CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[JRTStarlight]

1. You mislabeled the quote, I said it. There is a multi quote function, it's on the posts you want to add to a reply.

Yes, please forgive me. I am still learning how to use the tools here. I tried to correct the error, and I think I since have, but if anything is still misquoted, I apologize.

2. You disregarded the main thrust of my post: fan films, by these guidelines can still raise 10s of THOUSANDS of dollars, and yet there are complaints. How much do you need? How much should CBS and Paramount agree to?

They could agree to more. For example, what STC is doing. Anything short of a production values in the multi millions shouldn't really threaten them that much. But mostly it's not the money, but the constraints on professional actors, the time limit on episodes, and a few others.

In the past, they looked the other way, and, after someone raised a million dollars to create a for profit business, the studio stepped in.

I'm still not defending that, or at least not the way he did it. If a private donor gave him a couple million to set up his personal studio, surely you aren't suggesting CBS and Paramount would then be fine with the higher production values and done nothing, are you? Everything I read that Citters said implied they were attempting to lower the production values of all fan films. I'm still not saying they weren't within their rights to do that, either. I'm just saying I think it was a mistake, and the money and people involved are still not a serious threat to the IP, but are probably helping it.

3. My point about it being worse was to demonstrate how hyperbolic, childish and entitled you are being with you silly use of the word "draconian."

Peters used the word, and I'm just restating it. As defined as "too harsh" it does not suggest it can't be worse, and never have I seen draconian defined as the worst possible conditions imaginable, so I still fail to see your point. In my use, I do honestly believe the guidelines are "too" harsh, and a more relaxed set of rules would allow higher quality fan films, like Prelude and STC, and still not actually threaten the IP.

 

[JD]

It didn't seem stupid to me, but pretty much on point. And one's exact relative hatred, or non-hatred, of Peters isn't the issue of actual contention; it is wishing to discuss the guidelines and their application in the here and now. It is not necessary to repeatedly prove why they exist now, or in that form, or even if they only exist because of Peters and his ineptitude or dishonesty. In fact, I think one might easily stipulate to all those assertions since those issues seem beside the point of the merits of their uniform or non-uniform application to all fan film productions now.



But the topic of how the guidelines are to be applied now isn't always an Alec Peters' issue, nor does it have to be.

Sure you can discuss the guidelines without talking about Peters, but you also shouldn't ignore the role he played in them being created.

I guess to hold to that belief, one must adopt that attitude Peters is 100% to blame for anything and everything, and everybody else is 100% blameless in all things. It seems more complicated than that to me, as most things in life invariably are. But mostly, I don't give a rat's tail about how guilty Peters is in regards to how CBS and Paramount will enforce, or not enforce, their proposed fan film guidelines, now or in the future.

Pretty much all of the actions that lead to the lawsuit were taken by Peters.

So your assertion is if he hadn't been sued, Axanar would still not be ready, and still no progress at all would have been made? Well, I guess I can't prove otherwise, but I would think, also equally without proof, he'd have more to show for it if not for the lawsuit since the lawsuit consumed his time, hampered his efforts, and altered his priorities. I would tend to agree he handled the whole thing badly, and he could have done better, but the belief he still wouldn't have handled it better even without the lawsuit seems unfounded to me. How does one prove such an assertion? Apparently, personal and nigh flawless knowledge of Peters and what he's like to such a degree one feels they can guarantee that would have been the outcome regardless? Seems dubious to me. But I don't know the guy. All I know is Prelude was made, and I suspect Axanar itself could have followed, somehow, if not for the lawsuit, and it isn't an intrinsic property of the universe that any other outcome would have been an impossibility.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there would still be no Axanar even without the lawsuit. As long as people kept giving him money, I'm have a feeling stuff would have kept coming up that would have delayed the movie again and again, and again, and again.......

That seems an odd thing to say, IMO, or not the point. I mean, I supposed it's true one might say somebody robbed me, but at least they didn’t kill me, so I should be thankful I was just robbed. I couldn't even argue with that or that things couldn't always be worse. But I would maintain one might more properly say they wish they hadn't been robbed at all. After using this analogy I should immediately point out, lest some take it the wrong way, that I am not suggesting Peters was robbed. It's more the fans, I guess, who got the short end of the stick. And if you wish you can even blame Peters for that. But for me, I'm just saying I wish CBS and Paramount had crafted a better list of guidelines more in line with what they were allowing other fan film productions to already do. And yes, that would include allowing slacker guidelines for the Axanar project to legally agree to as part of a settlement. They could have done that. They didn't.

I think from the perspective of people trying to protect their IP, everything in the guidelines makes perfect sense. Sure it would have been nice if they had continued to turn a blind eye, but once things got out of hand with Axanar they pretty much had no choice but to do something.

 

[JD]

They could agree to more. For example, what STC is doing. Anything short of a production values in the multi millions shouldn't really threaten them that much. But mostly it's not the money, but the constraints on professional actors, the time limit on episodes, and a few others.

The idea behind those specific rules is to try to keep fan films amateur productions, which really is what fan films are meant to be. As great as the big production like NF and STC , they really are getting a very, very close to full fledged professional productions. I'm still amazed that CBS didn't immediately put a stop to them as soon as they started getting popular.

I'm still not defending that, or at least not the way he did it. If a private donor gave him a couple million to set up his personal studio, surely you aren't suggesting CBS and Paramount would then be fine with the higher production values and done nothing, are you? Everything I read that Citters said implied they were attempting to lower the production values of all fan films. I'm still not saying they weren't within their rights to do that, either. I'm just saying I think it was a mistake, and the money and people involved are still not a serious threat to the IP, but are probably helping it.

I don't know, I think the fact that CNN and possibly a couple other places used footage from Renegades in stories about official CBS productions says a lot about how much of a threat they could be seen as.
I don't want anybody to think I'm against these kinds of fan films, because I'm really not, I can just see how all of this could have lead CBS to coming up with guidelines they did, and why I think they are totally fair from their perspective.

I accidentally deleted it so I don't have the quote, but I want to go back to your robbery analogy for a moment. The way I see this whole situation is that Peter's tried to rob CBS and now they've put up a security system. If you're careful or nice to CBS you might be able to get around the security system, or possibly even get them to "forget" to turn it on, but if you draw to much attention to yourself, the alarm is going to go off and the cops are going to get you.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Ok, I haven't done this in more than a year, but I am blocking you. Taking behavior that is exhaustively documented to be 95% something, saying you would need more proof before you believe that the behavior is 100% of something, and reframing the discussion of Axanar's many misconducts to this standard is begging the question big time and not worth reading.

