CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens
- Thread starter jespah
- Start date
They’re still doing individual fundraising campaigns with the Aries schematics, but that’s about it. Been pretty quiet in general otherwise, which is quite out of character for AP.
Shouldn't part of that be not posting here?
It's almost like he's up to his neck in lawsuits or something.
Makes one wonder if Alec Peters got a letter from a certain Hollywood production company.
Here’s hoping...
Because he had been a part of these threads - Dave Galanter has passed away from cancer. https://www.trekbbs.com/members/davegalanter.5862/
The first PM he ever sent me was just titled "Love you" and he wrote, "I mean this in an admirable, platonic way, as I am a married man. :-)
I love your posts and G&T discussion about the Axanar crap.
Dave"
<3
The first PM he ever sent me was just titled "Love you" and he wrote, "I mean this in an admirable, platonic way, as I am a married man. :-)
I love your posts and G&T discussion about the Axanar crap.
Dave"
<3
He was a good guy, very friendly and accessible. I am going to miss him.
Posted this is the General forum, but since it was discussed in this thread previously...
The Hollywood Reporter reports that ComicMix's David Gerrold penned Oh the Places You'll Boldly Go! ain't protected by the Fair Use doctrine, overturning the previous lower court ruling. The opinion begins very tongue in cheek, which has gotta sting.
I love it.
@Chanukahjes
Last edited:
Since TNG is still a Gene Roddenberry production, you find that strange?
(You may want to check out another Gene Roddenberry film "Pretty Maids All In A Row")
It's about being obvious. A pornographic film based on TNG is obviously parody because TNG is obviously not pornographic. A work that uses elements of both Dr. Seuss and Star Trek without altering the characteristics of either source significantly is more fanwork than parody. Parody is protected by fair use. Fanworks aren't. One court said OTPYBG! was parody. A higher court said "no it isn't."
Frankly, I agree with the higher court.
It's about being obvious. A pornographic film based on TNG is obviously parody because TNG is obviously not pornographic. A work that uses elements of both Dr. Seuss and Star Trek without altering the characteristics of either source significantly is more fanwork than parody. Parody is protected by fair use. Fanworks aren't. One court said OTPYBG! was parody. A higher court said "no it isn't."
Frankly, I agree with the higher court.
Yes, @Maurice explained the situation a little better in the stand-alone post about it.
Yes.
And yet Simon and Schuster can get away with this:
As I posted over here (link): If you read the opinion the reasons are pretty well spelled out. They deliberately made the book mimic the graphic style of Seuss to the point where it isn’t substantially different. They closely mimicked the layout and drawings page by page. It’s aimed at the exact same market. It does not meet the fair use criteria of parody or commentary since it is simply slapping a Star Trek veneer onto an existing work. Therefore it is not substantially transformative.
OTOH the Oh the Places You’ll Eff Up book mentioned by 1001001 does not look like a Dr. Seuss book. The style is completely different. It's apparently almost a counternarrative to the original work, and thus cannot therefore be confused with a licensed property in the marketplace.
People have gotten into the habit of mixing up mash-up with parody and they are not the same thing. This ruling is also in agreement with a previous ruling on an O.J. Simpson parody which similarly exploited Seuss. And parody doesn't mean humor per se, because "funny" is so subjective. You can lampoon something without being funny at all.
Last edited: