If all Peters was guilty of was making a fan film, there wouldn't be any guidelines, and we might well have Axanar to watch at our leisure.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Dude, you should really read through everything. It is nobody's job to enlighten you, the information is out there. Everyone agrees that Prelude was a great fan film and MOST of us here wanted to see the next chapters........I would even say the majority of the posters here were fans to start with. What sites have you looked at? Most during the trial just adopted the David vs Goliath bullshit narrative that Axanar put out. Peters ran off almost every talented person that was involved in Prelude. They squandered away 1.4 MILLION dollars.
As for STC making millions or ANYTHING...where did you draw THIS conclusion from? They actually ARE a 501c non-profit. Have you ever looked at Axamonitor? Educate yourself or continue to speak about things completely uninformed, your call.
So here is the briefest summary I can offer you, understanding that you would find reading the thread daunting:
1. the site axamonitor.com has made a really thorough effort to be just the resource that anyone walking into the issue without background would need. While it has been offline intermittently in the last few weeks it is available now and you can use it to fill in the background for yourself.
2. The list of arguments you make are pretty much what the talking points of Axanar's website and main blogger put forward. I am not saying this as good or bad, only something for you to note. You are starting from the 100% way they want to present their actions. This becomes relevant in the following points.
3. There are reasons why the basic Axanar arguments made to donors and the public have real problems. The talking points fail to be true when examined with information that the Axanar site and blogger assiduously avoid revealing.
4. The Axanar site and blogger go to great pains to censor this information from their sites when anyone (even donors) tries to post it in comments. Note, not answer questions or refute points, *censor* their presence anywhere that donors and site readers could come across them. This should ring alarm bells for you.
5. Axanar as a project *did* do something far more extreme than any other fan project. They reached out under the title "Star Trek" to fans and asked for donations so Axanar could fund a studio for the personal, non-fan profit of the Axanar project operators, and *incidentally, on the side, eventually* make the Axanar film. The fundraising pitches say this, the podcasts say this.
6. Axanar in retrospect is seen to have plowed essentially all the money raised after Prelude into building the studio while performing almost no actual work on the fan film. This is on the order of at least $700,000 spent directly to build a production facility the Axanar staff openly said would be used for non-fan, non-Trek personal business profit of the Axanar Productions company (solely owned by Alec Peters). And apparently hundreds of thousands more on "expenses" like salaries, travel, etc.
7. The basic argument of the lawsuit is that using the Trek name by using various recognizable aspects of Trek violates copyright; and while this could apply to any fan film, the lawsuit goes to pains to identify that Axanar Productions and Alec Peters was using that money for personal gain, and that this constituted a theft of the value of Trek IP owned by the studios which should be considered in damages awards. This second argument, and the degree to which it occurred, is where you should look to assess the "they didn't do anything different from other fan films" talking point.
8. The world of crowdfunding has not yet come under good regulation with respect to fiduciary responsibility in light of the "take a risk on us" approach. That is, does a project have any obligations to do what they said they would do.
Axanar implied by the way their fundraising was written that they had a good chance that their actions would be approved by the studios, when in fact according to the timeline, they had already been told in the summer of 2015 that they had better not keep on with their "build a studio on Trek IP value" strategy, or they would be sued.
If Axanar had been true to only pitching what they knew they could do, they would have excised the studio from the fundraising proposals and sorted things out with the studios in 2015. This would have addressed their fiduciary responsibility to donors. Axanar did not do this, and censored and attacked everyone who raised the issue, even including their own staff and actors.
9. Axanar had in fact blown through all their fundraising money by early 2016, shortly after the lawsuit began. This was revealed in court. It was also revealed that Axanar by their own admission was not "ready to shoot" in early 2016 as they had been maintaining to donors asking about the budget. Axanar said in court papers that they didn't even have a finalized script, and didnt have their sets near finished. They had spent the great majority of the new money on the studio improvements and on paying themselves business expenses.
This doubtless led directly to Axanar abandoning the studio facility once the lawsuit ended. The money by all appearances had not been cared for in the name of fans, it had essentially all been spent on the personal benefit of the owners, by way of plowing it into the facility and not hardly at all into the production.