Huh? Seriously, huh?

At the risk of sounding hostile, the repeated use of the word "Draconic" and its variations is pretty provocative.

FYI, I don't think that statement sounds "hostile" at all as I see no personal attack in it this time, and it may even be germane. Now I don't personally find the word "draconian" to be particularly provocative, myself, any more than many of its synonyms, such as harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough, or some others.

There is nothing draconic about them. There is a definite refusal to acknowledge the value of copyright protections. "Because I want it!" is not a response to such a legal situation. It's up to the IP holder to decide what they will allow and from whom and refusal to acknowledge that is provocative.

I'm not sure where I have ever failed to acknowledge the value of copyright protections or ever said the IP owners were not allowed to do this or were not within their legal right to do it, but draconian does not mean illegal. That fact you find the word overly provocative is . . . unfortunate? I do not mean it that way.

However, if you mean Peters did that, and for all I know he may well have done that, I certainly wouldn't support his saying the IP owners didn't have any right to protect their IP.

 

[MikeH92467]

Huh? Seriously, huh?


FYI, I don't think that statement sounds "hostile" at all as I see no personal attack in it this time, and it may even be germane. Now I don't personally find the word "draconian" to be particularly provocative, myself, any more than many of its synonyms, such as harsh, severe, strict, extreme, drastic, stringent, tough, or some others.


I'm not sure where I have ever failed to acknowledge the value of copyright protections or ever said the IP owners were not allowed to do this or were not within their legal right to do it, but draconian does not mean illegal. That fact you find the word overly provocative is . . . unfortunate? I do not mean it that way.

However, if you mean Peters did that, and for all I know he may well have done that, I certainly wouldn't support his saying the IP owners didn't have any right to protect their IP.

Using someone else's IP to make money without their authorization is theft, plain and simple. AP did NOT use a gun or in any way threaten violence, but the fact is that copyright law is designed to prevent exactly what he did: make money off someone else's property. It is not a "criminal" act, but it is punishable as a violation of U.S. copyright law. Under those circumstances any action allowable under the violated law cannot be called "Draconic, harsh, stringent". The better word would be "appropriate." As for the guidelines themselves, as far as I know no one in the fan film community was publicly calling for CBS/P to establish any kind of guidelines, except Alec Peters. He got them and now he doesn't like them. Be careful what you wish for, especially when you start from a stance of being in clear violation of the law. Under such circumstances demanding guidelines is pretty damn dumb. The "guidelines" in the law are clear enough. Coincidentally he was the only one that I know of who ignored a clear request to stop what he was doing. Tommy Kraft hit the brakes immediately when CBS politely asked him not to do a follow up to Horizon. Renegades immediately filed off the incriminating fingerprints when word got out that CBS might go on the warpath against all targets. STC and James Cawley cut their own deals which seem satisfactory to all the concerned parties, but they also made it clear they acknowledged the weakness of their position and that their ability to make their films rested solely on CBS/P's tolerance.
Yes, you're welcome to your opinion that the guidelines are "draconic." You certainly have company in some quarters, but you are very much in the minority in this forum and the reasons why you are in the minority are in the main due to the efforts of people like our Esteemed Right Honourable Madame Chief Justice Jespah (who is a lawyer, not only by training, but by considerable experience) and other people who have considerable knowledge of such matters helping us understand them.
Coming in and trying to start a fresh hare that tries to gainsay those opinions after making clear that you're not interested in reading the background material that helped form those opinions reminds me of a student refusing to study and then complaining because they failed a test.

 

[Professor Zoom]

They could agree to more.

Why should they?

For example, what STC is doing.

STC finished their last fundraiser before the guidelines came out and is wrapping up their misson.

Anything short of a production values in the multi millions shouldn't really threaten them that much.

Why should it even get to the point of "that much"? Why should someone fundraiser millions of dollars on the back of something they don't own, never risk any of their own money? Why should a fanfilm get the special privilege of all the reward but none of the risk?

But mostly it's not the money, but the constraints on professional actors, the time limit on episodes, and a few others.

1. People are free to make something original that wouldn't have any constraints.

2. Professional actors like to be paid. Isn't that making money on someone else's product that they don't have a license to. Why should CBS be ok with that?

I'm still not defending that, or at least not the way he did it. If a private donor gave him a couple million to set up his personal studio, surely you aren't suggesting CBS and Paramount would then be fine with the higher production values and done nothing, are you?

No. Because that's not what Peters was doing.

Peters was using Star Trek to raise money to then open a studio, which after Axanar was finished, would start making for profit original content. In other words, he was using Star Trek to crowdfund his business. That's what, I believe, made CBS and Paramount mad.

Because, let's be honest, no one would give him a million bucks on Kickstarter to open a studio. He traded on the Star Trek name.

The donors contributed to a movie to be made, not to raise money for a new business venture for Peters.

Everything I read that Citters said implied they were attempting to lower the production values of all fan films. I'm still not saying they weren't within their rights to do that, either. I'm just saying I think it was a mistake, and the money and people involved are still not a serious threat to the IP, but are probably helping it.

Then you are getting something the I don't believe Citters said. They aren't trying to lower production values. They are lowering budgets. And good filmmakers can do wonders with less.

There's a fanfilms, Horizon, I believe. A feature length movie made for far far less than a million dollars and it has a high production value.

Let me ask a question: why does a fanfilm need a high production value?

Peters used the word, and I'm just restating it.

1. So?
2. He was also the target and the cause of those guidelines.
3. Maybe you shouldn't.

As defined as "too harsh" it does not suggest it can't be worse, and never have I seen draconian defined as the worst possible conditions imaginable, so I still fail to see your point. In my use, I do honestly believe the guidelines are "too" harsh, and a more relaxed set of rules would allow higher quality fan films, like Prelude and STC, and still not actually threaten the IP.

Again, how is being able to raise 10s of THOUSANDS of dollars draconian? To make something that isn't yours? Money that would be incredibly difficult to raise without the words Star Trek on your kickstarter?

I just can get over how entitled that complaint is.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Sure you can discuss the guidelines without talking about Peters, but you also shouldn't ignore the role he played in them being created.

