Oh, nice catch!
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I must say I'm confused as to why this Terry McIntosh is being touted as a good guy in some social media circles. I get that people are pleased he's left Axanar and he's drip fed a little information regarding some of the machinations that went on behind closed doors (I was going to write 'behind the scenes' but.... ) but I still remember him as the guy who actively insulted donors and was generally offensive to those same people who are describing him as a 'friend' now.
Equally, these snippets he's "unleashed" now are only in response to him being slated by his previous cohorts not from any particular desire to put the record straight. If he really was a decent person interested in things like the truth or doing the right thing he would've made clear everything he knows already and then, maybe, some of the Axa-faithful could make better decisions based on the right information.
But I think now, as then, Mr McIntosh doesn't actually give a shit about Axanar donors so unlike many others I find it uncomfortable to applaud his actions.
Equally, these snippets he's "unleashed" now are only in response to him being slated by his previous cohorts not from any particular desire to put the record straight. If he really was a decent person interested in things like the truth or doing the right thing he would've made clear everything he knows already and then, maybe, some of the Axa-faithful could make better decisions based on the right information.
But I think now, as then, Mr McIntosh doesn't actually give a shit about Axanar donors so unlike many others I find it uncomfortable to applaud his actions.
Well he's not nine so a bit of name-calling shouldn't really be an issue, should it?
And as far as Burnett goes, what project? I'm not convinced he's hanging on for the project to come to fruition anymore. Gossett certainly gives Burnett the benefit of the doubt on that score but with things being the way they are I don't view him so charitably. To me it looks like Burnett is as complicit in all this as Peters is but, of course, I'm only on the outside looking in.
Word-for-word how I feel, too.
We're like one mind separated by an ocean
Son of a bitch. Peters raises 1.3 million dollars, it's gone, and his donors have 1 scene to show for it. That's a lot of sushi, folks. Were I a donor, I'd be filing a complaint with California's attorney general. I wish I could say I was surprised. This no longer sounds like mission creep to me.
Insert the Law and Order sound effect here.
Last edited:
Just FYI, in the United States, there is no such thing as a "verbal contract for work for hire." Under the Copyright Act, a work is only a work made for hire – subject to a few exceptions that are not applicable here – if the work is created by a bona fide employee in the course of his employment for his employer. Terry was apparently an independent contractor; and the last thing Alec would ever argue was that he was an employee, as that would raise a whole host of issues that Alec would not want to get into - the Fair Labor Standards Act and its minimum-wage requirements for a starter.
If the work is created by an independent contractor, then, under the Copyright Act, a assignment of the copyright is required and the assignment must be in writing signed by the original copyright owner. The copyright act specifically provides that oral or verbal assignments of copyright are invalid.
M
@OtherGene - good comment about Terry. I have no personal gripe against him and wish him well. And if he does prove an effective whistle-blower, all the better. But like many, I recall him being a bit of an asshat on these forums. Or perhaps I should say more correctly: becoming one 
. He was quite funny and open to dialogue initially, but sadly turned sour when @Karzak and others used forensic criticism. Perhaps that was the real Terry? Who knows? Water under the bridge now.
. He was quite funny and open to dialogue initially, but sadly turned sour when @Karzak and others used forensic criticism. Perhaps that was the real Terry? Who knows? Water under the bridge now.
So, how long until the IRS knocks on Alec's door?!?
I've talked with Terry over the years, mostly about the bird and his dad, Over this time we've only ever talked lightly about Star Trek projects. Terry has always been generally supportive of our work. I do remember him posting about him personally purchasing the server and paying the monthly service fees. As you would expect once the lawsuit hit, a lot of stuff changed, he put a great deal of time, money and effort into the project. It's understandable his first reaction was to support his project, I think anyone would at first but once a person understands that they have been mislead and used, that's going to take time to work out. I doubt the concept that Anaxar was walking all over everything most other Fan Films stood for ever crossed his mind and if it did, well you know Alec.