10. Fighting a lawsuit in the name of "fair use" when it was so obvious that this was not a legitimate argument also represented a willful discarding of donor money, in the sense that Axanar could have simply said "ok we will conform to guidelines", and then been about 6 months better off in rent costs. In fact, if they had done this right after the Trek directors had spoken in favor of resolving things, Axanar could have come out smelling like a rose.
Whether they could have salvaged things with this break and extra rent money is hard to say, but they chose not to do it based on what essentially was a shakedown court strategy, essentially trying to be so annoying to the studios that the studios would give up rather than follow through to their inevitable obvious win that would happen in motion practice and in court. Axanar responded to the directors' offer by countersuing even though they had to know they would eventually lose. They had to admit they violated copyright and abandon their claim to having a right to step outside guidelines, which was not a win for them in any sense except someone gave them a chance to step back out of the path of a Mack truck.
11. This strategy IMO led to the donors losing their shirts. All the money that was sunk into rent and improvements on the studio was abandoned by Axanar because they had spent and litigated themselves into being broke. Some also say lack of business skills contributed to this situation, for example not realizing until the end that if you build a "sound stage" and try to market it in the middle of Hollywood, the stage needs to be soundproofed (which they never seem to have put into their budget).
12. Along the way a number of ridiculous business activities were revealed or put forward, such as being unable to fulfill perks for years, claiming to be operating as a nonprofit when they were not nonprofit, licensing Trek IP for the profit of Axanar, and on and on.
---
So altogether, what you have is a "fan film" that sought to build themselves a private studio while pushing out their fan film into the ever receding future, with the net effect of milking crowdfunding. They used up at least a million of donations on this effort and admitted in court they weren't really working on the fan film enough to for the court to be able to recognize it as a film... essentially, it didn't even exist so how could you sue about it.
All the noise emanating from Axanar about being true to fans is not the point. Axanar was not true to responsible fan-beneficial use of the money, or true to the task of making the film. All the noise about "if only we had had a little more money, it all would have ended ok" is belied by the fact that in court papers they admitted they were no where near even finishing the first part of their multimillions-budgeted total film, even though they had blown through a million or so in new donations since making Prelude, and even though they *said* to everyone that Axanar was nearly ready to shoot in Jan 2016, until the court forced out the truth.
There are a ton of "counterarguments" against this take, but if you look at those arguments you find that they can't in the end explain that they weren't fulfilling perks, they weren't working on the film, they were plowing the money into a studio they said was principally for their company's future profit, and they were definitely crossing the line in a number of ways with Trek IP to do this.
Please read axamonitor.com . You will see it all laid out. Watch some of the videos interviewing former Axanar staff such as Christian Gossett the director of Prelude. Fill yourself in. I guarantee it wont be a waste of your time.
Accept kind regards for asking what's up, welcome.
Last edited:
This is conjecture. For example, suppose Paramount had not put out the guidelines and simply settled with Axanar by requiring them to simply use a disclaimer similar to Guideline #8. If we assume the reports of Alec Peters' mismanagement and malfeasance are true, the project would probably eventually collapse, leaving the fan community far more cautious about supporting such films, and thus suppressing abusive fan project in an equally effective way without damaging the franchise.
My example may be theoretically possible, but I can't actually know that, because it's based on hypothetical circumstances that didn't happen. I would never offer it as a real argument against the guidelines. (Although, this is in part because it's kind of irresponsible to let a project rip off your franchise's fans.)
Similarly, you can't actually know that CBS/Paramount wouldn't have created the guidelines, or that some other project wouldn't have provided them with similar motivations had Axanar and AP never existed. And even if we assume that you're right about what might have happened, the fact that CBS/Paramount might not have taken the same actions in other circumstances does not absolve them of responsibility for those actions.
Not that Alec Peters doesn't deserve anyone's ire. It's just that he deserves it for his own actions, particularly involving Axanar, and not those of CBS/Paramount.
As Peters himself had been lobbying hard for guidelines for some time, and his specific abuse of the IP was so profound, it's quite logical to say that Peters/Axanar shares a disproportionate portion of the blame.
That STC, Renegades, Horizons and NV were all contributing factors to CBS issuing guidelines is questionable, as each of those productions immediately followed any "suggestions" coming from CBS about their work.
-- That is unless you piss Alec peters off enough that he berates you personally in e-mail and gives you one.NO REFUNDS.
