CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Herd mentality? But seriously, if you get that impression, it's probably because as fans I believe they'd have more in common than they'd have differences for these particular entertainment needs. If it helps, think of the "majority opinion that is shared" as the one of which I speak. Include others that may be different, but not contrary to the majority opinion, too.

They are not. The micro-management I spoke of was after giving them, not wishing to then police the field, read or preapprove scripts, run down their finances, make sure every one of the guidelines are adhered to, etc. So who is going to be checking on these things if not they?

I disagree it's stealing if the IP owner knows about it and is fine with it. Wouldn't the law say you can't use it IF the owner objects, or something to that effect? So until they sue you or at least tell you to knock it off, or have already told you to knock it off, characterizing it as theft seems wrong. And once tolerated by the IP owner, the fair market forces come into play since it becomes de facto legal. Unfortunately, the IP owners reserve the right to change their minds at any time, so any hogwash that guidelines provide a safe zone where you never have to worry the IP owner can interfere with you is a myth.

My belief (which I admit could be wrong) is a business can make money, but if that money is totally consumed in overhead and wages, then there is no profit. If it makes more than overhead and wages, then that's a profit. I'm not sure how acquiring material assets (sets, costumes, props) could not be considered profit, however, unless you don't have to count those until after you permanently close up shop.

But I reiterate, the lines between professional and amateur, and for profit and not for profit, are all meaningless barriers to the IP owner who can always choose to sue, or not sue, across any one of those barriers, at any time, for any reasons, even regardless of any implications they won't if the fan film simply adheres to certain guidelines. But if you wish to enlighten me as to the actual differences, and explain how they will apply to the IP owner's rights, I'm all ears (eyes?)

Illegally raised money would be using another's IP without their permission and after being told not to do so. Robbing a bank to fund your fan film would be another example. And I maintain it is not a breach of copyright if the copyright holder knows about it and decides to allow it, or simply tolerates it. To suggest otherwise would to be claim they are breaking the law, but IP owners are above the law, or regardless of their wishes, they are not allowed to "tolerate" breaches in the law because the law is the law and it will be enforced.

Not when the IP owner or copyright owner knows about them and at least tolerates them. When they decide not to tolerate them, the usual practice is to tell the offender to knock it off (cease and desist.) If they comply, then the law wasn't broken since the overlap was tolerated. If they don't comply, then the law is being broken and the IP owner can sue and get an injunction to halt to wrongdoing.

I think you’re the one who is wrong if you claim the IP owner can allow another to use their IP, but HEY, that's STILL breaking the law because there is a copyright on it, damn it. I say it's legal when they know about it and allow it or tolerate it. The law protects the copyright holder insofar as it provides a legal means to remedy a situation where a non IP owner is using the IP without permission and refuses to stop.

You analysis seems faulty to me. Faulty. You should analyze. Analyze. I don’t like illegal things, yes. No hypocrisy there. I don’t think fan films are illegal when IP owners know about them and allow them or tolerate them - maybe even if they don’t know but tolerate through inaction or ignorance. The copyrights provide legal remedies to situations one finds unacceptable but only when and if one exercises their rights of copy, so to speak.

 

To long, just skimmed this time. Again, you might have a belief and opinion about how copyright works, but it doesn't correspond to the actual law.

Fanfilms are breaches of copyright regardless of the IP owner knowing it or not. Not suing is not tacit permission. Not suing is just not suing.

If I broke into your house and took something you had hidden away in a closet and didn't realize it was gone, it would still be considered stealing.

 

Someone should rename this whole thread to "TL;DR".

 

Lol.

 

I've lost track of so many things that have happened in this whole story, but I don't remember seeing actual guidelines from Peters. I do remember him trying to get the different fan groups to come up with some together, was it part of that?

 

Yep. As I recall, he presented (or attempted to) his set of rules to CBS after everyone else rejected the list.

 

The actual law? Well, I never claimed to be a lawyer, or asserted a definite belief I was absolutely right about this because of some vast experience I have with copyright law or anything. For the record, I'm not a lawyer, and I have virtually no experience with copyright law. However . . .

In the United States of America, one is innocent until proven guilty, legally speaking. That's the law. You know, the actual one of which you seem so enamored for the sake of some, what, academic argument beyond pragmatic application? Under copyright law, the burden of proof that infringement has even occurred is upon the IP owner or copyright holder. That's the law. They must first prove they own it. That's the law. Then they must prove another has infringed upon it. That's the law. Then the defendant has an opportunity to refute those allegations. That's the law. They may even be found innocent. But assuming they were found guilty, only then would they be guilty of breaking the law, as I understand it, according to the actual law, and only then would the IP owner be able to avail themselves of the full range of remedies granted under copyright law and in accordance to those laws.

