CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
(Having to rewrite this because something on this board keeps killing my browser on my desktop. This board doesn't play that nicely with Safari on my iPad either.)
Except that they change preexisting, unwritten ground rules, then let people violate the new ones.
Exploit ignorance for your own benefit, simply because you're permitted to do so under the law, isn't much of an excuse either.
They've been compensated, by the fans, for every penny of that, and the legal flexibility they have is the result of continuous lobbying efforts using money made from the very viewers these laws restrain. Under the Copyright Act of 1790, for instance, a copyright runs out after a maximum of 28 years, so copyright would have run out for the first episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation in 2015.
As if the average fan could negotiation and pay for a license. If that were true, wouldn't fan productions like STC and Renegades have the necessary clout and funding to secure such licenses?
Nothing has been taken. The negatives are still in the archives. The DVDs are still in stores. CBS All Access is still available for you to pay for (should you be so inclined). We're not even talking about direct "piracy", which is what the MPAA was referring to. We're talking about derivative works. You've actually stretched the term further than the MPAA itself, an organization that is not averse to bending the truth to make an argument. Dare I say it, that seems a rather draconian use of the term to me.
You're arguments may be good in LaLan Land. Sad to say we do (or most of us do) live in something called "the real world". ETA: this claim that there were no guidelines is simply amazing. There are guidelines, written in blackletter law. You can't legally use someone else's IP without their perimission. Those are the "guidelines" that every fan film or audio drama or whatever, violates. Ignorance of the law is never accepted as an excuse.Anywhere. If you don't like the law, fine. It can (and maybe should be) changed, but that's the reality that you are refusing to acknowledge.
On the contrary. I've acknowledged the illegality of fan films numerous times. What you and others fail to acknowledge is that you treat legality as the only metric of righteous indignation, as if no one has the right to feel angry about the situation because...copyright law. As if copyright law is perfect, democracy always worked, the copyright holder is right by the mere fact that they hold the copyright, and there's no conversation to be had. And what's worse is that a lot of people here even want to tell us who we should be mad at, as if we were just poor confused souls who didn't understand anything. There's no real conversation to be had you treat people's feelings as invalid and the issues as always being black and white.
There's no conversation to be had when people refuse to acknowledge facts. The FACT is that when it comes to copyright, there is NO conversation to be had. When a copyright law is violated and the holder says "Stop" it is a black and white issue. If you don't like the law, well that's fine. You might be surprised how many people would agree that it needs changing to adapt to the real world of the Internet and digital technology. The fact is that copyright violation is a LEGAL issue and the law in this case is extremely clear. You're fandom does not entitle you to violate the law if the holder does not choose to look the other way. Fan films exist on sufferance of the IP holder and I'm sorry if I've offended you, hurt your feelings or told you something you don't want to hear. Now if you have specific ideas of how to change copyright law to the benefit of everyone involved or even just to improve certain aspects of it, I think that would be a very interesting and worthwhile discussion, but just saying you have a right to be angry because you don't like the law is just the equivalent of a 5 year old pitching a temper tantrum because they can't have a lollipop.
If you want to go someplace where you find a lot of people in agreement with you and only occasional party poopers like me coming in to throw a little cold water on your "righteous indignation"/temper tantrum check out the Axanar pages on FB. You very rarely find anyone offering contrary opinions or citing pesky things like the law and they generally only last until a moderator spots them and delights them.
If you want to go someplace where you find a lot of people in agreement with you and only occasional party poopers like me coming in to throw a little cold water on your "righteous indignation"/temper tantrum check out the Axanar pages on FB. You very rarely find anyone offering contrary opinions or citing pesky things like the law and they generally only last until a moderator spots them and delights them.
Most of the bile here is really less about the technical legalities of copyright law or even pissing away 1.4 million in crowdfunding and more about Alec's Trump-like way of handling it. In the court of public opinion had Alec truly humbled himself with apologies I think this thread would have long faded off. The doubling down and digging in of heels and face-saving measures and attempts to hold onto some sort of cult-like following, these are the things that are keeping the thread going.
Fair enough. You get to the point where things get so heated you forget what thread your posting in. Perhaps the context of the thread has colored the responses of some of us in ways we hasn't intended.
I feel sad for the Axanar contributors, and mostly pity for Alec Peters. He's truly his own worst enemy.
It's their prerogative to change the rules--unwritten or not. They don't have to ask permission. They don't have to negotiate how to manage their property.
And, actually, they are guidelines. Even if you followed the guidelines, they could still sue. Or not. Who has broken the new ones?
How are they exploiting ignorance? Why is it their responsibility that others should know something?
So you think because you have given them enough money you should be able to exploit Star Trek to your hearts content? How much money gives you that right?