I think one can compartmentalize the topics and discuss one without the other. Discussing the fair application of the guidelines without the need to rehash how awful Peters is doesn't ignore the role he played, as if not mentioning the contents of that other compartment in detail every few minutes is tantamount to steadfastly denying its very existence. In the given analogy, we could discuss the how impressive some aspect of the Saturn V rocket was without getting hopelessly bogged down in Wernher von Braun's shameful history. I just think it misses the point if I were to say, "without that rocket we would have never landed on the moon," and somebody else says, "well, then you must be a Nazi sympathizer, too."

Pretty much all of the actions that lead to the lawsuit were taken by Peters.

Seems right. But the degree of the suit was picked by CBS and Paramount.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there would still be no Axanar even without the lawsuit. As long as people kept giving him money, I'm have a feeling stuff would have kept coming up that would have delayed the movie again and again, and again, and again.......

Interesting feeling. I see no way to prove it one way or the other, but as I mentioned in a previous post, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I'm not sure everyone should accept it based upon your feelings, but I won't suggest you're not entitled to have those feelings. It may even be true that's exactly what would have happened, but I hope you can forgive me if I'm less certain about that than you seem to be.

I think from the perspective of people trying to protect their IP, everything in the guidelines makes perfect sense. Sure it would have been nice if they had continued to turn a blind eye, but once things got out of hand with Axanar they pretty much had no choice but to do something.

And yet, from things said, it was the production values that alarmed them most. You may disagree, but I suspect if an independent studio started cranking out Prelude quality shorts, let alone movie-length features and still weren't making a profit on it, CBS/Paramount would still have an issue with it and they would do something about it. And no, that doesn't mean I think they wouldn't be within their rights to do something about it. It just means something other than another's profit is perhaps motivating their actions. Agree or disagree, either way is fine with me.

The idea behind those specific rules is to try to keep fan films amateur productions, which really is what fan films are meant to be. As great as the big production like NF and STC , they really are getting a very, very close to full fledged professional productions. I'm still amazed that CBS didn't immediately put a stop to them as soon as they started getting popular.

I agree. I think, for now, STC and maybe even Prelude and some others are about at the acceptable limit for fan films. But I also feel CBS/Paramount haven’t decided, "this far and no farther." I think they've decided, "too many of you have already gone too far, so step back." This is what I believe the suggested guidelines are designed to do, and even without Axanar, I think they would have been inevitable.

And I'm not convinced Prelude quality productions would actually hurt their IP's value, but they apparently are, as is their right to do so.

The way I see this whole situation is that Peter's tried to rob CBS and now they've put up a security system. If you're careful or nice to CBS you might be able to get around the security system, or possibly even get them to "forget" to turn it on, but if you draw to much attention to yourself, the alarm is going to go off and the cops are going to get you.

Sounds reasonable. I feel Peters was trying to slide one by the IP owners and set up his studio, but I don't think he never intended to make Axanar, and probably nothing would have made him happier than his first film to be Axanar. Now I think it's just been suggested that I'm just being obtuse or something in not admitting it's "obvious" he never intended to make Axanar, but I honestly don't feel I have seen enough to come to that conclusion. If others have, and I don’t share that POV, I hope they are not saying I am, or anything I might say is, therefore beyond their consideration, or only those who share their POV on that matter are allowed here. Hopefully, I have misunderstood something on that point.

 

[MikeH92467]

I am absolutely sure that Alec Peters really did want to make Axanar. Others disagree. So be it. My feeling is that once the money started rolling in and the rave reviews started coming in for Prelude his ego got out of control and led to him alienating the people with the talents to make Axanar. To this day, I have no doubt that he fantasizes about making Axanar and humiliating CBS/P by putting out an acclaimed independent Star Trek feature at a fraction of a Hollywood budget. It's just that the reality is that the people who could do the actual work of making his fantasy come true are long gone and there's no reason to believe that he will ever have the money, talent or physical resources to get it done and the fault for that rests entirely, 100% on him.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Using someone else's IP to make money without their authorization is theft, plain and simple.

I agree. What I don't understand is why that argument seems like it's given directly to me to suggest I have ever said otherwise. If anything, I have said others are doing it, too, and they aren't being sued. That doesn't mean Peters, too, should not be sued. It only means the motives for suing may bear closer scrutiny. But again, if it's a question of degrees, Peters clearly went much further over the line, and I am not now, nor do I recall ever defending such actions on his part.

AP did NOT use a gun or in any way threaten violence, but the fact is that copyright law is designed to prevent exactly what he did: make money off someone else's property. It is not a "criminal" act, but it is punishable as a violation of U.S. copyright law. Under those circumstances any action allowable under the violated law cannot be called "Draconic, harsh, stringent". The better word would be "appropriate."

First, even appropriate actions may be draconic. Draconic does not mean inappropriate. Perhaps the difficulty here is you think I mean draconian only as those guidelines apply to Peters. I do not. I mean as they apply to all fanfilmdom. I'm not suggesting at all, I hope you realize, that Peters was treated unfairly. It's the fans that got the raw deal.

As for the guidelines themselves, as far as I know no one in the fan film community was publicly calling for CBS/P to establish any kind of guidelines, except Alec Peters. He got them and now he doesn't like them. Be careful what you wish for, especially when you start from a stance of being in clear violation of the law. Under such circumstances demanding guidelines is pretty damn dumb. The "guidelines" in the law are clear enough.

After he was so entangled in his legal difficulties, I'm not sure it was dumb to request explicit guidelines. I suspect he felt any guidelines that would be returned would better reflect what seemed to already be acceptable practices, lest CBS/Paramount be stepping on other people, too, and perhaps under the assumption they would then be less inclined to do that. And I'm not even talking about copyright infringement. I don't think most of the guidelines are about copyright infringement. They are about issues designed to lower the quality of not just Peters' Axanar production, but all fan films. Take using professional actors, as an example. This is not a copyright issue. Or the 15-minute episode limit, or the 2 episode limit.

Coincidentally he was the only one that I know of who ignored a clear request to stop what he was doing.

And he was stupid and wrong to do that.

Yes, you're welcome to your opinion that the guidelines are "draconic." You certainly have company in some quarters, but you are very much in the minority in this forum and the reasons why you are in the minority are (mainly) due to the efforts of people like our Esteemed Right Honorable Madame Chief Justice Jespah (who is a lawyer, not only by training, but by considerable experience) and other people who have considerable knowledge of such matters helping us understand them.

