CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens
- Thread starter jespah
- Start date
That may be so. It's troubling that the court doesn't realize this is (probably) a pretty standard Photoshop job, the draft of which could have been banged out in an afternoon by a talented user. If they had known how easy (probably) the illustrations were to make, they might have decided another way.
Then again, most courts don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to how computers, software, apps, and the internet work.
I think the key here is that Gerrold's book is not easily confused with an actual Dr. Seuss work. Combine that with the fact that it won't likely sell more than an initial printing, if that many. Despite this, Gerrold got to make his point that there is real fair use in copyright law, something that was never really in question. But, hey.
It still doesn't change the fact that AP tried to steal Trek from CBS/P and was sued for it, lost by taking the settlement, and continues to lose, having to downsize at every turn. AP's vast universe is contracting rapidly.
One question remains: WHERE'S THE MOVIE, ALEC?
It still doesn't change the fact that AP tried to steal Trek from CBS/P and was sued for it, lost by taking the settlement, and continues to lose, having to downsize at every turn. AP's vast universe is contracting rapidly.
One question remains: WHERE'S THE MOVIE, ALEC?
Exactly why I felt it was a horrible ruling. Did the judge not look at the two side-by-side?
Really?? It almost looked like they hired Dr. Seuss's own illustrator to do the artwork.
When it comes to copyright law, what the bleep does it matter how many copies were sold??
I've seen comments elsewhere on the 'Web saying "Good! A win for the little guy. A big company (Seuss) got what they deserved." Guys, IP laws protect the little guy as well as the big guy from being ripped off. Flip the script around. What if a small high school art-class comic script was copied by DC or Marvel comics with this level of imitation? Those people would be among the first to scream how unfair it was. And they'd be right.
I use to do a WGA registration on scripts I thought were good.
I guess I would never know what good that does me unless I saw the concept produced without permission.
I see Seth Macfarlane produce plot fragments from scripts older than he is, I'm just not sure why some people aren't called on it.
A John Candy movie, Delirious where a writer types something and it comes true. What happens, some guy sees an old Burgess Meredith Twilight Zone, steals the concept and is a legit writer?
I write a lot stuff, sometimes it's fun to convert a script to fit a Star trek Fan Film to see how it works even if it is a chopped down film version.
The guidelines say you can no longer register and make a fan film out of it. I'm just not sure what protections are left for the writers.
I guess I would never know what good that does me unless I saw the concept produced without permission.
I see Seth Macfarlane produce plot fragments from scripts older than he is, I'm just not sure why some people aren't called on it.
A John Candy movie, Delirious where a writer types something and it comes true. What happens, some guy sees an old Burgess Meredith Twilight Zone, steals the concept and is a legit writer?
I write a lot stuff, sometimes it's fun to convert a script to fit a Star trek Fan Film to see how it works even if it is a chopped down film version.
The guidelines say you can no longer register and make a fan film out of it. I'm just not sure what protections are left for the writers.
The question always comes down to how similar. You can't copyright ideas. It's the specific execution and combination of those ideas that determines how unique it is. Oswald the Lucky Rabbit was Disney's obvious knockoff of Felix the Cat, but differs enough to that it likely would have survived any Copyright claims leveled against it. Then you have the case of Fawcet's Captain Marvel (now Shazam), which a court finally held was in violation of Superman's copyrights despite being impossible to mistake for the original in terms of art, style and content, but was deemed close enough in terms of his powers and appearance. It really depends on the judge.
This. So true. Look at some of the mystifying rulings in music copyright cases. Two song that are so close they could have been written by the same person: no violation. Next case, two song so different 999 out of 1000 musicians can't find anything similar: infringement.
For me, scripting dialogue and concept of story is two different things yet one without the other equals zero.
With fan films it's important to know who you're writing for. You can write more lengthy line for a William Searcy, Tom Hagale, Mark Homes, Jeff Green because they can deliver them. Others you need to keep your writing style short and to the point. It's a big contrast from writing for British theatrical actors.
With fan films it's important to know who you're writing for. You can write more lengthy line for a William Searcy, Tom Hagale, Mark Homes, Jeff Green because they can deliver them. Others you need to keep your writing style short and to the point. It's a big contrast from writing for British theatrical actors.
I'm lucky that I have stage-trained actors who can play an entire 4 minute scene without cutting. That's a luxury a lot of fanfilm makers don't have. For the unproduced "The Atlantis Invaders" for Starship Exeter I deliberately wrote the big romance scene so it could be played mostly visually with very very little dialog, uncertain as I was that those playing the parts could pull off romantic banter.
Last edited:
The exact same protections there were years ago. I'm not sure what you're talking about, to be honest.
In fact, one could argue there are MORE protections now... copyright last much longer than it did 50 years ago.
number nine on the "We might not sue you if" list.
seems pretty clear to me.
"Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law."
WGA script registration is neither copyright nor trademark registration.
Sigh. They might sue you because you are violating COPYRIGHT. THEIR COPYRIGHT.
Like YOU could sue them if THEY violated YOUR copyright.
They are taking advantage of the SAME protections YOU are afforded.
No protections have suddenly gone away. They are all there. In fact, because AP didn't succeed, copyright continues to be strong.
Please read it again.
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law.
Perhaps story telling is such a small and unimportant part of a film, who cares?
And..... if I see another stuffed with narrative dialogue, I doubt I do either.
Love Ya Dr Zoom,
Wish we could get together someday so we could sort out the error of my thinking.
I read and understood it the first time. It says four things:
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works under copyright law.
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register any elements of their works under copyright law.
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works under trademark law.
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register any elements of their works under trademark law.
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register any elements of their works under copyright law.
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works under trademark law.
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register any elements of their works under trademark law.
https://www.startrek.com/fan-films
The prepositional phrase needs to get boldfaced too. That's how English works.
The error of your thinking is simple: you play with someone else's IP you don't get to turn around and claim it as your own. Play with someone else's IP you play at your OWN risk.
And, I get it, it's fun to play in a universe as rich as Star Trek's. I loved the old FASA role playing game. But, it's not yours to copyright. Copyright is ownership, copyright is about protecting a unique creation. Fan films, fan fiction don't fall into that--they are all of poisoned fruit.
Personally, and I've said it before, I don't know why people who want to be writers and directors spend time and money working on something they can't own. But, that's me.
I get all of that.
Some of the fan films I'm credited for, I wrote but as Space adventure not Star Trek. Any good writer can take plot and reconfigure it as Captain Kirk or Captain Mercer's universe.
I know I have copyright, computers put date stamps on everything.
Since the guidelines if you take something first written in 1980, produce it as a fan film Star Trek plot in 2016 or latter and you might want to do something else with this collection in the future.
Would I be creating any entanglements now by using them a fan trek plots?
Honestly that rule #9 is vague to me " Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works"
Is not a writer one of the Creators?
I'm not talking about writers who rewrite a trip to the mirror verse, they didn't create that concept or plot and don't own it.
My last two scripts of 2018. One is Klingon researched in Klingon lore around Klingon elements, not a typical Klingon adventure but it's not mine I don't own it, that I get.
The other is a more original concept which followed strange events of horror that could happen to any mining colony in deep space and just involved a Star Fleet configured ship.
Do you think I worry too much?