[I kept posting links to the released Alec Peters court deposition docs that were publicly available; on the Kickstarter Backers Comments page. We had a fun e-mail exchange where he really went off the rails, and also attempted to get my KS account banned (didn't happen, and I actually got an apology e-mail from KS; but the only way he could stop me posting on his project was to refund my $75, which he did - and had all my postings there removed. The e-mail exchange was fun because he kept claiming he never read my replies, although he KEPT replying until his last e-mail to me which read: BLOCKED!
]
I've done a little Googling on the subject, so I see where you're coming from. I won't disagree with your statement. However, since we're talking about logic, let me put it to you a different way:
If enough people express their displeasure with the fan film guidelines, perhaps our concerns will be heard by CBS/Paramount, who may decide to change them. Even if they're not listening, there is at least a theoretical constructive purpose to expressing my grievances, so long as I do so in a respectful and constructive fashion.
However, what will expressing my displeasure with Alec Peters get me? A refund? Didn't contribute in the first place An apology? Not sure I'd care if he did. Vengeance? Might makes some people happy for a moment, then we'd all realize we're still stuck in the same situation. Alec Peters might be the cause of our guideline problems, but I have no reason to believe that he's the solution. I have better uses for my time and energy.
Alec Peters is not the solution to anything. Anyway, here's a clip from a post on the Axanar FB page. We told CBS they could have Axanar for free. For us it was never about money, but about making great Star Trek. Something we are in the process of doing again. My response "It wasn't yours to begin with". We'll see if that finally gets me banned.
I doubt CBS will formally "relax" the guidelines for sometime.
I whipped up this pie chart, it's pure speculation because we can never "know" what precise details caused CBS to issue these guidelines.
I believe this thread has been mostly reactive.
If Alec did nothing going forward other than stay within the guidelines and raise funds against his donor list as CBS/P have demanded, I do not believe you would see a lot of comment.
But it just never seems to end. Latest, after agreeing in court that he would not raise crowdfunding money for Axanar, he raised money "for operating expenses for the studio which is 'not' Axanar", and then when it wasn't enough to keep the studio open, polled his donors asking "is it ok with you if I spend it on Axanar anyway, to move Axanar assets to Georgia". Way to defy the court settlement! Have the donors tell him to do it, he didn't himself do it. It wasn't the "purpose" (wink wink) of the crowdfund, just an accidental after effect.
To me, Axanar is a loose phaser cannon rattling around in Trek. Who knows where its gonna pop up next and try to blast its way through laws or fan norms? It deserves to have an eye or two watching it for a season.
Well, someone accused me of trolling.
Dude, I've said as much myself, more than once, but thanks for stating the obvious again. I know it's not anyone's job here to "enlighten" me. I'm just saying it often seems to me it would take less effort to point out those "facts" than to uselessly suggest the information is out there - so go look for it - as if I haven't already read many sites on both sides of the argument. Yet, for some inexplicable reason after many similar assertions, there's a tendency for some people to insist on popping up and volunteering that "helpful" suggestion rather than actually taking less time to point out which facts they feel the argument may hinge upon that would actually change my mind, or providing specific links they think would do the job in their stead. Just sayin'. But it's sure no special love for any David vs. Goliath sentiment, so don't get all Biblical on me.
As for what sites I've looked at, Dude, most any that pops up after various Google searches on the topic. I'm sorry I didn't take detailed notes or commit them to memory for your consumption, but it wasn't my assertion anyone here was wrong to have their own opinion, however they may have arrived at it, and no matter which side they might favor. I, on the other hand, was actually told I was wrong to hold the opinion I do, or a better grasp of the "facts" would probably alter my opinion or misplaced feelings, or something like that. Dude. And how much of a jerk you may feel Peters is seems to be beside the point. I certainly haven't stepped up to champion Peters' personality or managerial skills or anything. I don't know the guy. I find it more or less irrelevant to why I feel CBS and Paramount are being less than honest about their motives, or how their selective application of their draconian fan fiction guidelines feels dishonest and ticks me off. They appear to deliberately be designed to assure poorer quality production values, and not to curtail minuscule profits.
But more importantly, I feel if CBS/Paramount were compelled to enforce their proposed guidelines uniformly on everyone making fan fiction, they would have penned less draconian rules, and fans would get better and more frequent quality fan fiction. You may feel otherwise, but it's your call. Dude.
