JAMES CAWLEY SPEAKS!

[HerbFlynn]

CBS has said any issues would be handled on a case-by-case basis - it's not a matter of fair or playing field, it's how they feel their IP is being treated, or mistreated. The guidelines are guidelines, not laws, not rules, guidelines that CBS can enforce or not enforce in part of whole. They see fit who and how they let use the IP regardless of the guidelines or because of the guidelines.

Whatever went on between Vic and CBS is between the two, but Continues was allowed to continue, to complete the funded episodes and continue to the all-along planned completion. They had an end in sight, and is a real non-profit so what does it benefit CBS to shut them down? CBS gets more good will by letting Continues complete their episodes than if they didn't.

But as noted, no one has been shut down since the guidelines were enacted. "Horizons 2" was before the guidelines were published,but other than that, they seem to be sitting back with the "case by case" as their fallback.

The remaining fan films haven't had issues, and have in fact comfortably settled into the new era of the guidelines - some had already fit them to begin with. Others changed to be Non-Trek and I hope they survive on their own, especially RENEGADES which looks very good.

 

[urbandefault]

No other fan project -- or "fan" project -- was self-described as doing Trek better than the big boys, and gaining direct financial benefit from it.

Continues is a legal non-profit. Cawley had said that he was losing interest in continuing his series anyway. Tommy Kraft was told that it wasn't a good idea to start a fundraiser, right before AP was served. Any others who have modified their projects or shut down entirely have done so of their own volition.

CBS/P are not the bad guys here. We know who is.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Given that the property belongs to CBS and Paramount, they have a right to enforce it as they see fit. So if they like one group better than another, that's their prerogative. The guidelines are arbitrary, but they have that right.

You could do a project and violate those guidelines, and it's fine--as long as they don't go after you.

I could do the same exact thing and they can shut me down. Doesn't matter. Their property.

A legal argument could exist, but I don't think it's a strong one.

If I were CBS, I would look at these fan projects and ask myself the following question:

What do I gain by letting it continue? What are the pros and cons of shutting it down?

In the case of Axanar, they went over the line, and were belligerent when CBS tried to stop them from making money. Making money is the biggest no no in this game. So CBS went all in to stop them.

But in the case of ST: Continues or New Voyages, they provided nothing but good will for the franchise. In some cases, the acting wasn't terrific, but the effort was there, and the fans responded positively to the projects. They both really helped Star Trek as a whole, and CBS looked really good for allowing it.

They also respected CBS/Paramount's wishes.

It came off as a friendly relationship between fans and franchise.

Given the tolerance CBS/Paramount showed, it says a lot that Axanar got so much heat. And it's a shame that we lost future projects as a result.

 

[mos6507]

Vic himself said that Alec had "poisoned the waters". In other words, not that CBS are the bad guys, but that Alec caused CBS to overreact in a way that put more constraints on fan-films than may have been necessary. The problem is Vic's ultimate response to the waters having been poisoned has been to drink it anyway and hope it doesn't kill him. Meanwhile other productions are playing it safe. But the idea that one production will "get away with it" and others will not feels inherently unfair. I don't care what the technical legalities are. It's how it feels. Vic forced CBS into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The guidelines were supposed to sort of make peace between CBS and fan-films but Vic bending the rules in a "do it and act for forgiveness later" approach has muddied the waters anew.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Life isn't fair. And CBS hasn't gone after Vic, so we all benefit.

 

[MikeH92467]

Vic himself said that Alec had "poisoned the waters". In other words, not that CBS are the bad guys, but that Alec caused CBS to overreact in a way that put more constraints on fan-films than may have been necessary. The problem is Vic's ultimate response to the waters having been poisoned has been to drink it anyway and hope it doesn't kill him. Meanwhile other productions are playing it safe. But the idea that one production will "get away with it" and others will not feels inherently unfair. I don't care what the technical legalities are. It's how it feels. Vic forced CBS into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The guidelines were supposed to sort of make peace between CBS and fan-films but Vic bending the rules in a "do it and act for forgiveness later" approach has muddied the waters anew.