Considering those lofty individuals in the craft of jurisprudnce of which you speak, they suggest legal issues are my foundation for my opinions or feelings, but my contention with the guidelines is not their legality, so while I may be in the minority, I think you are wrong about their contribution to my minority view.

Coming in and trying to start a fresh here that tries to gainsay (= deny, thanks, I was unfamiliar with that word) those opinions after making clear that you're not interested in reading the background material that helped form those opinions reminds me of a student refusing to study and then complaining because they failed a test.

I was not interested in reading 1,500+ pages of material to discover why one felt my feelings were misplaced. This is hardly not interested in any reading background material at all, of which I have read many, many pages these last 12+ months. Perhaps you will forgive me for thinking this, but such an argument reminds me of a person who does not have ample cause to make a particular assertion in the first place, and then rather than defend it, hopes to burry it instead and blame the student for their lack of rigor. But then, people who often tell others how THEY should "feel," or in other ways deny another's right to even hold a particular feeling, and chalk it up as a product of ignorance and unenlightenment, is as foolish to me as a lover of chocolate ice cream insisting anyone who does not share this as their favorite flavor is intrinsically wrong to do so. Addressing the specific question as to my alleged "misplace" anger aside, I think it's pretty clear too many here feel the guidelines, and how wrong Peters was, are inextricably linked and cannot separate the two for independent analysis. I keep getting inundate with arguments like I'm defending all Peters' clearly illegal actions. I'm really not.

 

[Steve Roby]

I don't mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions.

 

[137th Gebirg]

The recent page lengths of this thread have crashed my iPad's browser!

 

[Firebird]

But then, people who often tell others how THEY should "feel," or in other ways deny another's right to even hold a particular feeling, and chalk it up as anything other than a product of ignorance and enlightenment [...] Addressing the specific question as to my alleged "misplace" anger aside, I think it's pretty clear too many here feel the guidelines, and how wrong Peters was, are inextricably linked and cannot separate the two for independent analysis. I keep getting inundate with arguments like I'm defending all Peters' clearly illegal actions. I'm really not.

Look, just because you're a new member of the board and you can write a small novel, obsessively attempting to pick apart the responses to your posts, does not necessarily mean you're providing "independent analysis" of the Axanar situation.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Why should they?

I think it would better please the fan base, allow for higher quality productions that don't actually threaten the value of their IP, but could actually enhance it, and generate more goodwill by showing they are above this (not any illegal stuff, but the other items in the guidelines).

STC finished their last fundraiser before the guidelines came out and is wrapping up their mission.

I believe that's correct, and they have about $400,000 to make their last four ~50 minute episodes, IIRC.

Why should it even get to the point of "that much"? Why should someone fundraiser millions of dollars on the back of something they don't own, never risk any of their own money? Why should a fan film get the special privilege of all the reward but none of the risk?

Perhaps because numerous fans believe in it and are willing to spread that risk around. But I'm not saying it must be made on the back of another's IP. This is probably the only way one might raise that much, but there could be others. So I say, prevent the abuse of another's IP if you want, yes, and as is your right, but why limit the amount that might be raised by other fairer means, particularly if you're convinced they can't even do it without violating another's IP? So as long as the IP infringement is prevented, let them raise what they can.

1. People are free to make something original that wouldn't have any constraints.
2. Professional actors like to be paid. Isn't that making money on someone else's product that they don't have a license to. Why should CBS be ok with that?

Professional courtesy, I suspect. It's not so much that professional actors liked to be paid - they MUST be paid, or they can be bounced out of the screen actor's guild (SAG) and never allowed to work in the industry again (as I understand it). Getting fed while on set can be construed as "financial gain" on another's IP, too, so I guess it's up to the IP owner how far they'll stoop to pick up a nickel, or more to the point, to prevent another from picking up a nickel. I'm a believer in fair market forces and not big corporate attempts to micro-manage amateur productions. CBS/Paramount has even said they don't want to do that. So I say, if a professional actor wants to do it (probably mostly because he's such a fan that he's willing to donate the difference between scale, what he will be paid, and what salary he might otherwise command as a pro) to the project, that is the very essence of what fan films are made - donated time and talent. I might even suggest a good or better guideline would be that professional actors could be used, but only if they were paid scale, and reimbursement costs typical for travel, food and lodgings, just as other volunteers would be getting there. Then fair market forces that would lure professional actors to higher paying gigs should suffice to naturally limit the fan film's production values without the artificial micro-managerial constraints CBS/Paramount claim they don't want to sully their hands with.

No. Because that's not what Peters was doing.

You say "NO" like I said, YES, that IS what Peters was doing. It is not what I said. I know Peters wasn't doing that. I am saying IF IF IF an independent backer did that, then even sans all the illegalities, CBS/Paramount would probably still have a problem with it (assuming their concern the production values being too high was part of their problem, as they seem to have suggested).

Peters was using Star Trek to raise money to then open a studio, which after Axanar was finished, would start making for profit original content. In other words, he was using Star Trek to crowd fund his business. That's what, I believe, made CBS and Paramount mad.

I'd tend to agree. And he was a massive tool to try that approach.

Because, let's be honest, no one would give him a million bucks on Kickstarter to open a studio. He traded on the Star Trek name.

Hmmm. I'm not sure it's impossible that somebody, or a large group of somebodies (with sufficient spare cash) once they saw Prelude and its quality, and having been convinced Peters could make numerous other fan films of comparable quality, Trek or otherwise, might not be willing to invest that level of cash. It's harder, of course, to assure any IP owner your example of your quality work isn't the sole reason others are contributing, but that is another matter. For this example, we may assume the example of quality was not a Trek property and imagine the possibility.

Then you are getting something the I don't believe Citters said. They aren't trying to lower production values. They are lowering budgets. And good filmmakers can do wonders with less.

Perhaps. Yes, it CAN happen, but I think we’d both agree, more money draws more talent and pays for better sets and props, so by curtailing the limit on funding, at least from that particular quarter, they are most likely lowering production values across the board, as intended.

Let me ask a question: why does a fan film need a high production value?

More people would watch it, but it hardly means all fan films need to be of comparable quality.

