My question is: would it matter?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens
- Thread starter jespah
- Start date
Honestly... Why do I even bother...?
Are you aware that copyright is not a proper noun?
Actually, he may have a point. Paul went into this knowing that the film was a derivative work of a third party's copyrighted material. One would presume he'd also know about the Guidelines, which explicitly prohibit the filing of such copyrights. Furthermore, Axanar would presumably be a derivative work of Prelude to Axanar, for which Alec Peters was a co-writer and has a story credit for. So any copyright Paul could file would be a derivative work of both CBS and Alec Peters (strange as that may be). And, legally, he'd have to disclaim the portions of the script that are derivative when he files the copyright. So he'd not only have to argue the validity of a Star Trek fan film copyright, but also that it's valid without the consent of the co-writer of the fan film for which it is an obvious derivative work and whom enlisted his help to write it in the first place. That seem like a weak case to me, even with a "Copyright 2020" notice. It's not like adding that creates a copyright license from anyone who reads it. Besides, I'm not even sure modern copyright law requires a notice anymore. I think that's just a hold over from earlier copyright law.
No, Maurice has a point, especially if you take the wider stance of "Why are any of us involved in this conversation?"
Alec Peters is a lying shit.
Trying to discern Paul Jenkins' actions or intentions based on something Alec Peters released is an exercise in futility because Alec Peters is a lying shit.
Entertaining the notion that Alec Peters might have a valid argument is an exercise in wishful thinking because Alec Peters is a lying shit.
Time and time again, Alec Peters has shown that he will say anything to make himself look pure as the driven snow and make anyone he names an enemy look like Satan Incarnate. That's what he does. That's all he does.
So all I want to know about Paul Jenkins is how did he respond to Peters' assertions in his own words? If you have that for me, fine. I have no use for speculation about Jenkins based on anything Peter's has to say because (read it out loud so that it sinks in) Alec Peters is a lying shit.
I am curious why anyone would seriously accept Peters’ version of events based on his history?
I'm sorry, but no matter how much Alec lies, there are basic, undisputed facts here:
- The script and footage are derivative works of Star Trek.
- The script and footage are derivative works of Prelude to Axanar.
- Prelude to Axanar lists Alec as a writer in the credits. (Axamonitor also credits him as a writer, so I'm thinking this is not in dispute.)
- Paul Jenkins doesn't own any of the Star Trek copyrights.
- Paul Jenkins has no copyright on Prelude to Axanar.
- Paul Jenkins did not write for the Star Trek franchise.
- Paul Jenkins is not credited as a writer for Prelude to Axanar.
- Paul Jenkins claims copyright on the Axanar script and footage.
- Star Trek Fan Film Guideline #9 states: "Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law."
I'll buy that Alec libeled/slandered Paul Jenkins, but this copyright stuff is legal nonsense that won't survive contact with a court room. He's basically just hoping Alec runs out of money for his lawyers first.
Another point against Paul is the "work for hire" clause. Presumably, this was something he was asked to do, so regardless of whether he was paid real-cash money or it was done pro bono, he could be considered an employee, in which case the copyright holder should be the employer. Yes? << That 'yes?' is a serious question, for I am not a lawyer or even "trained as a lawyer", so I'd like to know if I'm reading that right. Thanks!
Yes, but when you write Copyright on a product you are supposed to capitalize the C, so that’s just a bad habit. But go ahead and miss the forest for the C’s.
Agreed. All of the above is true. Now show me evidence of any kind that shows Paul Jenkins actually made a copyright claim on either mentioned property, evidence that does not rely on the testimony of Alec Peters. If you, can't, then the truth of the above points doesn't matter because they're irrelevant to the question at hand. They're a matter of "If he did..." not "Did he or didn't he," and the only evidence we have that he did comes from a near pathological liar.
Yes, the copyright stuff is nonsense, but not for the reason you state. It's nonsense because the entire discusion was motivated by assertions made in a statement presented by someone who we all agree lies his ass off. It's a tangent, one I'm sure Peters wanted because it turns the public scrutiny on to Paul Jenkins' actions and away from his. All we do by continuing the discussion is help Peters, which is why I asked why we're continuing it in the first place.
Because there are times when you can't let the Devil's Advocates have the last word, because, as evidenced by Sgt, G's last post, the last word is all some people will go by in a thread discussion.
Last edited:
The copyright issue doesn't change anything about the Axanar shitshow. That's why I asked if it matters. It strikes me as completely irrelevant.
Guideline #9 for Star Trek fan films says [https://www.tor.com/2016/06/23/new-star-trek-fan-film-guidelines/]:
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law.
So, for the purposes of assessing Axanar's compliance with the guidelines, it absolutely does matter; this has already been mentioned upthread.
It matters because of the implications of the settlement would come into play. On the other hand, it strikes me as a pissing match between a notorious hoser and somebody who should have known better that doesn't change anything as far as the prospects that an Axanar film of any kind will ever get made.
Quoting because I can't "Like" it twice.
So, it seems that you answered your own question to your own satisfaction, then.
I could be wrong...So, it seems that you answered your own question to your own satisfaction, then.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you're correct. If you're doing a work for hire, you can't claim copyright on that work. It belongs to your employer. The only question is whether Paul either has a contract to the contrary or is not legally considered to have performed a "work for hire". Obviously, we can't take Alec's word for it that it was a work for hire, but if it was, game over for Paul.
I don't know what you're getting at. Nothing about my arguments in the message you replied to are dependent on any statement Alec made.
Upon reflection, I should have excluded the facts related him not working on Star Trek or Prelude to Axanar, as they are not legally relevant, and that's a better context to talk about this. The fact that he doesn't hold copyrights to those properties are sufficient to undermine his claims of legal copyrights on derivative works without a license.
It's relevant because it sets a bad precedent for other fan film projects if Paul prevails in court. His actions may also encourage others to imitate his behavior. I can easily imagine disgruntled former project members claiming copyright and issuing DMCA takedown notices. DMCA takedowns are already rife with abuse.
The specific arguments were presented in the context of "Paul Jenkins shouldn't claim ownership of Trek or Axanar," which is true, but we have no evidence that he actually did make those claims other than a statement made by Alec Peters linked earlier in this thread.
The arguments don't depend on the statement. The context does.
Nice try.
Claims we still have no evidence he made.
You're still doing it.
See https://fanfilmfactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Paul-Jenkins-termination-letter.jpg. Jenkins's statement says, "Paul's rewritten Axanar script and all scenes filmed to date will not be used by the Axanar project as these materials are protected by copyright."
I remember noticing that line when the statement was first released and thinking, wait, what? I don't think Jenkins ever fully understood the situation he was in.