Aggrieved donors and interested persons are reminded that the good gentlefolk of the California Attorney General's Office are more than happy to take your complaints and, even though it is a federal holiday today, the Internet never sleeps: https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-business-or-company
PS Show notes are up from yesterday:
http://www.gandtshow.com/g-t-show-244-thundershirts-go/
I smell sequel, baybee!
PS Show notes are up from yesterday:
http://www.gandtshow.com/g-t-show-244-thundershirts-go/
What? You never had Alex saying: "I am Lord Garth!!!" ?? What's up with that?
...
I smell sequel, baybee!
I may be overthinking here, but... the mere suggestion Axanar is broke raises a lot of red flags in my mind. Especially regarding the background of the Proworx (Inc.) shenanigans.
What if this all is a smoke screen so AP can launder/hide the money though and behind Propworx or other Incs. he posses. He could blame CBS/P for being able to produce anything because they hung him to dry out. His movie couldn't possibly be made under those circumstances, blablabla...
I smell a "Get out of jail free" card here. I might be wrong, but from what is being told right now (via Terry/Alec posts exchange) close to nothing really adds up for me. There's more to that. CBS/P won't get money from any damages, the donors won't get "their" Star Trek movie - and AP can retain the studio/warehouse/sutio (headache reaches me again) without anyone asking. As it seems to have been done with his Propworx properties.
But then again, I'm a conspiracy theorist - and with Bob Orci, regarding 9/11...
What if this all is a smoke screen so AP can launder/hide the money though and behind Propworx or other Incs. he posses. He could blame CBS/P for being able to produce anything because they hung him to dry out. His movie couldn't possibly be made under those circumstances, blablabla...
I smell a "Get out of jail free" card here. I might be wrong, but from what is being told right now (via Terry/Alec posts exchange) close to nothing really adds up for me. There's more to that. CBS/P won't get money from any damages, the donors won't get "their" Star Trek movie - and AP can retain the studio/warehouse/sutio (headache reaches me again) without anyone asking. As it seems to have been done with his Propworx properties.
But then again, I'm a conspiracy theorist - and with Bob Orci, regarding 9/11...
I take your point on this. Plus my own choice would be that it doesn't. But I 'think' that it was explained to me here that the suit does not address, or something, the studio.
(forgive me as I try to reconcile all this)
But the suit specifically addresses 'benefiting from' which then moves my thinking to the studio to be perceivable as a benefit. (you know, which it is, but inside courts things not everything that 'is', is always allowed on record for use in deciding outcome.) As to whether Ms. Ranahan will proactively block the court from allowing it to be interpreted, well, like it is....
But settlement talks I 'believe' lay everything on the table for negotiation. Right? And in settlement this studio thing 'might be' (& logically to me) looked at, as you mention, a veritable Deal Breaker for the Plaintiff, and a similar opposite deal breaker for the defendant. Which could be some of what continues to stall a settlement?
Am I on the right track here?
And then there is 'that' issue. Which when I read that I remember the $75,000 the defendant say >In Print< he would use out of this own pocket to make the movie. Which was amendment in the original fundraiser >In Print< to be $50,000 of his own money into the project. Since this began I wondered & asked... where is that $50,000? Was it followed through and invested in the production? I've seen no record.
And my thinking continued to the many fan film producers talking about their own monies they invest in their fan productions. Which is possibly a moot point, but that's what I was thinking anyway. Leading me to ask when reading this "The defendant is 'loaning' money to his alleged fan production using donations to make? How's he expecting to get it back?
I'm unable to reconcile this.
I know, right? What would be the source of the money returned on a production funded by donations?
And whereas this may be a quandary to me, it may not hold legal anything to anything to do with the litigation or settlement. But it carries the weight of 'intent' to me in my own attempt to make sense out of it.
Last edited:
At this point Peters admitting he makes money from liquor and prostitution would actually been seen as a positive.
uh, no... no it wouldn't.
Last edited:
With everything coming from Terry about the shady shit Alec was doing, I'm reminded of the separate lawsuit that Alec was served at the same time as Axanar. Whatever became of that one? It's seeming more and more likely that he could get indicted for some sort of criminal fraud.
- Status