For Axanar, this IS a major achievement!!!
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
With Professor Plum in the Conservatory.
PM Me your address and pie preference and I will send you one.
It's really perfect. When the time comes, he can write the official account AND film the parody.
With Professor Plum in the Conservatory.
PM Me your address and pie preference and I will send you one.
Why, thank you.
Virtual would be enough for my diet at the moment 
DON’T ASK DON’T TELL Despite his official ‘no refund’ policy, Axanar producer Alec Peters offers money back to complaining donors so long as they never talk about Axanar again. Meanwhile, donors’ perks finally start shipping, and Peters props up his favored blog by continuing his attack on AxaMonitor.
DON’T ASK DON’T TELL Despite his official ‘no refund’ policy, Axanar producer Alec Peters offers money back to complaining donors so long as they never talk about Axanar again. Meanwhile, donors’ perks finally start shipping, and Peters props up his favored blog by continuing his attack on AxaMonitor.
So "Fan Film Factor" is the only unbiased source about Axanar, a fully professional film that is absolutely not and never was a fan film, as stated by its for-profit owner currently engaged in and seeking for-profit business deals on non-fan productions with his studio paid for by irrevocable donations to a for-profit business plan. Huh.
And intimidating eligible claimants to a potential class action lawsuit with demands that for a refund they sign an NDA and nondisparagement agreement, as if it were a settlement agreement, must surely be a Christo-sized red flag for consumer protection agencies.
Last edited:
I actually had to stop and read the depicted agreement.
Wow. Just... wow.
And I thought he couldn't sink any lower...
Maybe she's building up to it. On behalf of Alec Peters her blog references a singer most famous for a song entitled "You're So Vain"
Anyone have any experience with Californian consumer law? In the UK there would be absolutely no justification for any such agreement.DON’T ASK DON’T TELL Despite his official ‘no refund’ policy, Axanar producer Alec Peters offers money back to complaining donors so long as they never talk about Axanar again. Meanwhile, donors’ perks finally start shipping, and Peters props up his favored blog by continuing his attack on AxaMonitor.
Why, thank you.
That is apparently a peach-apple pie from the fine folks at Betty Crocker.
Yeah. I wonder how this can be justified. I see it as intimidation but I'm no lawyer.
FYI California law (so far as I can see) mainly talks about nondisclosures in the context of employment. However, generic NDAs aren't going to work. See: http://www.yourlegalcorner.com/articles.asp?id=106&cat=emp
Quoting from that site:
The 'agreement' (ha; it's not an agreement. It's intended to be a contract of adhesion, e. g. a non-negotiated document where one side dictates terms and the other side is forced to agree or walk) is overly broad and doesn't permit the signer to talk about Axanar at all, forever. $15 donors would be giving away the store, and selling themselves out for cheap.
Quoting from that site:
The 'agreement' (ha; it's not an agreement. It's intended to be a contract of adhesion, e. g. a non-negotiated document where one side dictates terms and the other side is forced to agree or walk) is overly broad and doesn't permit the signer to talk about Axanar at all, forever. $15 donors would be giving away the store, and selling themselves out for cheap.
DON’T ASK DON’T TELL Despite his official ‘no refund’ policy, Axanar producer Alec Peters offers money back to complaining donors so long as they never talk about Axanar again. Meanwhile, donors’ perks finally start shipping, and Peters props up his favored blog by continuing his attack on AxaMonitor.
You know, sometimes you just have to bow to the absurd.
Positively roaring with laughter at the simultaneous audacity and idiocy of this latest plot twist over here.
Presumably it wouldn't have to and I don't think it should for something that was derived from and tolerated by the owner rather than an original creation.
That they don't have to get credit is, I think, an example of how the law can be wrong or incomplete and I think consumers should have higher standards.
Them getting paid for it does make the issue less clear, at least a bit more like taking from the owner. But I don't see using the character in a low-budget nonprofit work as a rival good when the corporation and the others who contributed to the character seem to not want to and not be intending to use it again (but still can).
A person's game system obviously is a rival good and assuming they don't want it anymore and thus taking it and using and enjoying it as I would seems pretty different from using a concept or character to no profit let alone as much as the corporation would (and still can). Intellectual property is similar to physical property and should get protection but they are different and IP shouldn't necessarily be treated exactly the same way.
I wouldn't like someone trespassing, let alone also taking a game system, but if I had invited you over and while there you secretly took a photo of a game system, enlarged the photo and pretended to yourself that the system was yours (either that you had the system the photo was of or the photo literally was the system) I wouldn't mind.
Last edited:
RE: the NDA...
Just when you think you can't be surprised any more, another twist in the ongoing sorry saga!
Seems like just another bullying tactic.
Just when you think you can't be surprised any more, another twist in the ongoing sorry saga!
Seems like just another bullying tactic.
It's more than that - it's dumbass Alec Peters trying to shelter and corner the actual people who have the temerity to stand up to his flickerpiss nonsense into believing whatever he wants them to believe, using fear-mongering, scare tactics, and outright lies to do it. Peters probably thinks he's in the fight of his life, and for once, he'd be right, but he's just like Matt McNamara on Nip/Tuck: life keeps giving him opportunity after opportunity to do the right thing or to own up to his mistakes and maybe make a better life for himself and each and every single goddamn time, he just fouls it up even more.
Seriously. You can set your Limited Edition $500.00 (unofficial, unlicensed, contraband and illegally sold) Axanar watch to it.
Seriously. You can set your Limited Edition $500.00 (unofficial, unlicensed, contraband and illegally sold) Axanar watch to it.
I'm the same. I absolutely love this.You know, sometimes you just have to bow to the absurd.
Positively roaring with laughter at the simultaneous audacity and idiocy of this latest plot twist over here.
I'm half tempted to force my clients to sign NDA's. "To receive the commissioned works, please read and sign this form which will allow you never to speak of the work, never to comment on who produced it, and just for poops and giggles - never even allow you to accept it's existence."
Seem. An excellent choice of words. You don't know. What if a fan film maker decides they want to make a movie about Spock's childhood--because it seems like Paramount isn't doing a Kid Spock movie. They put it out there. Gets a million views. Then, Paramount decides to make a Kid Spock movie. Well, there's already one out there, and the original content in that fan film might be covered by copyright. In other words, what ever has appeared in that fan film, Paramount can't use--without threat of a law suit by the fan filmmaker.
So. There's an example of a rival good.
They aren't your toys to do with as you please.
And what if someone raises 10s of thousands of dollars off of people by claiming its their game system? Would that be right?
Edited to add: And in fact the reason WHY everyone was willing to give money was because they knew it was YOUR game system.
And, again, just because IP isn't like a chair, doesn't make it any less property.
Last edited:
I'm not taking about employment law. I'm talking about consumer law. I think the issue I have is that Peters is claiming that he is not in breach of Kickstarter's terms. Having read read them I disagree with that. English consumer law has certain protections in that regard that Are a more straight forward remedy than a standard contractual dispute. I was just wondering with the Californian position was.
I think this is essentially a form of blackmail and the very attempt to advance it by someone who has legal training is offensive. It feels like silent censorship by way of a form of entrapment. I hope his lawyers have not advised it because I consider it unethical.
- Status