And I'm sorry you seemed to have missed this point, but I didn't say or "conclude" STC WAS making millions - it was a reductio ad absurdum, or an argument reduced to absurdity. This is a statement of belief that the money involved isn't the true motive for suing the Axanar project, and IF STC was making that much, or even just a profit at all, it probably wouldn't bother them as long as its production values remained relatively low and amateurish to many degrees. Don't get me wrong, however, for I really like STC. The fact they are a 501c non profit again seems beside the point I was making, and I'm not sure, but as a SAG member, I feel VIC is required to pay himself, too, or would get thrown out of the screen actors' guild, so there is a whole grey area here. Your point, however, that I am not only uninformed, but completely, no less, apparently for no other reason than disagreeing with you, perhaps, seems more like an argument ad hominem than a genuine attempt to honestly discuss the topic. Dude.
I detest having to cram multiple replies in a single post, lest I be accused of spamming or violating board rules, but here goes.
Thanks, muCephi, for the post. The axamonitor.com site is indeed filled with information, most of which I have seen before. But mostly, it still seems to me to just suggest Peters is incompetent, not wholly honest, a bad manager, or less than all that or all that he should be, or even that some donors would have ample reason to complain or demand refunds. But I never said otherwise. And when I asserted Axanar hadn't done anything substantially different than other fan fictions, while there are some obvious and glaring differences, I don't think those were the reasons for the suit since others have and are doing, albeit to a lesser degree, some of those same things without being sued by CBS or Paramount. But mostly, regardless of all that, my ire is based upon the "draconian" guidelines and their selective application. Vic Mignogna, for example, may assert Peters violated an unwritten or implicit guideline in 2015, but that hardly justifies Vic or STC violating 5 or more of the now written and explicit guidelines in 2017, or CBS and Paramount letting it slide (assuming they do, as Vic probably expects them to, though they haven't officially said they would) when he wraps up the next four 50+ minute episodes of STC with professional actors who will be paid, some of whom are Trek vetrans. I'm not complaining he intends to do that - or hoping he gets sued or STC gets stopped in its tracks - but I am saying the unfair and uneven application of the copyrights, however legal, is what's pissing me off. If CBS and Paramount knew they had to be, or were going to be compelled to universally apply them to all fan fiction, and not just allowed to pick and choose when to whom they allowed or didn't allow to get away with infractions for ulterior motives or whatever whims they might have at the moment, then I feel almost certain they would have concocted a better set of guidelines and we all would have been happier for it, and the fan base of Trek would have been better served, and the bottom line at CBS and Paramount would likely have been improved, too. IMO, they went about this the wrong way, and attacked what they legally could, even if it wasn't in truth what as actually bothering them about the Axanar project. In the meantime, other fan fictions will (I still assume) be allowed to violate multiple guidelines and CBS/Paramount won't do squat about it, but the Axanar project will be slapped down if they did the same, and many fans' enjoyment of it will be forever diminished. And yes, it's pissing me off, however misplaced any here may feel my anger to be.
Google defines trolling as "to make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.".
Personally I find the Axanar statement to be outrageously offensive on its face because it is deliberately unrepresentative of their documented conduct and stated intent to sequester Trek money into a business asset. And saying they are in the process of doing it again, well, that just offends the rational underpinnings of existence.
Your offendee doubtless expects exactly 10 flaps of the butterfly wing per flower traverse, no more, no less.
Its fine with me to be upset about the guidelines as such.
I want to offer a different take to approach your upset about "unfairness". I think its nonproductive to argue that crossing outside the guidelines should mean the same penalties for everyone. This is because of the nature of copyright law. I think supporting projects who do get slack is more productive than dunning CBS/P for denying it in some cases. Here is why:
The guidelines address what *won't* be sued. They are silent on what will happen if you violate.
As I understand it there is an important reason for this. Copyright does not have to be enforced "fairly" by the IP owner. It is a right granted to the holder to defend their IP when and where they feel that on the whole it is in their interest to do so. The concept of "fairness" of treatment of copyright violators would apply when the court evaluates the facts of whether a violation has occurred. But nowhere in the intent or practice of the law as I have lightly learned it by following this case, is there a "fairness" principle applied to the conduct of the IP holder.
If an IP holder did define the consequences of violations, they would in effect be granting licenses sight unseen. A violator could say "ok, I want to use this IP, and the cost is xx penalty because they said so, in effect I can have a license because they stated the price of the violation".