And of course, we both know that the Copyright Act has been changed over the years. If you have to have a discussion about the length of copyright exists, we can, but, copyright DOES exist and should. It is there to protect both the business and the the average person.
Another poster talked about fair market forces... Should CBS and Paramount not have the right to ask for the fair market value for the license? And besides, THEY are in the business to make dramatic content. Why would they want to give it away for a nominal fee to people who might make crap?
Also: there's lots of IP out there that maybe a fan COULD pay a license for? It's probably one that is long forgotten, or most people think isn't very good, etc, etc. But, then, the same reason that IP might be easy to license might be why it would be incredibly hard to fund on Kickstarter... so, again, we are back to fans (and people like Peters) exploiting the Star Trek brand to fund a movie.
This old canard. I didn't steal your chair, I just stole your designs of your chair! But, we both know Intellectual Property is still intellectual property. If you had written a novel, then CBS created a derivative work based on your novel... locations, characters, the distinctive ideas of your work... would you sit back and say, 'Well, they didn't take my novel, so, there's nothing I can do."? I seriously doubt it.
Fanfilms are using the Star Trek name, likenesses, ideas, etc. They are taking something that isn't theirs and using it without permission. Taking something without permission is....?
Oh! Oh! I see what you did there. It's adorable, but, stealing is still stealing.
The law and justice are not aligned, obviously. But its just very hard to look at anything Axanar has done and say there is valid grounds for "righteous" protest. They took a million and a half from fans and the studio and tried to buy themselves into movie making.
Should there be righteous indignation about general treatment of fan films? I would ask, is there a real injustice upon which to base that indignation, or is it simply that someone's desires are thwarted by the way ownership is managed in the law?
There is certainly discussion about copyright law in the world. But applying any of that to Axanar's conduct, as they tried to do in court and to fans, is self defeating IMO.
My own take on 'who to be mad at' in this situation is pragmatic. If you paid for a taxi ride and the driver steered into a wall off the road for no good reason except it was a choice they made about what should be allowed, would you be mad at the wall because it is there, or would you be mad at the driver because they made a wrong turn?
Maybe walls should have been designed so they retract when taxis approach, because there someday would be righteous indignance if taxis couldn't drive that direction. I suppose one could spend time being angry at the wall.
But the driver should have known better and exercised their required due diligence to protect the passengers' interests given the facts about what walls are at the time of the trip. To me that is 1000 times more important in assessing the event. City planning or the behavior of walls is a different issue.
There is plenty of "real conversation" to be had about fan film guidelines, just like there is plenty of discussion to be had about climate change. But IMO it has to start with a careful examination of what we know to be fact and the way things are now, and bring feelings in when weighing what to do next. Facts and feelings are complimentary, not mutually exclusive... until a "feelings" advocate on any side demands that the facts have to disappear in order to have a "real" conversation. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the analysis of issues proposed to Axanar fans in their walled garden.
There is absolutely a place for challenging injustice, and resisting people trying to control the conversation by insisting on their set of facts. I just don't see much of that in this situation. I see desire to have IP ownership rights being expressed by people who don't have those rights and don't have a compelling social justification for expropriating those rights (for example, the way that some patents can be forced to be licensed for the public good). I don't see a ton of fundamental injustice in the guidelines.
Last edited:
JRTStarlight's assertion that productions should be treated "uniformly" is laughable.
Why?
Because the productions don't treat CBS/P uniformly.
On one side you have productions who have had good relationships with CBS/P because they would check in with CBS/P to some degree, would make tweaks/changes that CBS/P asked for, made it clear they weren't trying to run a for-profit business off CBS/P's IP (with one production even obtaining federal 501(c)(3) status). On the other side you have a production that's basically done exactly the opposite.
So why in the seven hells should there be ANY moral, ethical, or logical reason for CBS/P to treat those productions "uniformly"?
(Answer: there isn't.)
Why?
Because the productions don't treat CBS/P uniformly.
On one side you have productions who have had good relationships with CBS/P because they would check in with CBS/P to some degree, would make tweaks/changes that CBS/P asked for, made it clear they weren't trying to run a for-profit business off CBS/P's IP (with one production even obtaining federal 501(c)(3) status). On the other side you have a production that's basically done exactly the opposite.
So why in the seven hells should there be ANY moral, ethical, or logical reason for CBS/P to treat those productions "uniformly"?
(Answer: there isn't.)
Last edited:
I understand, and it's funny, but mostly I completely agree when people, myself include, don't feel like reading dozens of pages or more to acquire sought after information, particularly when it might more succinctly be given by a knowledgeable person in a tiny fraction of that space. The fact it frequently can be given in less time than it takes somebody to state how it's not their job to educate you is just moderately annoying and never especially helpful. But though my posts fall far short of 50 pages, the very fact one single legal issue required 50 pages to fully describe it just goes to show when discussing such matters, far more often than many may wish to admit, a few paragraphs, let alone a few sentences, may not suffice. And that's just one issue.
