CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

To be fair STC isn't treading into any 'gray area'. The Guidelines speak for themselves. NOT following them doesn't mean your production WILL face legal action <--- That decision rests, as it always has, with the legal copyright holder (CBS). CBS is free to decide if they will legally enforce their copyright with respect to STC's latest fan productions or not.

I'm sure the leadership of STC is fully aware of the risk involved.

 

And pretty much every single production invited to participate in drafting these "guidelines" said 'no thanks.'

 

I'll have to see if I can dig them up but what I remember were things like no commercial crowdfunding but donations were fine. You could pay cast and crew, there was a restriction on selling merchendice if it said star trek on it (so the axanar coffee line, axanar ship models, etc. would be fine).

 

Maybe "metaphorically, please come play" is the root of the problem then.

Axanar received a very mild, on the edges of infringement lassiez-faire offering to use the IP, and ripped it open so as to grab for big amounts of cash from full IP use.

Axanar's more aggressive bloggers and fans use every rhetorical angle in the book to try to justify some broad reinterpretation of the offer.

Maybe the studios just won't be able to continue with fan films if a segment of fans keeps seeing a small offer as an invitation to take anything they want.

That's not the offer, no matter any cries are raised for "justice", "sharing", "win win", "boycott", or "make the fans happy". Its just not the offer. Axanar fans should repeat that thought until it sinks in past all the rationalizations.

 

@muCephi, infringement happens. There will always to be anomalies who abuse any system you set up beyond all reason. Axanar tried to claim fair use, and no one was suggesting we may have to repeal fair use provisions in copyright law because of Axanar. If we treat everyone as if they were the greatest extreme, fan fiction will cease to exist.

The only offer they're making is not to bankrupt you with legal costs, and if that's the best they're willing to offer, I don't see why people should waste their creativity and energy on a prospect with such inherent risk.

 

They were claiming fair use because they needed a defense because they were being sued. And they needed a defense because Peters ignored all of the signs he should get back on the other side of the unwritten line.

Fair Use certainly has it's place.

And there are some IP holders who do not allow ANY fan fiction or fan films, i.e., Anne Rice.

 

@Professor Zoom, I was using the Axanar fair use defense as an example of an anomaly (Axanar) trying to abuse a system (the fair use provisions of copyright law). I don't personally know anyone who actually thought that defense had legal merit.

 

Alec Peters sure did...right up until the time he settled (ultimately for terms he said he would NEVER agree to; and vowed to take the case all the way up the appeals ladder to the U.S. Supreme Court.) Also, remember, the Judge didn't pre-rule on the Axanar of 'Fair Use' on his own per se - he gave a ruling as he saw it BECAUSE THE AXANAR DEFENSE TEAM REQUESTED IT - and when it didn't go as Alec Peters expected, he started attempting to claim the Judge should never have made a pre-ruling on their 'Fair Use' defense claim. (And again, the Judge only did so because the Axanar legal team requested he do so.)

 

Slow lane did.

 

I don't know who that is.

 

Jonathan Lane. He runs the blog site fanfilmfactor and also runs a facebook group supporting a semi-bycot of CBSAA to protest the guidelines. He's basically baghdad bob for alec peters.

 

First, my primary "fear" is beyond Axanar. At this point, what happened to Axanar is more a disappointment than a fear. As for what is legally binding, I suspect if CBS/Paramount wanted to relax what they imposed upon Axanar, even now they could (mostly for the fans, but sure as crap not for Peters, of course). Whatever they agreed to, after all, was what it took so CBS/Paramount wouldn't proceed with the lawsuit and take them to court. Just like everything else, the IP owner probably still retains their right to change their mind or refrain from going to court again should they so choose. I don't think they will refrain. But again, that is not my fear. It remains mostly the future uniform or non-uniform application of the guidelines.

I strongly agree with the first parts, but what Axanar agreed to is only legally binding inasmuch as I think they mutually agreed if Axanar stayed in those bounds, CBS/Paramount wouldn't sue, and they might not even be able to legally change their minds on that one and still sue despite Axanar's adherence to those guidelines. He might, for example, offer a film at 4X the speed, like chipmunks, so 120 minutes of material would be crammed in 30 minutes of actual time. Fans would have to play the video at 1/4 the speed , but maybe they could do that. I dunno. It might legally comply to the court mandated agreement, despite being outside the spirit of the agreement, and for all I know, CBS may not be able to sue. But the exact nature of the so-called binding agreement is not something I know or claim to know. Regardless, I still suspect if CBS/Paramount wanted to, they could relax the terms and tell Axanar they could do other things beyond the court agreed guidelines.

I don't have a hard copy of the exact agreement handy. Does it not say no professional actors? And hasn't CBS/Paramount already said Axanar could use some? I suppose I could hunt for that myself, but it's not my highest priority at the moment. If you know, I thank you for any further enlightenment. Otherwise, bringing up Axanar when I'm more concerned about fan filmdom hereafter is always a step back to an older argument, which I think most everyone here, myself included, feels is settled - Peters was a dick.

You really didn't understand that? Very well. The one screaming "MINE" is the one who owns the toys, so it represents the IP owner.

Do you imagine these toys are in the yard, or again the kid must commit breaking and entering to gain access to the toys in the owner's room like you suggested before?

Anyway, no, the social and civil norms we have for living together and how to go about certain civil matters and avoid most conflicts IS the tacit permission (like your mother's invitation) (and again, where "tacit" means "implied" and is never meant to be taken as "explicit" permission, or legal permission, particularly where the IP/toy owner would no longer be able to legally object. It is implied we can get along without resorting to many more, um, excessively harsh and needlessly punitive actions when a kinder, gentler way has yet to be tried. For example.