You see this sort of practice in international violation of copyrights, where the unlicensed manufacturer (usually of a faddish mass market item) decides that the costs of fighting a lawsuit and eventually negotiating a license with a penalty fee are low enough to just go ahead, so they can be in on the market.
No way are you ever going to see CBS/P create this situation for themselves by defining in advance the actions they might take against violators. Nor do I believe, for the same reason, you will ever see them agree to participate in some sort of "fairness" doctrine which you might like them to follow, even if you could somehow convince them that it was in their interest to make fans happy by doing so. They just can't, if they want to retain control of their IP.
I think in reality the way to approach this is to see them cutting slack as a sign that they might be open to cutting slack on a case by case basis for various projects, depending on the totality of what a fan group is trying to do, the current projects of the studios, and other varying factors which they are both entitled to act on and to withhold from disclosure.
I think that supporting groups that are granted slack, in hopes that this will encourage CBS/P to grant more slack in the future, is the way to go. They can't enter the arena you propose would be beneficial or "fair" to fans, promulgating some sort of standards about what will happen to various types of violations, without in essence giving away their IP rights to anyone willing to pay the specified price. Its just how it works.
Without the guidelines, there would be *no* safety zone whatsoever for fan films. CBS/P would be acting exclusively in accord with the dynamics of copyright law in each and every case. Whether you agree with the bounds set on the guidelines or not, they are a positive space which would otherwise be wiped out by multimillion-dollar-money-hungry "fan" film projects if the case by case standard were forced to react to such revenue attacks starting from zero. Corporate law and boards would just shut it all down, period. So at least there is a safety zone offered in response to the attack by Axanar. CBS/P are saying "this is the limit within which we are willing to go along with a concept of 'fairness' by stepping back from our rights, to benefit you the fan". I'd say work with it positively, regardless what specific boundaries it names. The good old days are destroyed by Axanar. Support projects being given slack and those working within the guidelines. Work out from the safe space.
Thus, I think that trying to critically hold CBS/P to some sort of "fairness" doctrine wrt/ copyright enforcement is not in line with legal realities. I fear you will be forever upset if you require an approach to this that just does not align with how the legal rights are defined and operate in copyright law.
Last edited:
I know they can't really come out and say, but I've gotten the impression that STC has had a very good relationship with CBS, so I can see why they might be cutting them some slack. Peters and the Axanar team did pretty much nothing but attack CBS pretty the entire "production" of the "movie", so of course they're not going to be forgiving or as willing to look the other way. I really think that Peter's attitude did have at least play a small part in the decision to sue him and Axanar.
You know sometimes I wonder why I bother.
Mike Hennessy It wasn't yours to use to begin with.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
4
· 6 hrs · Edited
John MacEnulty IV Nicely trolled
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
4
· 5 hrs
Alec Peters There is always one.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
2
· 4 hrs
Joshua Price Trolls are like bad fruit, better get rid of them before their rot spreads...
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
3
· 4 hrs
Mike Hennessy Yes, there's always someone who will point out the obvious.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
1
· 4 hrs
Jon Tessler Mike Hennessy so it wasn't Vic's or Jame's or anyone else's by your comment. Waiting to see you bash them for doing what you complain that Alec Peters did wrong.
Either call every fan film maker out or your hypocrisy is showing.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
1
· 2 hrs
Axanar Really Mike, what is your point?
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1 hr
Mike Hennessy You offered to "give" an Intellectual Property to the owner. Trek does not belong to you and offering to give a product back to the entity that has the legal right to it, is grotesque at best.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 25 mins · Edited
Kevin Kelly Mike Hennessy It doesn't work that way. You can use someone else's IP / copyrighted material, with or without permission and claim copyright on portions that are uniquely yours. For instance, the story itself that Alec wants to tell.
Mike Hennessy It wasn't yours to use to begin with.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
4
· 6 hrs · Edited
John MacEnulty IV Nicely trolled
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
4
· 5 hrs
Alec Peters There is always one.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
2
· 4 hrs
Joshua Price Trolls are like bad fruit, better get rid of them before their rot spreads...
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
3
· 4 hrs
Mike Hennessy Yes, there's always someone who will point out the obvious.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
1
· 4 hrs
Jon Tessler Mike Hennessy so it wasn't Vic's or Jame's or anyone else's by your comment. Waiting to see you bash them for doing what you complain that Alec Peters did wrong.