If the IP owner knows about the breaches and chooses to tolerate the breaches, that is actually tacit or implied consent. It's still not permission, but it is implied consent. If an IP owner gives guidelines that suggest they won't sue if one conforms to them, that is further or stronger tacit or implied consent. They are still not, however, explicit permission, or legally granted rights to use the IP, since the IP owner always reserves the right to sue.

If the IP owner does not know, however, I think you'd be right that this would not be tacit permission by the IP owner, but as a pragmatic matter, under the law, one is legally allowed to use another's IP unless or until the IP owner tells them to cut it out, and even then they might be able to legally persist unless or until a legal injunction is served upon their ass. One just has to bear in mind this risky behavior leaves one open to a law suit and whatever penalties that may be forthcoming should they be found guilty.

Of course, I believe Fan films are breaches of the terms of legal ownership and rights such that one should know they would be at the mercy of the IP owner if the owner brought legal action. They should also know their odds of prevailing in court should suit be brought against them to be vanishingly small. If served with a cease and desist order, it might suggest the odds are steadily dropping, and fast. If one persisted in infringing upon those properties after such legal notice, the odds of suit being filed are a practical certainty, and an eventual guilty finding almost inevitable. But only when all that occurs and one is found guilty has it been established that they actually broke the law. That's the law. The actual one. If you insist on going by "the law," that seems the high mark with which you must deal. More pragmatically, I'm still not sure what you're attempting to demonstrate to me. Degrees of immorality?

Absolutely, but you couldn't be punished until it was proven in court, and you would be considered innocent until then, according to the law. According to more social customs, you'd be guilty of those things the instant you did them, but not according to the law. That's the law.

Copyright law is a system of protections wherein IP owners have legal remedies to those who have transgressed upon their legal rights, and may be repeatedly transgressing upon their legal rights. But since it is not incumbent upon them to exercise those rights, consistently, uniformly, or otherwise, one may assume they have the IP owner's tacit approval, but should always be prepared to find the IP owner might choose to exercise their property rights at a moment's notice. If one is prepared to take that risk, I don't think they are even being immoral, and they certainly aren't breaking the law, but are knowingly stepping out of bounds to a place where the IP owner may, or may not, reasonably exercise their legal rights. If the IP user actually first gives notice to the IP owner of their intent to use the IP, this would strengthen the moral position, certainly, but wouldn't really affect their legal one. If the IP owner provided guidelines for "accepted use" of the IP and implied or explicitly stated they would not sue under those conditions, I think one's moral stance would be assured, and even though legal certainty they wouldn't be sued still does not exist, I'd say legally they have tacit permission and good faith belief they were doing nothing wrong, morally or legally.

Your analogy fails primarily since I don't feel your cat burglar-like antics have, or will ever have, a good faith belief or a tacit approval of the homeowner, or society at large, for you to engage in that sort of behavior. Fan Film producers and participants, I believe, do have that, to varying degrees.

Well, Law is Law, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.

 

As you said: it's still theft. Now, I guess it's a moral question. Are you ok with stealing even if you don't get caught?

 

I know. That's what I said when it was suggested I should first read 1,500+ pages of this "whole thread" just to get up to speed about how I should probably feel about it. TL;DR.

I may not understand what you mean, but if I do, any person who wants the assurance the IP owner can't later sue, particularly after spending God knows how much on the production. The people who don't get the license and dump a metric ton of cash, time, effort, etc. into their production can have it all taken away at the IP owner's whim. I suspect the license is only worth it if the investment is huge, or you need it for commercial assurances.

I disagree that it is theft. In fact, if I was a fan filmmaker and you openly and publicly accused me of being a thief, I might be able to successfully sue you for slander. There is no legal proof I am a thief. It would be as if I picked up a wallet I found in the street and a man quickly said, "hey, that's my wallet," (and could demonstrate this), it would be wrong to call me a thief for having picked up the wallet. I would simply return it. There is no theft. Similarly, if the IP owner says, "Hey, that's my IP, so stop using my IP," and I do, there is no theft.

No, I'm not O.K. with stealing, and not getting caught would not mitigate the immorality of the act. Again, your analogy fails since I don’t believe you can fairly say the would-be thief has a good faith belief that pilfering is a morally acceptable act within society, but the fan film makers do have a good faith belief making their fan film is acceptable, and if they discover they were wrong, they can simply return the wallet (cash, cards, pictures, and everything else). There is no theft. Stealing, in fact, is a criminal act. Copyrights do not deal with criminal law, but civil law, right?