1. So? 2. He was also the target and the cause of those guidelines. 3. Maybe you shouldn't (use the word draconian).

Must be my AD&D background that has quelled my fears of the very word, and left me with no thought or feeling it is in any way controversial or inflammatory or - what was the exact word he used - provocative. But I have no wish to subject it on any here who tremble in its wake, so henceforth I shall try to curtail my use of it, even though it is a perfectly cromulent word.

Again, how is being able to raise 10s of THOUSANDS of dollars draconian?

It's a serious step back from what they are used to, and what is still legally possible. But I'm all for preventing anyone from using this or that or in particular the illegal use of another's IP to make this money. After that, why try to artificially set the limit? Let them make as much as they can, legally, if your only issue was making it illegally. Live up to your claim you do not wish to micro-manage these amateur productions, and stand behind your faith no one can legally make more money without your IP. To do otherwise suggest they either have no faith it was only the unfair use the IP that allowed it, or what they were really worried about is the higher production value, even if it is achieved legally. And again, though I almost tire of this, I wish to make clear I am not saying an IP owner wouldn't be within their rights to step on anything and everything they wanted that they felt might be problematic for them - they don't even need a good reason. Nor am I saying Peters in any way was approaching this level of legality. To skillfully craft a set of guidelines that naturally limited fanfilmdom without artificial constraints and attempts to micromanage others would embiggen us all.

 

[MikeH92467]

It's interesting that I don't know of any actual fan producers, including myself, who have labeled the guidelines "draconic" or have posted serious complaints about them. As a fan, I don't feel screwed in any way shape or form. I feel lucky that I've had so many products to be entertained by (some more than others) including Prelude to Axanar, but I'm not pitching a temper tantrum because of the new guidelines which may reduce the amount of choices I have for such entertainment. It's pretty presumptuous to assume you speak for all of fandom, which is one of the many things Alec Peters has done along the way. You're not speaking for me and I don't hear anything to make me think that you speak for any significant group of fans in the Trek Universe. Fan film fans make up a subset of Trek Fans, which in turn is a subset of Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans, which is itself a subset of the universe of all TV/Movie/Boook/Graphic Novel/Game fans and such.

 

[dmac]

Ok, I haven't done this in more than a year, but I am blocking you. Taking behavior that is exhaustively documented to be 95% something, saying you would need more proof before you believe that the behavior is 100% of something, and reframing the discussion of Axanar's many misconducts to this standard is begging the question big time and not worth reading.

But MuCephi, Perhaps this person just needs someone to talk to.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I think it would better please the fan base, allow for higher quality productions that don't actually threaten the value of their IP, but could actually enhance it, and generate more goodwill by showing they are above this (not any illegal stuff, but the other items in the guidelines).

Aren't CBS and Paramount in the business to please the fan base? It's that literally how they make their money?

Perhaps because numerous fans believe in it and are willing to spread that risk around. But I'm not saying it must be made on the back of another's IP. This is probably the only way one might raise that much, but there could be others. So I say, prevent the abuse of another's IP if you want, yes, and as is your right, but why limit the amount that might be raised by other fairer means, particularly if you're convinced they can't even do it without violating another's IP? So as long as the IP infringement is prevented, let them raise what they can.

The very act of making a fanfilm is infringement, so I'm not sure your argument makes much sense.

Professional courtesy, I suspect. It's not so much that professional actors liked to be paid - they MUST be paid, or they can be bounced out of the screen actor's guild (SAG) and never allowed to work in the industry again (as I understand it). Getting fed while on set can be construed as "financial gain" on another's IP, too, so I guess it's up to the IP owner how far they'll stoop to pick up a nickel, or more to the point, to prevent another from picking up a nickel. I'm a believer in fair market forces and not big corporate attempts to micro-manage amateur productions.

If they hire professionals, then they aren't amateur productions. So, then can big corporate start managing?

And, if you are a believer in fair market forces, how does that even apply? Fanfilms have no right to the IP they are using. It's illegal and unfair for them to steal the IP.

Isn't it Fair Market Forces for the owner to decide how their property is used?

CBS/Paramount has even said they don't want to do that. So I say, if a professional actor wants to do it (probably mostly because he's such a fan that he's willing to donate the difference between scale, what he will be paid, and what salary he might otherwise command as a pro) to the project, that is the very essence of what fan films are made - donated time and talent.

So why do they need more than the 10s OF THOUSANDS of dollars if the very essence, as you say, is donated time and talent? Pick a lane, pal.

I am saying IF IF IF an independent backer did that, then even sans all the illegalities, CBS/Paramount would probably still have a problem with it (assuming their concern the production values being too high was part of their problem, as they seem to have suggested).

If, maybe, assuming, who suggested?

Who knows?

It's a hypothetical. Who cares? Because that's not what happened.

Hmmm. I'm not sure it's impossible that somebody, or a large group of somebodies (with sufficient spare cash) once they saw Prelude and its quality, and having been convinced Peters could make numerous other fan films of comparable quality, Trek or otherwise, might not be willing to invest that level of cash.

To steal more IP that doesn't belong to him?

It's harder, of course, to assure any IP owner your example of your quality work isn't the sole reason others are contributing, but that is another matter. For this example, we may assume the example of quality was not a Trek property and imagine the possibility.

You keep saying quality was the reason why Peters was sued. There are a lot of quality Star Trek fanfilms that were not sued.

Perhaps. Yes, it CAN happen, but I think we’d both agree, more money draws more talent and pays for better sets and props, so by curtailing the limit on funding, at least from that particular quarter, they are most likely lowering production values across the board, as intended.

I thought the essence of fanfilms was donated time and talent? That's what you said. So, are these films that need a lot of money, are they not fanfilms? When do these high budget fanfilms turn into professional movies? Is that when the owner of the IP actually gets to stop them by your estimation?

So isn't CBS doing fanfilms a service by bringing them back to, as you would describe, their essence?

It's a serious step back from what they are used to, and what is still legally possible. But I'm all for preventing anyone from using this or that or in particular the illegal use of another's IP to make this money.

A fanfilm is an illegal use of someone's IP. It comes with statutory damages per violation.

So, if as you say, you are against the illegal use of someone else's IP to make money--and raising funds on Kickstarter is making money, you are against fanfilms. Why, then, are you upset with the guidelines?

After that, why try to artificially set the limit? Let them make as much as they can, legally, if your only issue was making it illegally.