Blaming Vic for any of this is ridiculous.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

@mos6507 , keep in mind that Vic has certain obligations to the people he raised funds from to complete the series. He himself is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. He must either violate the guidelines or give his backers significantly less than he promised. I really can't feel sorry for CBS/Paramount, as the guidelines seem to have been written just as much to target Star Trek Continues as Axanar. STC violates Guidelines 1,2,3 and 5, and parts of 6. Not exactly sure what they expected them to do...

 

[Noname Given]

Vic himself said that Alec had "poisoned the waters". In other words, not that CBS are the bad guys, but that Alec caused CBS to overreact in a way that put more constraints on fan-films than may have been necessary. The problem is Vic's ultimate response to the waters having been poisoned has been to drink it anyway and hope it doesn't kill him. Meanwhile other productions are playing it safe. But the idea that one production will "get away with it" and others will not feels inherently unfair. I don't care what the technical legalities are. It's how it feels. Vic forced CBS into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The guidelines were supposed to sort of make peace between CBS and fan-films but Vic bending the rules in a "do it and act for forgiveness later" approach has muddied the waters anew.

Vic didn't 'force' CBS into anything - Alec Peters did by his words and deeds. Vic's group is the ONLY group currently who legally attained 501c status (Some Alec Peters claimed had been 'in process' for Axanar since 2014 - but Alec Peters NEVER even filed papers until late 2016 - but of course has now 100% abandoned 'Axanar Productions' to form 'Rocketworrx' in his ongoing shell game tactics.)

And this is what many just don't understand:

1) The production of unlicensed Star Trek Fan Films (IE films made with no legal licensing agreement, which is one major way CBS makes it's money from the Star Trek IP) HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL - AND STILL IS.

2) Even in the preamble to the Guidelines CBS put forth - they openly state they would RATHER NO have ANYONE produce an unlicensed Star Trek fan film; BUT if you still want to - here are some guidelines to follow, and if you do, we will probably look the other way and take no legal action.

3) Following the guidelines DOES NOT create a license of any type and CBS/Paramount retain full rights to pursue legal action should they deem to. They can also CHANGE these guidelines at any time, since they confer NO LEGAL PROTECTION whatsoever. Fans have ZERO LEGAL RIGHT to produce anything for public consumption related to the Star Trek IP.
^^^
This is a 'fair' as it gets. A Star Trek fan production group has zero legal rights and is ALWAYS at risk of CBS deciding to take legal action. The Guidelines confer no license and NO actual legal protection; CBS retains all rights to act as this see fit in any situation.

AND - Any fan film producer KNOWS THIS (or should, and should completely understand what it means.) If they decide to go ahead, they are deciding to take a calculated risk. That's the way it's been since 1966. Yes, CBS did as a result of what Axanar did, put guidelines in print - Guidelines that confer no real protection, and which CBS can change (or ignore/disregard AT ANY TIME).

No Star Trek fan film group has EVER received legal permission to produce anything Star Trek related - EVER - and it's been that way since 1965.

Also, for anyone who says: "Well, Axanar offered to give their completed product 100% to CBS/Paramount - they should have accepted as it costs them nothing..."
^^^
BUT if they do so - it DOES: If CNS/Paramount accepted Alec Peters offer they would in effect legally be saying: "Hey, you guys DON'T NEED TO GET LICENSING APPROVAL AND PAY A FEE - JUST MAKE SOMETHING AND GIVE IT TO US."
^^^
NO IP holder wants to do that as they LOSE CONTROL of many things:
- The right to approve the direction and give input (Someone may have an idea the the IP holder doesn't feel represents the property well, or is really marketable; or WORSE portrays the property in a negative light - Example: "Hey what is Star Fleet was run bu NAZIs? <--- I (insert fan here) think that's a GREAT idea.)

- The right to exercise and maintain quality control for the project.

- The right to charge a Licensing fee up front (Yes, folks THIS is how Hollywood has always worked IF you want to use a property you did not create yourself/do not already own the rights to. You pay up front IN ADDITION to whatever other deal you make regarding who pays for the actual production costs.