Hmmmm. I wouldn't say it's ignorance, but the fact fans have no choice, assuming they wish to make amateur fan films. And they do. So the IP owners get the benefit of a more frequently energized and growing fan base without having to actually pay for anything there. And it's legal, so "exploit" might carry a negative connotation, but doing that isn't illegal. But this is the reason I don't think they would EVER outright ban all fan films. It would not be to their advantage to do so.
What they're taking is a risk. What they are using is somebody's else's copyrighted property. Since it's understood they have no legal right to claim it's their own IP, and must always abide by the wishes of the owner to cease and desist when and if the owner chooses to exercise those rights, I'd call the users . . . fanfilmdom serfs? Fanserfs? But crossing the legal line there isn't the line between stealing and not stealing. It is the legally defined line between they can't sue me (and reasonably expect to win) and they can sue me (and reasonably expect to win). This is more a civil concept than a criminal one, where, I assure you, words like "stealing" and "theft" do provoke and suggest a more clear cut moral wrongdoing, particularly when unfairly likened to breaking and entering and burglary.
There's always room for conversation, but one should acknowledge the facts, at least inasmuch as they are a necessary component of the conversation, or particular aspect of the conversation. Not all facts are. This doesn't deny they are facts, but might just suggest they are irrelevant to the point of the conversation.
I don't think it's quite so simple to dismiss the reasons for the temper tantrum so out of hand like that. Perhaps you promised the toddler the candy, but lied, or maybe you had no intention of keeping your word since you feel any word given to a child doesn't count and you were just manipulating them to behave, which they should have doing anyway, or you discovered you only had one when you thought you had two, and kept the one for yourself, or maybe your motives are only a genuine concern for the health and well-being of the child's proper nutrition. Regardless, I'm not sure one can ever say another hasn't the right to feel a particular way, or we certainly have no reason to ever discuss their feelings since why they feel a particular way is always irrelavent.
Buddha once sat before a wall, and when he arose, he was enlightened.
Perhaps it would be less laughable if you realized I didn't say CBS/Paramount should treat everyone uniformly, regardless of what they did, but in fact I said CBS/Paramount should apply any given guidelines for fanfilmdom uniformly. This uniform treatment of guidelines wouldn't preclude them from suing any parties guilty of more egregious copyright infringements in the least. But it would tend to make every would-be fan filmmaker more comfortable with the guidelines since they have a more reasonable expectation of where they will be sued or won't be sued (again, without an actual guarantee, you understand, which we freely acknowledge is the IP owner's right to alter or change). The uniform guide of fanfilmdom would be good to the fans and the fanfilmdom community, promote goodwill by appearing to be less capricious, and probably would encourage more fans to join fan film efforts, which can only tend to improve the IP's stock by keeping the buzz alive and growing.
Baawhahahhhahhwahaahha. Hmmm, maybe that is laughable. YMMV.
Last edited:
How have they NOT applied the guidelines uniformly?
So far, I think they've stepped outside the guidelines (already allowed things that the guidelines say they wouldn't), but have not, as of yet, applied them non-uniformly. I am not accusing them of having done that. But I suspect they will. Hopefully, they won't.
My fear, for example, is they'd allow STC or others to make 50-minute episodes, no problem, but would not allow Axanar more than two 15-minute episodes without suing, and how much time of those 15-minutes they must allocate to required disclaimers remains to be seen, but that's another matter.
Again, this is not to suggest they legally can't, nor to claim Peters isn't a dick and he doesn't deserves it. But for the sake of fanfilmdom, even though we would never suggest CBS/Paramount doesn't have the legal right to do as it wishes or change it mind anytime for any reason, or suggest Peters shouldn't have been sued for various egregious infractions well beyond the guidelines, when it comes to the given guidelines themselves, it would be better they were uniformly enforced (and perhaps better crafted with that in mind, too). The fact Axanar "agreed" to them to avoid going to court and has another compulsion to follow them doesn't mean CBS/Paramount couldn't yet allow a more relaxed set of guidelines even for that little puke, mostly just to show how they are above such things and care more about their fans than some cheap punk, and they wish to treat every fan film as evenly and as fairly as possible. So my concern is well beyond Peters. This is a general discussion about the guidelines and not how they specifically apply to Axanar.
So will the guidelines, which is now a wholly separate issue for fanfilmdom and not necessarily related to Peters or Axanar anymore, be applied uniformly?
Do you think they will be? Or do you think they will be enforced more punitively or more capriciously down the road? For example, if STC does make a 50-minutes episode and gets away with it, so to speak, do you think Mr. White could too? And again, I must point out I'm not saying an IP owner even has to justify a more punitive or capricious application of any guidelines they have have deigned to give out, but only that I think it would be better for the fan base and fan film making community if they applied them as uniformly and as fairly as possible.