Either call every fan film maker out or your hypocrisy is showing.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
1
· 2 hrs
Axanar Really Mike, what is your point?
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1 hr
Mike Hennessy You offered to "give" an Intellectual Property to the owner. Trek does not belong to you and offering to give a product back to the entity that has the legal right to it, is grotesque at best.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 25 mins · Edited
Kevin Kelly Mike Hennessy It doesn't work that way. You can use someone else's IP / copyrighted material, with or without permission and claim copyright on portions that are uniquely yours. For instance, the story itself that Alec wants to tell.
I have an issue with holding on to total disdain for any one person to long. Needless to say Alec set the gold standard in that respect. Yep, another first place award for Alec. First he can't write, produce and acting would be what one might expect from a beginning fan film actor.
What he can do is hype up a narrative to squeeze money out of people and then spend it with very little regard to his own donors.
Sure he set off to create a $10,000 film and then raised another $60 grand... no wait another $120,000 dollars to pay professionals to come in and do it. When he was done all what was left, was all those professionals that knew how little talent this man possessed and one by one they were made to go away. Peters didn't create Prelude, not according to every actor, director I've heard on a podcast but still he took it and continued to raise and squander another $1.4 million.
This is not a great man, it the act of a shameful self serving person. I said it months ago, there is no film, the only epic to bask in the glory of is called failure.
It's a "tail" even Harry Mudd wouldn't wear.
What he can do is hype up a narrative to squeeze money out of people and then spend it with very little regard to his own donors.
Sure he set off to create a $10,000 film and then raised another $60 grand... no wait another $120,000 dollars to pay professionals to come in and do it. When he was done all what was left, was all those professionals that knew how little talent this man possessed and one by one they were made to go away. Peters didn't create Prelude, not according to every actor, director I've heard on a podcast but still he took it and continued to raise and squander another $1.4 million.
This is not a great man, it the act of a shameful self serving person. I said it months ago, there is no film, the only epic to bask in the glory of is called failure.
It's a "tail" even Harry Mudd wouldn't wear.
Nonproductive? Perhaps, but it wasn't exactly my intention to produce anything through anger. I might, however, wish for CBS/Paramount to lighten up on the guidelines for the sake of every Star Trek fan and participant in the field of Trek entertainment, for both consumers and producers, themselves included. But by letting some have greater slack and not others, they are essentially admitting those guidelines aren't their real issue with fan fiction, and adherence to them isn't their actual goal for fan fiction.
However, I hope in no way have I suggested I wouldn't support other fan fiction just because they got greater slack. I wouldn't want CBS/Paramount to crack down on them harder, but to lighten up on others to the same degree, since apparently it can be done without hurting their bottom line or endangering their IP.
Of course I understand the subtle distinction between "stay within these guidelines and we won't sue," and "stray outside of them and we may or may not sue." From a pragmatic point of view, copyright law probably even has to be this way. And maybe they even mean it, but coming from such an apparently capricious source that may decide such things upon a whim, if at a later time they felt unilateral and even retroactive modifications of their published guidelines toward additional restrictions served their purpose, they could, and probably would, despite the suggestion if one did adhere to the published guidelines, CBS/Paramount wouldn't sue. They still could. They simply have not actually signed away their right to change their minds later or made any legal promise not to sue just because you adhered to the guidelines. They have essentially said as much when they reserved their right to do so, IIRC. So in effect there is actually NO safety zone, despite the implication that adherence to the guidelines would provide assurances one won't be sued. They actually don't make any legal promise not to sue, and you still could be, even if you adhere to their stated guidelines. And I'm sure it's legal. As you say, copyrights do not have to be enforced fairly. It just that when or if they aren't, you shouldn't expect others to say, well, that's fair. It's not. It's legal, probably, maybe even necessary, pragmatically, but it's not fair if in actual practice they are not uniformly applied.
So all we have, in effect, is our expression of strong displeasure if they lie out some guidelines but change the goal posts' positions midgame, or don't apply them uniformly. It's still their right to do whatever they want. They can take their ball and go home anytime they want, for any reason they want, and if we don't like it, TS. And it's our right, perhaps our only right, to consider them assholes when and if they do it. And the only force we might bring to bear that could actually compel them to do otherwise is to not as freely give them our patronage. I'm not a subscriber to CBS All Access, and given their attitude, I don't intend to be.