(It leads to maybe a group at 20th Century Fox saying "Hey, we're Star Trek fans"; making their trake on Star Trek and then 'giving' it to CBS/Paramount. Hey, a fan is a fan, right?)

The other issue with Axanar is particular was that Alec Peters (had he actually produced the finished film) was ONLY able to do what he did because it was technically a non-union production. That would have come back to bite CBS/Paramount because they ARE a Union studio - so someone would end up either paying union costs in the end or HEFTY fines in addition to setting ALL the 'loss of control' precedents above.

So yeah, in the end, Alec Peters offer WAS and WOULD HAVE BEEN a BAD DEAL for CBS/Paramount no matter how you look at it.

TLDR:
Star Trek fan films HAVE NEVER BEEN (and still aren't) legal to make without a valid license agreement from CBS/Paramount; and YES Alec Peters actions with the whole 'Axanar' production debacle did 'poison the waters' to where CBS and Paramount felt they could no longer 'look the other way' IF they wanted to protect 'Star Trek' as a profitable IP for their respective studios.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

CBS/Paramount had 1.4 Million reasons why they couldnt look the other way.

 

[Jedman67]

CBS also didn't "allow" STC to continue as that would have violated both the guidelines and CBS's ability to maintain control of licensing. What they probably did do is come to an understanding that STC would finish up whatever episodes were in the pipeline and CBS would "look the other way" as long as certain of the guidelines were rigorously adhered to. As long as someone puts the disclaimer up front (an unlicensed star trek fan film) CBS has enough cover to let things go.
At this point, the only "production" to have raised over a million dollars in funding while not, actually, producing anything is the most vocal about making sure fan-film guidelines are adhered to as long as its somebody else doing the adhering.

You would not win. Fan Films violate the law and guidelines are NOT permission to violate the law. No one has the power to give you permission to violate the law. Yes, CBS/P would look stupid/arrogant whatever, however, there is no guarantee that the people who came up with these guidelines will always be calling the shots. A new regime might see the matter differently.

If CBS wanted to change the guidelines, it's as simple as releasing a statement on their website stating that guidelines are being revoked, shut down the films or else.
It'd be a dick move, sure but they're fully entitled to under the law.
Currently, the guidelines simply put that if you toe the line, you won't get sued.

 

[MikeH92467]

The guidelines, don't and can't do that. They simply are suggestions that might help keep you out of trouble. They can sue anytime they like regardless of whether the guidelines are followed are not. The guidelines do not have the force of law and they do not give permission to violate the law. I agree, it would be a dick move, but following the guidelines is no guarantee of not being sued.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

@Noname Given , I agree with most of what you said, but I have a few nitpicks...

BUT if they do so - it DOES: If CNS/Paramount accepted Alec Peters offer they would in effect legally be saying: "Hey, you guys DON'T NEED TO GET LICENSING APPROVAL AND PAY A FEE - JUST MAKE SOMETHING AND GIVE IT TO US."

Not really. CBS/Paramount are free to enforce or not enforce their copyrights as they see fit. A deal with Alec Peters would have probably set a bad example for others, true, but legally speaking only a license or covenant not to sue would have any legal meaning.

NO IP holder wants to do that as they LOSE CONTROL of many things:
- The right to approve the direction and give input (Someone may have an idea the the IP holder doesn't feel represents the property well, or is really marketable; or WORSE portrays the property in a negative light - Example: "Hey what is Star Fleet was run bu NAZIs? <--- I (insert fan here) think that's a GREAT idea.)

Nonsense. If a production posts on Twitter, for example, that they're going to make the UFP a fascist nation, CBS/Paramount lawyers can simply threaten to sue and get an injunction if they don't change course. They can also let everyone know (via guidelines, for example) that certain behavior is frowned upon. And if they still don't like what you've done at the end of the process, all they need is one DMCA takedown letter.

- The right to exercise and maintain quality control for the project.

If they wanted direct control over a project, it would make more sense for them to tell the owners that their legal troubles go away if they hand over all their designs and copyrights and shut down, then make the film themselves. They can then change anything they want and learn from the mistakes of the original production.