Last edited:
The EDIT function isn't working right. For me, anyway. It has worked before. Hmmmm.
For example? Who is the they? CBS and Paramount? Or a fan film? Who has stepped outside of the guidelines?
As has been pointed out to you STC is wrapping up after they finish post on the episodes that were filmed before the guidelines were put out. They won't make anything after, at least, that is what they have said.
You keep saying they were better if they were uniformly enforced... Where haven't they? Has a fan film come out recently that hasn't followed the guidelines?
It feels like the complaint is coming before the horse.
@Professor Zoom:
I suspect it would be easier and cheaper to start from scratch than to license a cheap property that has virtually no value in the marketplace. They usually lack market value for a reason, and adaption has intrinsic risks.
@muCephi:
As for injustice, one could argue that non-commercial free expression, particular if the expression is valuable social commentary, is a reasonably just cause.
That's the whole point: there is no market. CBS won't permit one.
This is just a lack of imagination. They could sell licenses that basically look like the guidelines with a few restrictions loosened and it would have nominal impact on their business in the worst of cases. They can write licenses with any conditions they want, and it may actually give them a tidy profit between franchise releases. If people violate the licenses, they loose their license and CBS can go after them.
You do have a point that a brand name would make it significantly easier to crowd fund a project that uses a known brand name like Star Trek. However, I doubt that the vast majority of people making fan films, even the likes of Axanar, started with the thought "What well known brand name can I exploit?". Most likely, they start with an affinity for the franchise. (However twisted their relationship with the franchise becomes.)
I suspect it would be easier and cheaper to start from scratch than to license a cheap property that has virtually no value in the marketplace. They usually lack market value for a reason, and adaption has intrinsic risks.
I would have released my novel under a license that spells out my intent for the work. I wouldn't string people along in a legal grey area, then get pissy when then bump into an invisible wall.
The only real property under the law is the copyright itself. Therefore, unless creating a derivative work actually transfers copyright, no property has changed hands, so there is nothing that can legally be considered theft. Seeing as your arguments largely hinge on legal rights, it is inappropriate for you to use the terms "stealing" and "theft", as they imply legal infractions and penalties that are not occuring.
And derivative works are not "stealing". They are an infringement of copyright. What you're engaging in is little more than flamebaiting.
@muCephi:
One could make the same argument for other fair use provisions had they not already been codified into law. If legality is the only judgment of "fair", then you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem, where nothing is "fair" until it's law, but nothing can become law unless it's deemed "fair".
As for injustice, one could argue that non-commercial free expression, particular if the expression is valuable social commentary, is a reasonably just cause.
I'm not sure what this metaphor is all about, but it seems you are telling me that talking to CBS is like talking to a wall.
In my opinion, CBS/P will allow some wiggle room in the guidelines in proportion to the level of cooperation and respect demonstrated by the fan film makers. I think with STC ending their series you won't see any more 50-minute episodes, but you may see a film maker going a minute or two over the 15-minute limit, or some other minor excursion over the guidelines without CBS/P coming down on them. However, if a film maker defiantly barrels over the guidelines and gives CBS the finger on their way by they will ensue the company's wrath. I don't think CBS/P has a strong desire to make an example of anyone unless they have no other choice.
A fan film. I believe STC already did. But if I got that wrong, I believe STC said they intended to.
So? Is there a grandfather clause in the guidelines? I must have missed it. Not that I wish to slam grandfathers, for my own grandfather drowned in a vat of varnish and many berated him for dying so horribly, but I actually thought it was a beautiful finish.
Again, I didn't say they haven't been uniformly enforced. I say I don't think they will be uniformly enforced. I say I think they should be uniformly enforced.
Clearly, it is. But the best way to make a slow horse fast is to quit feeding it. Are we not allowed to discuss the possibilities? I know you intimated you weren't jazzed about hypotheticals, but where else can I seek guidance for a fan film where Captain Crunch goes forth with a hold full of dry cereal in search of a galleon of milk? PepsiCo? Those slackers have yet to publish their guidelines for copyright infringement.
Last edited:
Yes, evidently you did. Go listen to the Engage podcast interview with CBS Licencing's John Van Citters.
ETA: Here's a quote from a pro-Axanar website:
But the important thing is that the guidelines didn’t suddenly choke off fan projects. In fact, many productions were already in compliance with most, if not all, of the new guidelines. And those that weren’t were allowed by CBS and Paramount (according to this podcast interview with John Van Citters of CBS Licensing) to be “grandfathered in” as long as they were already in production when the new guidelines were announced.
(https://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/02/2...ity-check-part-2-the-death-of-trek-fan-films/)
Last edited:
- Status