Again, fanfilms are illegal. They violate copyright. It doesn't even matter if they make money or not.

Live up to your claim you do not wish to micro-manage these amateur productions, and stand behind your faith no one can legally make more money without your IP.

1. If people are being paid, it's not an amateur production.

2. I'm not sure I understand the second part of your sentence. Are you talking about raising funds on Kickstarter?

To skillfully craft a set of guidelines that naturally limited fanfilmdom without artificial constraints and attempts to micromanage others would embiggen us all.

Any sort of guidelines would be artificial. Guidelines don't grow in nature.

Even licenses have constraints.

What you are asking for has no pragmatic meaning. It sounds more like, why can't things just be like they were before? Well, because somebody gone and fucked it up for everyone else.

 

[JRTStarlight]

I am absolutely sure that Alec Peters really did want to make Axanar. Others disagree. So be it. My feeling is that once the money started rolling in and the rave reviews started coming in for Prelude his ego got out of control and led to him alienating the people with the talents to make Axanar. To this day, I have no doubt that he fantasizes about making Axanar and humiliating CBS/P by putting out an acclaimed independent Star Trek feature at a fraction of a Hollywood budget. It's just that the reality is that the people who could do the actual work of making his fantasy come true are long gone and there's no reason to believe that he will ever have the money, talent or physical resources to get it done and the fault for that rests entirely, 100% on him.

I see little to disagree with there, apart from my belief in general individuals are rarely 100% to blame for anything, let alone everything in complex interpersonal interactions. I mean, much of what you say is speculation, but it all seems perfectly reasonable as a possibility. It saddens me, of course, that if true, no Axanar project will ever be made.

Look, just because you're a new member of the board and you can write a small novel, obsessively attempting to pick apart the responses to your posts, does not necessarily mean you're providing "independent analysis" of the Axanar situation.

This is true. That, in and of itself, is not what would "prove" that. I'm even having difficulty finding others here who will admit the two topics are not so hopelessly intertwined and that it's even possible to discuss one without the other. I would instead leave it to others to decide for themselves what value, if any, they can find in such posts, however, and allow others to choose for themselves if any analysis therein is worth a song. I'm just not the sort to make that decision for them.

However, I am not attempting to "pick apart" responses. I am having a conversion, albeit and relatively slow and somewhat protracted one, usually with like-mined individuals who are ostensibly here to share their thoughts on this particular topic. Individuals in this thread not interested in this topic mystify me, but should they feel compelled to stay and endure a discussion on a topic that holds little interest for them, thankfully they are at least not required to read my posts if their verbose nature bothers them, or reply to me, like a conversation, wherein I most likely would reply to them, like a conversation. I am not really trying to convince others I am right about everything and they are wrong about everything, and any belief I will refuse to stop until they are all browbeaten into submission (though I get the feeling some might think that's my intent, it is not), is ridiculous. I am simply enjoying the exchange, learning things, altering my own opinions, where warranted, and standing firm when counterarguments seem insufficient to sway me, and making a few jokes, when I am moved to do so. I would expect the same from others here, as the spirit moves them to include themselves in the exchange with me, or others. In short, or at length, as you apparently have discerned, I am having a conversation.

I'm sorry if this annoys anyone here, particularly those who feel compelled to go out of their way to say so rather than scroll past that which does not interest them, or those who simply "like" that type of post. I do not mean to be annoying. I mean to have fun talking about Trek with other Trek fans, and nothing more. I'm not sure what you expect of me by posting such things. Leave the BBS? Just shut up and not talk? Just figuatviely nod and agree with "likes" when you speak, or with everything said by the longer standing members here, while I remain silent and know my place as a newbie? Am I to adopt an attitude anything that takes longer than one sentence or, oh my lord, more than one paragraph, is just a pointless exercise of mental masturbation that should be foregone, lest I go blind, or worse, cause blindness in others? What?

Seriously, never include a quote of mine in your post and you're already half way there to shutting me up. Try it. I mean, for those who have complained. Try it. For those who are actually interested in the topic, yeah, the conversation may go on for a time, but truly, for others, it is simplicity itself to scroll past them.

 

[Sgt_G]

I'm not sure it's impossible that somebody, or a large group of somebodies (with sufficient spare cash) once they saw Prelude and its quality, and having been convinced Peters could make numerous other fan films of comparable quality, Trek or otherwise, might not be willing to invest that level of cash.

Sure, it's possible. And I believe that if Mr. Peters had opened a separate Kickstarter saying "That fund raiser over there is to make the Trek movie; THIS one is so we can buy/build a professional studio where we plan to make not only the Trek movie but many many more projects," CBS probably would not have cared. Sure, it'd be splitting hairs pretty finely to claim that the second fund raiser wasn't based on the Trek brand. However, comma, that's not what he did. What he did was a bait and switch: "Here, fund my movie!" and then used the money for the studio. And then tried to deny it.

I think it would better please the fan base, allow for higher quality productions that don't actually threaten the value of their IP, but could actually enhance it, and generate more goodwill by showing they are above this (not any illegal stuff, but the other items in the guidelines).

And for years, decades, CBS turned a blind-eye to fan-films in general. There were several high-quality productions, but nothing that forced CBS to act legally. And they all abided by the "unwritten rules", thereby not forcing CBS to write the guidelines. It wasn't until Mr. Peters came along and did what he did that forced CBS's hand.

If you took the time to dig back in this thread, you'd find links to older threads in which Mr. Peters asked about rules other fan-films followed. He was given those rules. He knew exactly where the lines in the sand were drawn. And yet he still pushed and demanded for official rules from CBS. He went so far as to write some rules for CBS to consider, and some of his were more "draconian" than what they published in the end. He even wrote to CBS about other fan-film projects that "broke" the unwritten rules, trying to force them to release a set of rules. When they wouldn't do so, he proceeded in driving over and well past all the lines in the sand. He used the list of "Don't do this" as a "To Do List". He broke so many of the unwritten rules it would be easier to list the ones he didn't break (if I could think of any such).

