’t own Star Trek. We know that. We’re making a movie set in the Star Trek universe.
​
Does that seem to comport with the notion advanced in the defense's motion to dismiss that the Star Trek universe was simply too complex for its producer, writers and director to navigate with regard to copyright?

Instead, copyright fans, what you hear Rob Burnett describe might well be the recipe for building a derivative work, substantially similar to the works upon which it's infringing.
Click to expand...
I think we found our first Doe.
 
carlosp said:
You want an even more explicit breakdown of how far and wide an expedition Axanar made into Star Trek's intellectual property, how knowing and willful the infringement was?

Here's how director Rob Burnett described it last week in the Blind Panels podcast, contrasting Axanar's approach to infringement with other fan films' (this excerpt comes at around (01:06:29):

....era of the Star Trek universe, create new characters from whole cloth and extrapolate what the universe might be like using all the different sources, whether it was Enterprise, whether it was J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie, whether it was Star Trek novels, whether it was Star Trek games — any place that we could draw what we thought were interesting pieces of source material that were all from various areas of the canon. … We knew… we don’t own Star Trek. We know that. We’re making a movie set in the Star Trek universe.
​
....
Click to expand...

For anyone who thinks Paramount does not have a cause of action, oh, gentle reader, it's coming directly from them that they copied the JJ Abrams films. You know, the ones where Paramount holds copyright (in addition to the earlier films)?

Allow me to refresh your recollection, gentle reader. This is from Page 47 of the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
APPENDIX A: COPYRIGHTED STAR TREK WORKS
A. Motion Pictures
...
11. Star Trek (PA 1-626-900)
12. Star Trek Into Darkness (PA 1-837-943)
​
Or we can visit the United States Copyright Office.

Star Trek (2009) (which states:
"Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0001626900 / 2009-05-08
Application Title: STAR TREK.
Title: STAR TREK.
Description: 7 Film reels ; 35mm.
Copyright Claimant: MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG. Address: c/o Paramount Pictures Corporation, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA 90038.
Date of Creation: 2009
Date of Publication: 2009-05-08
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG, employer for hire; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: entire motion picture.
Preregistered as: PRE000001813
Pre-existing Material: script/screenplay, preexisting music, Based Upon "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry.
Basis of Claim: all other cinematographic material, production as a motion picture, revisions/additions to script.
Rights and Permissions: MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG, c/o Paramount Pictures Corporation, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA, 90038, United States
Names: Abrams, J.J.
MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG
Paramount Pictures
Spyglass Entertainment
Bad Robot"​
Star Trek into Darkness (which states:
"Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0001837943 / 2013-05-09
Application Title: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.
Title: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.
Description: 8 film reels ; 35mm.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation. Address: 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA, 90038.
Date of Creation: 2013")​

Curious about Mavrocine? It's a German production company.​
 
carlosp said:
You want an even more explicit breakdown of how far and wide an expedition Axanar made into Star Trek's intellectual property, how knowing and willful the infringement was?

Here's how director Rob Burnett described it last week in the Blind Panels podcast, contrasting Axanar's approach to infringement with other fan films' (this excerpt comes at around 01:06:29):

The problem with Star Trek fan films is they’re trying to recreate Star Trek. As good as their productions might be … you’re still watching actors that aren’t Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

While they painstakingly recreate the bridge or the props and everything, you know you’re not watching real Star Trek. …

So we wanted to do something totally different, where we’re going to explore a previously unexplored era of the Star Trek universe, create new characters from whole cloth and extrapolate what the universe might be like using all the different sources, whether it was Enterprise, whether it was J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie, whether it was Star Trek novels, whether it was Star Trek games — any place that we could draw what we thought were interesting pieces of source material that were all from various areas of the canon. … We knew… we don’t own Star Trek. We know that. We’re making a movie set in the Star Trek universe.
​
Does that seem to comport with the notion advanced in the defense's motion to dismiss that the Star Trek universe was simply too complex for its producer, writers and director to navigate with regard to copyright?

Instead, copyright fans, what you hear Rob Burnett describe might well be the recipe for building a derivative work, substantially similar to the works upon which it's infringing.
Click to expand...

jespah said:
For anyone who thinks Paramount does not have a cause of action, oh, gentle reader, it's coming directly from them that they copied the JJ Abrams films. You know, the ones where Paramount holds copyright (in addition to the earlier films)?

Allow me to refresh your recollection, gentle reader. This is from Page 47 of the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
APPENDIX A: COPYRIGHTED STAR TREK WORKS
A. Motion Pictures
...
11. Star Trek (PA 1-626-900)
12. Star Trek Into Darkness (PA 1-837-943)
​
Or we can visit the United States Copyright Office.

Star Trek (2009) (which states:
"Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0001626900 / 2009-05-08
Application Title: STAR TREK.
Title: STAR TREK.
Description: 7 Film reels ; 35mm.
Copyright Claimant: MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG. Address: c/o Paramount Pictures Corporation, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA 90038.
Date of Creation: 2009
Date of Publication: 2009-05-08
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG, employer for hire; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: entire motion picture.
Preregistered as: PRE000001813
Pre-existing Material: script/screenplay, preexisting music, Based Upon "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry.
Basis of Claim: all other cinematographic material, production as a motion picture, revisions/additions to script.
Rights and Permissions: MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG, c/o Paramount Pictures Corporation, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA, 90038, United States
Names: Abrams, J.J.
MavroCine Pictures GmbH & Co. KG
Paramount Pictures
Spyglass Entertainment
Bad Robot"​
Star Trek into Darkness (which states:
"Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0001837943 / 2013-05-09
Application Title: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.
Title: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.
Description: 8 film reels ; 35mm.
Copyright Claimant: Paramount Pictures Corporation. Address: 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA, 90038.
Date of Creation: 2013")​

Curious about Mavrocine? It's a German production company.​
Click to expand...
p14XGTA.png
 
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