- The right to charge a Licensing fee up front (Yes, folks THIS is how Hollywood has always worked IF you want to use a property you did not create yourself/do not already own the rights to. You pay up front IN ADDITION to whatever other deal you make regarding who pays for the actual production costs.

I don't see how it matters when they get paid, and its quite common in Hollywood for film production companies to get sued for copyright infringement and cut a deal before going to trial. (Granted, the incur more potential legal expense, but that's only if the infringing party is dumb enough to take it to trial.)

That's one of the reasons why movies are often produced by an LLC created specifically for that movie: liability is contained to single company with no further assets. Unfortunately, that's not a practical solution for fan films.

The other issue with Axanar is particular was that Alec Peters (had he actually produced the finished film) was ONLY able to do what he did because it was technically a non-union production. That would have come back to bite CBS/Paramount because they ARE a Union studio - so someone would end up either paying union costs in the end or HEFTY fines in addition to setting ALL the 'loss of control' precedents above.

See, now THIS is a REAL reason not to cut a deal with fan film makers.

 

[Jedman67]

Well, only the rights holder or anyone with a legitimate interest in the IP can sue, I believe. Or the US government may be able to as well.
CBS is fully entitled under the law to refrain from pursuing infringement litigation - and that's ALL they're doing is agreeing - not even promising - to refrain from infringement litigation or C&D's if you follow the guidelines. Nothing is legally stopping them from suing, they just don't want to bother.

 

[Jedman67]

Some companies will accept spec scripts for tv shows (movies too?) and if they produce an episode with a majority of the elements, the original submission gets a writing credit and royalties.
In most cases only established union writers with good connections would have a chance to make a pitch. But there's simply no provision for anyone to simply accept or "buy" fan films to make them legit. It's just not done.
If DSC decided to make an episode, for example, about the sexual affairs of the lead cast, involving a klingon "boarding house" and a male Orion pleasure-slave, I'd seriously doubt the production would make any mention of Star Trek Potemkin.

 

[urbandefault]

CBS and Paramount have been incredibly generous. Shutting down fan productions altogether wouldn't be a "dick move," but well within their legal rights as owners of the property. But they haven't done that.

What is a "dick move" is claiming someone else's property to do with as you please, and claiming victory after a court settlement in which you admitted to having infringed on copyrights. A "dick move" is continuing to raise money to fund a dead project after pissing away $1.4 million in donations for a project that was never begun, much less completed. A "dick move" is prodding astoundingly loyal fans to sue a blogger who reports facts about your actions. A "dick move" is declaring that you will "open source" material that is not yours to begin with to other fan groups, inviting scrutiny on them as well.

CBS/P are not the bad guys here. We know who the bad guy is.

 

[Jedman67]

No @urbandefault, that's Intellectual Property Theft and fraud.

 

[urbandefault]

CBS and Paramount have been incredibly generous. Shutting down fan productions altogether wouldn't be a "dick move," but well within their legal rights as owners of the property. But they haven't done that.

What is a "dick move" is claiming someone else's property to do with as you please, and claiming victory after a court settlement in which you admitted to having infringed on copyrights. A "dick move" is continuing to raise money to fund a dead project after pissing away $1.4 million in donations for a project that was never begun, much less completed. A "dick move" is prodding astoundingly loyal fans to sue a blogger who reports facts about your actions. A "dick move" is declaring that you will "open source" material that is not yours to begin with to other fan groups, inviting scrutiny on them as well.

CBS/P are not the bad guys here. We know who the bad guy is.

No @urbandefault, that's Intellectual Property Theft and fraud.

No doubt. But I was addressing the "dick move" post.

 

[Jedman67]

I know. Hater!

 

[Noname Given]

I know. Hater!

"Here come the Marines!"
(Kidding - really )

 

[MikeH92467]

Well, suing someone who didn't violate the guidelines could be interpreted that way (although there's nothing stopping them from doing that), but I absolutely agree which party has been the biggest male member here.