Sure, you can say CBS didn't HAVE TO write the guidelines, and didn't have to make them as "harsh" as they are. Truth be told, and it's hard to give credit to Mr. Peters but he was right: publishing the guidelines was long overdue. Axanar wasn't the only reason for the rules. The "weapons race" between fan film projects was getting out of hand. "You had Scotty's son in your film? Fine. I'll get Sulu." And the money was also quite astounding. How many hobby groups can raise $50K - $100K, let alone $250K - $400K??? But the straw that broke the camel's back and forced CBS's hand was Axanar / Mr. Peters. After three years of listening to him bitching and moaning about rules, and then watch him break all common sense rules other fan-film projects followed, CBS finally said "ENOUGH!!"

 

[urbandefault]

It sounds more like, why can't things just be like they were before? Well, because somebody gone and fucked it up for everyone else.

Nutshell. Well done.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Aren't CBS and Paramount in the business to please the fan base? Isn't that literally how they make their money?

They are in business to make a profit. That's business. In their opinion, if one path were more conducive to that end, but it meant displeasing some of their fan base, they might be obligated to do it anyway. If another path would lose them a ton of money but please their fans immensely, they would likely not do it and protect the money. Both of these truths should demonstrate they are not in the business of pleasing their fans. But, of course, more often than not, pleasing the fan base and making a profit go hand-in-hand. However, it is also often the case what they think might happen does in fact not always happen. They could be wrong in their estimates about which path is best to maximize profits. So they apparently believe the higher quality competition in fanfilmdom will hurt their bottom line. I disagree. But I could be wrong, certainly. I would think more frequent and high quality fan films would invigorate the fan base, attract new viewers, keep existing ones interested and talking longer between major professional projects and thus would be more likely to attract even more new members, and more would then ultimately go to the theaters or subscribe to or buy on DVD/Blu-Ray their own products. I mean, if you're a Trek fan, are you really going to skip the next pro Trek movie because you just watched an episode of STC? I think not.

The very act of making a fan film is infringement, so I'm not sure your argument makes much sense.

It makes sense in an environment when it is not probable the IP owner will step on you with high certainty for what you have made. Assuming, that is, you want people to view your labor of love.

If they hire professionals, then they aren't amateur productions. So, then can big corporate start managing?

As I have already said, big corporate can micro manage any production with their IP in it. They don't even need one professional actor in it, let alone more than one (although I think some 501c provision allows for two pros while maintaining amateur status?) But they said they didn't want to micro-manage these rinky-dink productions. Do you think they lied?

And, if you are a believer in fair market forces, how does that even apply? Fan films have no right to the IP they are using. It's illegal and unfair for them to steal the IP.

If your attitude is any use by anyone other than the IP owner of the IP is stealing, no matter how minor, even to the tune of a single penny, then all fan films are illegal, so what are we talking about? But in an environment where minimal to modest use is tolerated, then fair market forces could apply there at the lower end, and should be allowed, to a point. My suggested point is to allow unlimited funding, as long as it is legal and does not rely on riding the back of the IP (hard to do, but possible) and allow professional actors, if they willing to work for such meager wages, and maybe some other more reasonable guidelines than those proposed.

Isn't it Fair Market Forces for the owner to decide how their property is used?

They can certainly decide if any use of their IP will be tolerated at all, but once tolerated, other fair market forces could apply.

So why do they need more than the 10s OF THOUSANDS of dollars if the very essence, as you say, is donated time and talent? Pick a lane, pal.

Huh? Oh. The donated money comes from other time and talent used to earn it, so it's just another form of time and talent - a more fungible form. One need remain a non-profit organization, I think, but one can pay their employees, I think. But "need" is not the right word. Desire, I think, would be better. I think most people would desire to spend their time on higher quality entertainment than poorer quality entertainment, but it's really up to them and their needs.

It's a hypothetical. Who cares? Because that's not what happened.

You honestly wish to limit yourself to discussing only things that have actually happened? I'm more than willing to entertain hypotheticals, but if you're not, that's your call. But more than you and I are in this thread, Horatio.

To steal more IP that doesn't belong to him?

Only up to what is commonly accepted as the limit the IP owner will tolerate, which could be nothing. I only offered the example to show how it could be done, sans use of another's IP, and to assert my belief that CBS/Paramount would likely attempt to curtail it even if it were from 100% legally raised funds if the quality were Prelude-like or higher, since I don't think anything and everything that's illegally raised is their true or primary motive here. I'm not offering proof. I just believe it. And since it's partially hypothetical anyway, it may hold no interest for you, yet it might for other readers. Citters seemed to discuss production values a lot if he didn't care about them.

You keep saying quality was the reason why Peters was sued. There are a lot of quality Star Trek fan films that were not sued.

No, I think Peters crossed too many lines and he got his assed sued for one or more of the illegal things he did. What I claim is my belief CBS/Paramount would sue a production even if they raised all its capital legally, if their production values were too high. Can I prove it? No, but it seems suggestive from many things they have said about wanting production values of fan films to be largely different (lower) from their own professional ones. And, of course, they could legally sue, we all agree, even if they did raise the money legally, so that's not the issue.

I thought the essence of fan films was donated time and talent? That's what you said. So, are these films that need a lot of money, are they not fan films? When do these high budget fan films turn into professional movies? Is that when the owner of the IP actually gets to stop them by your estimation?

The IP's owner "gets" to stop them whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. When do they become professional? There may be legal definitions beyond my understanding and awareness, but I would think if the bulk of the people involved were donating most of their time, talent, or money, and there were relatively few paid professionals, but certainly one should avoid a commercial connection designed to make money beyond that needed for the production of that one feature. Unfortunately, if one made a set or a prop that could be used again in another feature, I'm not sure how that would be defined. But like most of this fan film production, it will either be tolerated or not by the IP owner, so the professional or amateur standing seems irrelevant since the IP owner can sue either any time they wish.

So isn't CBS doing fan films a service by bringing them back to, as you would describe, their essence?

Not by lowering their production values, IMO, up to a point, but by keeping them freer of abuse of copyright seems a good thing.

A fan film is an illegal use of someone's IP. It comes with statutory damages per violation.

By what is legally allowed, that would include other means of raising money that do not rely on the unsanctioned use of another's IP, and one might define what is tolerated by the IP owner as "legally allowed."

So, if as you say, you are against the illegal use of someone else's IP to make money--and raising funds on Kickstarter is making money, you are against fan films. Why, then, are you upset with the guidelines?