I suspect you're right, of course, in saying nobody should count on CBS/Paramount being the "bigger man" by rising above it. I think they are petty because they can be petty - not because they have no choice but to be petty. If STC is allowed to violate N guidelines, where N is large, Axanar should be allowed, too, if CBS/Paramount were above pettiness, and they should do it, if not for the Axanar team, then for the Trek fan base. But I don't think they will. It's sort of like when the captain comes about to rescue those who were recently trying to kill him and his crew. Lofty Federation ideals, I know, but apparently they have no place in corporate law, and expecting CBS/Paramount, the so-called guardians of the Trek properties, to strive for Federation ideals is not realistic.
Rest assured, however, that my anger, whatever I might say, is not crippling me now, let alone forever, so I hope I may assuage the anguish of your fears for my perceived and eternal bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memories of the time taken and perhaps lost to have expressed myself while acquiring the solemn pride that will be mine to have fought for fairer and more uniformly applied principles, and to have laid so costly a sacrifice of my free time upon the altar of fandom. It was my honor to do so.
However, I hope in no way have I suggested I wouldn't support other fan fiction just because they got greater slack. I wouldn't want CBS/Paramount to crack down on them harder, but to lighten up on others to the same degree, since apparently it can be done without hurting their bottom line or endangering their IP.
Of course I understand the subtle distinction between "stay within these guidelines and we won't sue," and "stray outside of them and we may or may not sue." From a pragmatic point of view, copyright law probably even has to be this way. And maybe they even mean it, but coming from such an apparently capricious source that may decide such things upon a whim, if at a later time they felt unilateral and even retroactive modifications of their published guidelines toward additional restrictions served their purpose, they could, and probably would, despite the suggestion if one did adhere to the published guidelines, CBS/Paramount wouldn't sue. They still could. They simply have not actually signed away their right to change their minds later or made any legal promise not to sue just because you adhered to the guidelines. They have essentially said as much when they reserved their right to do so, IIRC. So in effect there is actually NO safety zone, despite the implication that adherence to the guidelines would provide assurances one won't be sued. They actually don't make any legal promise not to sue, and you still could be, even if you adhere to their stated guidelines. And I'm sure it's legal. As you say, copyrights do not have to be enforced fairly. It just that when or if they aren't, you shouldn't expect others to say, well, that's fair. It's not. It's legal, probably, maybe even necessary, pragmatically, but it's not fair if in actual practice they are not uniformly applied.
So all we have, in effect, is our expression of strong displeasure if they lie out some guidelines but change the goal posts' positions midgame, or don't apply them uniformly. It's still their right to do whatever they want. They can take their ball and go home anytime they want, for any reason they want, and if we don't like it, TS. And it's our right, perhaps our only right, to consider them assholes when and if they do it. And the only force we might bring to bear that could actually compel them to do otherwise is to not as freely give them our patronage. I'm not a subscriber to CBS All Access, and given their attitude, I don't intend to be.
I suspect you're right, of course, in saying nobody should count on CBS/Paramount being the "bigger man" by rising above it. I think they are petty because they can be petty - not because they have no choice but to be petty. If STC is allowed to violate N guidelines, where N is large, Axanar should be allowed, too, if CBS/Paramount were above pettiness, and they should do it, if not for the Axanar team, then for the Trek fan base. But I don't think they will. It's sort of like when the captain comes about to rescue those who were recently trying to kill him and his crew. Lofty Federation ideals, I know, but apparently they have no place in corporate law, and expecting CBS/Paramount, the so-called guardians of the Trek properties, to strive for Federation ideals is not realistic.
Rest assured, however, that my anger, whatever I might say, is not crippling me now, let alone forever, so I hope I may assuage the anguish of your fears for my perceived and eternal bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memories of the time taken and perhaps lost to have expressed myself while acquiring the solemn pride that will be mine to have fought for fairer and more uniformly applied principles, and to have laid so costly a sacrifice of my free time upon the altar of fandom. It was my honor to do so.
I think we can infer that some of those guidelines are more important to CBS than others. The Obvious third rail is the one about making money off their Intellectual Property. People who are having fun while spending their money on their product deserve IMHO consideration that those who spend large amounts of money while producing nothing don't.
- Status