Hey, that's mine. Don't do that.
Oh, I'm sorry. Here you go.
Thanks.

Retain ownership, yes. Protect your IP, but not stealing. You must not steal. Men must not steal. To steal is a breaking of civil and moral laws we've lived by for thousands of years.

Anyway, copyright law is the civil and moral code we have lived by so I think that would be true even if the IP owners hadn't publically suggested the guidelines. The fact they have publically suggested them just makes it all the stronger to believe one has permission to play with them, just as long as they never forget who actually owns them, and that the owner can always take their ball and go home, legally, morally, and ethically.

The permission is implied by civil law and by its outlining of proscribed means to handle civil matters without resorting to criminal law. BTW, don't tell me what I know or why I do or say things or how I see myself. It usually just ticks me off. Thanks. And also, thanks for admitting this is a grey area. Stealing or not stealing is not really a grey area. Every time you use those terms like "stealing" or "theft," you are suggesting a greater degree wrong doing than what is actually happening, and apparently insisting on a far more black or white, all or nothing position. I try to shy away from "always this" or "never that," attitudes, or 100% to blame or 100% blameless claims. One merely has to point out the extremely low bar required to disprove such assertions - not to blame, or to blame, by a mere fraction of 1% - to demonstrate how another is overstating their claims and engaging in little more than useless hyperbole.

I still say it's not stealing. And you have civil recourse. But, as a general rule, I'd favor the little guy if the big bully is relying on out spending them and out lasting them in a protracted court battle, attempting to win by attrition i.e. not because they are right, but because they have deeper pockets. But to more fully judge such a situation, I would wish to examine the actual case, and as much as possible, deduce the motivations of the parties involved.

 

Baghdad Bob. Wow. There's a name I haven't heard in years. I wonder what happened to that guy.

 

Yeah. My post went over your head.
Humor. Such a human concept.

Maybe you should link to something that actually states permission is implied. Otherwise we might think you are making shit up.

You're right. It isn't a grey area. It is stealing. I misspoke.

So, it's ok if the little guy steals from the big one, totally wrong if the big guy steals from the little one.

I enjoy your flexible morality.

 

Better than what I actually first thought. I thought some MOD was blocking me since I stopped getting email notices to new posts in this thread. But that cleared up later. The edit still isn't working like it was before, even for one-sentence posts. But I discovered if I opened the EDIT is a separate page, I can still edit that way. It no longer opens up its own separate page within the page, like before, but just grays out the screen. Sorry I deleted your whimsical, whistling smiley, or emoticon, but they, also, screw with my editing and sometimes do weird things when I quote them.

Even if the wife allowed that, it wouldn't be stealing. We have other words for that, and possibly other laws, just as we have other words for copyright infringement and methods of handling that, which do not encroach upon criminal law or use criminal terminology. Take my wife, for example. No, wait, I didn't mean it that way.

I didn't say that. I don’t think I even implied it. Hunt hunt hunt. Ah. "Their own ends," you said, and I suggested those ends were "having fun." This was not meant to suggest or imply in anyway that stealing couldn't be fun, I guess. I even once had a Holy Joe ask me if God didn't exist, what would prevent people from stealing, killing, raping, and having all sorts of "other" fun. I was horrified this self-proclaimed man of God seemed to imagine all those things were fun. Warped minds like that have nothing on warp technology.

Ah. Thank you.

 

And my dry witted repartee went over you head. Humor. It IS a difficult concept.

Link? You mean like:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2399046-all-i-really-need-to-know-i-learned-in-kindergarten

1. Share everything.
2. Play fair.
3. Don't hit people.
4. Put thngs back where you found them.
5. CLEAN UP YOUR OWN MESS.
6. Don't take things that aren't yours.
7. Say you're SORRY when you HURT somebody.
8. Wash your hands before you eat.
9. Flush.
10. Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
11. Live a balanced life - learn some and drink some and draw some and paint some and sing and dance and play and work everyday some.
12. Take a nap every afternoon.
13. When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.
14. Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Stryrofoam cup: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
15. Goldfish and hamster and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
16. And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.”
― Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten

Only #6 might suggest otherwise, but in this context, "take" I think would mean to claim it is now yours, or act as if it is now your own property. Don't do that. A harsher claim that "take" means do not pick up stuff doesn't sound like the kindergarten I knew, but you might try to go that way.

Anyway, it's not that I'm making it up, but that's the way I think it is - my interpretation of society and the social contract - and what I have learned from others, etc. There are other philosophies or codes of conduct, too. Like, "You took my stuff. I kill you!" Or worse!

Another Freudian slip bites the dust.

That is not what I said. To elaborate, the little guy has the same civil code to fall back on. Ask the big guy to knock it off. If they refuse, sue the big guy. I went on to suggest I'd champion the little guy's cause if the big guy might rely on his deep pockets, or the little guy's shallow pockets, to win, not on the merits of the case, but by crushing the little guy, to see him driven before them, and to hear the lamentation of his woman. I thought that was implied.

 

This was part of the U.S.S. Republic newsletter. They're the group that puts together Treklanta (formerly called TrekTrax).

 

Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf was last seen as a very ill man in a hospital bed, as reported in the Swedish newspaper Expreeseen (2014)

 

1. Did you just steal all those words to try and make a point?

2. I meant a link to where in copyright law where "permission is implied" as you said.

3. Stealing can be fun. My wife used to shoplift lipstick for kicks as a kid. It was still wrong and she stopped as she grew up.

 

...and don't forget on your way in the warehouse door to turn in your signed 40 page nondisclosure forms, and list of all public fora handles to be checked against the googleplex-petabyte database of questioning or disparaging comments about Axanar across all media.