Unfamiliar as I am to some of this, does Kickstarter require the use of another's IP? Could not, for example, a well known talent (director, actor, whatever) inspire donations to help make a studio, and then produce fan films there? Regardless, even use of another's IP, if tolerate, is de facto legal. So I'm not against fan films. I am against trying to do illegal things to make them, sure. I'm upset with the . . . um . . . somewhat more restrictive than necessary guidelines since they will lessen production values, and I do not believe that is necessary to protect one's IP.

Again, fan films are illegal. They violate copyright. It doesn't even matter if they make money or not.

True, and they can be sued for making them, if they make a profit, break even, or even lose a ton of money. Why we keep revisiting this point escapes me, however, unless I should repeat how "legal" can be defined as "tolerate" by the IP owner, or raised via other means than the unsanctioned use of another's IP.

1. If people are being paid, it's not an amateur production. 2. I'm not sure I understand the second part of your sentence. Are you talking about raising funds on Kickstarter?

What constitutes being paid is actually debatable. The line between amateur and professional in this case seems irrelevant since the IP owner can sue across that line wherever it may be. I'm talking about raising funds by any legal means.

Any sort of guidelines would be artificial. Guidelines don't grow in nature. Even licenses have constraints.

From a stated reason for the guideline, there may more naturally arise a parameter than some others thrust upon it that do not seem to logically follow from the stated motives for them. Beyond that, I can say no more, or it will lose its power.

What you are asking for has no pragmatic meaning.

I disagree. What I'm asking for would make something like Prelude or STC possible, protect the IP, and increase the fan base, IMO. The main problem here, of course, is CBS/Paramount's belief they need to downgrade current fan film production values to protect their IP. I feel they are wrong in this, perhaps even shortsighted, but I could be wrong, yet it's how I feel. And again, I do not feel they are legally obliged to allow this greater freedom, but freedom is one of our worship words.

Sure, it's possible. And I believe that if Mr. Peters had opened a separate Kickstarter saying, "That fund raiser over there is to make the Trek movie; THIS one is so we can buy/build a professional studio where we plan to make not only the Trek movie but many many more projects," CBS probably would not have cared. Sure, it'd be splitting hairs pretty finely to claim that the second fund raiser wasn't based on the Trek brand.

It may even be splitting them too finely, but I thought he might be trying that with a second wave of fund raising and I didn't see why it wouldn't work, unless Prelude was his only example to point to, and it could easily be argued the IP was therefore used to raise studio money. But an independent donor, whose motives for donating may not be open for public consumption, or a non-Trek example of his work, could be used and might work.

However, comma, that's not what he did. What he did was a bait and switch: "Here, fund my movie!" and then used the money for the studio. And then tried to deny it.

Indeed, and I can't say strongly enough he was quite a tool for trying that tack.

And for years, decades, CBS turned a blind-eye to fan-films in general. There were several high-quality productions, but nothing that forced CBS to act legally. And they all abided by the "unwritten rules," thereby not forcing CBS to write the guidelines. It wasn't until Mr. Peters came along and did what he did that forced CBS's hand.

I think "force" is a bit overstated since it suggests they were compelled to take only one action, and in the way and manner they took it, as if they were no choices at all. They had choices. I'm not saying they should have done nothing, but they could have done something that would have resulted in less stringent guidelines after they had dealt with Peters' infractions that were too brazen to let slide. Even now, they could still choose to lighten up the guidelines, even for Peters for the sake of the fans. I don't think they will, and if everyone wants to blame Peters for that and think no guidelines would ever have come about but for him, that's their call. The stated notion CBS/Paramount believes and desires to lower fan film production values to more clearly distinguish those from the more professional studio movies, seems to me they were inevitable. It didn't seem a question of if, but when. Proof? I have none.

If you took the time to dig back in this thread, you'd find links to older threads in which Mr. Peters asked about rules other fan-films followed.

Wait, are you saying Peters himself is to found within the suggested 1,500+ of this thread, or just some links that lead to other threads on Trek BBS? Well, that is . . . news, I guess. However, at this point, what Peters said will always pale in comparison to what Peters did, so I can't say I'm more inclined to hunt for those.

He was given those rules. He knew exactly where the lines in the sand were drawn. And yet he still pushed and demanded for official rules from CBS. He went so far as to write some rules for CBS to consider, and some of his were more "draconian" than what they published in the end. He even wrote to CBS about other fan-film projects that "broke" the unwritten rules, trying to force them to release a set of rules. When they wouldn't do so, he proceeded in driving over and well past all the lines in the sand. He used the list of "Don't do this" as a "To Do List". He broke so many of the unwritten rules it would be easier to list the ones he didn't break (if I could think of any such).

Hmmmm. Interesting. I guess he wanted something more explicit, but I'm not sure why. The IP owner isn't required to honor such guidelines, even once given. You want that level of assurance, you need to buy a license. Do you think Peters deliberately wanted to screw it up for other Fan Films? Did he employ a scorched earth fan film tactic just as a tantrum, or with an eye for other future projects? Too many unknown variables to be sure, anyway.

Sure, you can say CBS didn't HAVE TO write the guidelines, and didn't have to make them as "harsh" as they are. Truth be told, and it's hard to give credit to Mr. Peters but he was right: publishing the guidelines was long overdue. Axanar wasn't the only reason for the rules. The "weapons race" between fan film projects was getting out of hand. "You had Scotty's son in your film? Fine. I'll get Sulu." And the money was also quite astounding. How many hobby groups can raise $50K - $100K, let alone $250K - $400K??? But the straw that broke the camel's back and forced CBS's hand was Axanar / Mr. Peters. After three years of listening to him bitching and moaning about rules, and then watching him break all common sense rules other fan-film projects followed, CBS finally said "ENOUGH!!"

Fascinating. Well, I like more explicit rules, myself. It's just in this field, they offer no guarantee the IP owner won't or can't sue even if you remain within the guidelines. I think it would cause more ill will than it would be worth if they sued those that remained within the limits, but they could do it. So with them, you would have more assurances of what you could and couldn't do, but no guarantee. For that, you’d need to buy a license.

For the other, my limited experience of STC and Prelude, and a few others whose overall product didn't impress me enough to continue looking for or watching them, didn't prepare me for the "weapons race" and other info you related, but I think it does demonstrate I was perhaps closer to the truth than I thought that Peters and Peters alone wasn't the sole cause of this crack down, and it would have come about anyway once that level of funding became common. Thanks for the information. Sgt G, I shall consider it.