 

Don't forget the plans game pieces... over which he told the reluctant maker (revealed by that maker on their site in their own words, I quoted it/gave URL somewhere upthread), don't worry, since we sell it and we are a fan film, you can't be held accountable as a license violator...

 

@JRTStarlight , just read the court filings. Much of your little "it's the law" diatribe is refuted there. It would be a fair assertion if the Court hadn't found in favor for the Plaintiffs in a lot of areas you mention. You don't have to get a jury verdict for some things to be ruled upon.

The long and short of it is: YES. All fan films break copyright law. But an intellectual property owner can selectively enforce their copyright. They sued Axanar. They haven't sued anyone else. Is it fair to Axanar? No. But neither is attempting to build a media empire on CBS' IP. CBS had the power. Axanar didn't.

With the legalities, really, truly, nothing further needs to be said.

Could Axanar have been amazing? Sure, I guess. I thought Prelude was, for a fan film, visually stunning but while the format was a big departure for Trek, the story itself did absolutely nothing new. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

Ye Official Thread Summary

True Love; Dreams of Risa
The Law; Didn't Read
Takes Loads; Delivers Racket
Top Level; Defense Received
Tough Luck; Decision Rendered
Tranya Lost; Donors R***ed

still TL;DR?

Special Møøse Summary
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/cbs-paramount-sues-to-stop-axanar.278077/page-877#post-11584317

 

Refuted how? I have read various court papers, but unless you can be more specific . . . Even one example would do for a start.

But perhaps more importantly, my discussion was independent of the Axanar trial or what Peters did, but was a more generic discussion of copyright law and fan films in general, so it should be less inflammatory to many here since there are no real people given by name in this more hypothetical, generic discussion, which is done this way since conclusions would have a broader application to all fan film productions and not just one. That's pretty much the point of separating the various issues - Peters/Axanar - Guidelines - Copyright law. You can discuss them separately if you wish.

Refuted? You're not saying I'm mistaken and CBS/Paramount charged Peters with theft, are you? I thought they charged him with copyright infringement - civil stuff, not criminal stuff.

But, I suppose, it is true there may be more than one issue, and each could have its own ruling. But I don't recall needing to make a distinction between a judge's ruling or a jury's ruling, however.

Not fair to Axanar? Maybe not particularly fair to the Axanar fans, but I think Peters was dealt with fairly. "Breaking" copyright law? Well, I'm not sure all the connotations that go with "breaking" would be appropriate, but one is more clearly on the more precarious side of the line without a license.

 

Look at rulings near the end of the court case, if I recall correctly, particularly the partial rulings on summary judgment. I really don't have the time to help you more than that. Nothing personal. I'm just busy.

I was speaking only to civil copyright infringement. I said nothing regarding criminal laws.

 

Ode to Garth (LFIM)

Nice bottle
Pretty bottle
Pour a glass of wine
Aries studio will be running
All in my own time
Nice donor
Loyal donor
Sushi all around
Adorn my halls with con awards
For the greatest Exec in town
Nice lines
Guide lines
Pontificate each word.
Off I ride to another state
flipping Paramount the bird
Nice bloggers
Awesome bloggers
Masters of their fate
All the love shown towards me
has only turned to Hate
Nice chair
Rocking chair
I'm sitting in the dark
Without a donor to be found
because my film's a lark

 

Lol. They can believe all they want, what they want. By making a fanfilm, they are in breach of copyright. They are stealing something that doesn't belong to them.

Lol. Slander. Lol. Yeah, good luck with that lawsuit. Lol.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe there is anything illegal about creating a fan film, distribution of said film would be another issue.

 

Yes, but that is not a criminal act. Apparently all that effectively means is they've placed themselves in a position where the IP owner can then decide if they wish to insist the IP user refrain from one or more unacceptable actions or not. If they insist they stop, but the IP users refuse, the IP owner can then sue or not sue or in some other manner seek legal redress. Unless something else is going on apart from copyright infringement, and for purposes of this discussion, there is not, then they cannot bring criminal charges like theft for a civil case. Continuing to call it theft when it's not is, what was that word again, provocative.

Your insistence they are guilty of a criminal act such as, specifically theft, for a civil law matter suggests an unwillingness to accept copyright infringement doesn't deal with criminal matters.

It's just a thought. Supposed I could prove I had a donor ready to donate a million bucks to my fan film, but your groundless and public accusation I was a thief gave him second thoughts and he backed out. That represents damages. He is later even willing to testify that is why he backed out. Suppose further the IP owner was willing to say they did not care about my fan film and had no intentions of stopping it. Sounds like slander to me. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

 

So, you're not a lawyer. Why don't you ask one of the actual lawyers here on this board, such as @jespah ??