CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Or "filmed at a warehouse, not a studio"?
Did they license the use of Alexander Courage's fanfare? Hmmmm.
Speaking of Buzzfeed, this article is pretty long but it does mention Axanar, which "unged the franchise into a precarious standoff that pitted Trek’s owners against its fans, its fans against one another, and forced Lin and Abrams to rush in to try to keep the peace."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/star-trek-fandom?utm_term=.ogDJWN0L7#.xxMyAklEn
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/star-trek-fandom?utm_term=.ogDJWN0L7#.xxMyAklEn
^^All valid questions.
But one thing that trailer did get right was that bit at the end, after the narration about the Federation being united and that they "...would...not...fail!" The screen read:
"This Product, the promotion thereof, and/or any exhibition of material created by this production, are not endorsed, or sponsored by, or affiliated with CBS/Paramount or the Star Trek franchise."
Absolutely Got Damn Right.
Plus; they showed the disclaimer in "Star Trek"©®™ font...
...is that copywrite-able©?
But one thing that trailer did get right was that bit at the end, after the narration about the Federation being united and that they "...would...not...fail!" The screen read:
"This Product, the promotion thereof, and/or any exhibition of material created by this production, are not endorsed, or sponsored by, or affiliated with CBS/Paramount or the Star Trek franchise."
Absolutely Got Damn Right.
Plus; they showed the disclaimer in "Star Trek"©®™ font...
...is that copywrite-able©?
Yay! First, Axanar and RMB block me on Twitter and now I get called a "peddler of hate" publicly by an Axanar supporter. I'm officially a hater.
A curious part of the article:
So that means there was supposed to be something said about the pending lawsuit at the event? Just nothing official?
A curious part of the article:
So that means there was supposed to be something said about the pending lawsuit at the event? Just nothing official?
Last edited:
From that blog:
Well that becomes immediately obvious when you follow up with.
Nope.
This is not a 'he said, she said' situation. That's when there is no supporting evidence besides two opposing accounts. Alec's trying to use hearsay to wiggle his way from beneath CBS crushing evidence. Which won't work - the court would just drag the individuals in as witnesses, and ask if they did (and could) give permission. Even if they say that they did, then CBS argument would bring up that it was unreasonable to believe that rights could be transferred that way.
And they would bring up that Alec supposed legal training and 'industry professionalism' when arguing 'reasonableness'.
I can't read anymore. The results of Law and Order legal training make my head hurt.
Well that becomes immediately obvious when you follow up with.
Nope.
1) Would depend on who is doing the denying. And what their statement says.
2) Civil case. Prosecuting perjury there is...not the highest priority. Far more likely a disrepency will just be used by one of the lawyers to try and discredit the witness.
3) Perjury doesn't mean evidence is thrown out.
4) Non-pejorative denial: 'I cannot recall Alec Peters being officially employed by us. I also cannot recall making a statement that claimed otherwise. I do not think my words could be interpreted as permission' .
5) Statements that are the facts, cannot be considered perjury even when contradicting a prior statement. For eg. A CBS witness reads aloud a contract signed by Alec that says 'This is not an employer-employee relationship blah blah blah.'
6) Claiming you made a mistake in one of your statements. It's allowed.
2) Civil case. Prosecuting perjury there is...not the highest priority. Far more likely a disrepency will just be used by one of the lawyers to try and discredit the witness.
3) Perjury doesn't mean evidence is thrown out.
4) Non-pejorative denial: 'I cannot recall Alec Peters being officially employed by us. I also cannot recall making a statement that claimed otherwise. I do not think my words could be interpreted as permission' .
5) Statements that are the facts, cannot be considered perjury even when contradicting a prior statement. For eg. A CBS witness reads aloud a contract signed by Alec that says 'This is not an employer-employee relationship blah blah blah.'
6) Claiming you made a mistake in one of your statements. It's allowed.
This is not a 'he said, she said' situation. That's when there is no supporting evidence besides two opposing accounts. Alec's trying to use hearsay to wiggle his way from beneath CBS crushing evidence. Which won't work - the court would just drag the individuals in as witnesses, and ask if they did (and could) give permission. Even if they say that they did, then CBS argument would bring up that it was unreasonable to believe that rights could be transferred that way.
And they would bring up that Alec supposed legal training and 'industry professionalism' when arguing 'reasonableness'.
I can't read anymore. The results of Law and Order legal training make my head hurt.
Last edited:
In for a penny…
Lol - NOW it's a "Star Trek Fan Film". Gee Mr. Peters, what happened to your "Independent Professional Star Trek Film"? One also has to LOVE that they just provided Loeb & Loeb with ANOTHER instance of copyright infringement. I'm sure that fact is helping Axanar with any settlement talks that may still be ongoing.
J.G's narration at one point talks about the opposing forces "crashing like waves upon the firmament" which is certainly uncommon phraseology. Historically, the term "the firmament" refers to the sky (when myths saw it as a solid structure above the earth).
So, what the heck are waves doing breaking on it? Am I missing something? Who wrote this?
Hey, lurker here poking his head up again.
The teaser is pretty much what we've seen before. Nice shots with no real substance. I guess it's a teaser, though, so I suppose nobody should expect too much from it, but still.
Those that support Axanar still are in for a disappointment regardless of the shiny new teaser. Hell, even if they somehow managed to make the damned movie they'd be disappointed. I think the hype over this from the 'fans' is so great that it could be actually be a good movie and they would still be disappointed.
And what I have noticed about the supporters, is that their want to see it outweighs any wrongdoing. When people really want something badly, they're willing to look past the shady stuff and outright ignore it and even become hostile to those that remind them that things aren't so kosher.
The teaser is pretty much what we've seen before. Nice shots with no real substance. I guess it's a teaser, though, so I suppose nobody should expect too much from it, but still.
Those that support Axanar still are in for a disappointment regardless of the shiny new teaser. Hell, even if they somehow managed to make the damned movie they'd be disappointed. I think the hype over this from the 'fans' is so great that it could be actually be a good movie and they would still be disappointed.
And what I have noticed about the supporters, is that their want to see it outweighs any wrongdoing. When people really want something badly, they're willing to look past the shady stuff and outright ignore it and even become hostile to those that remind them that things aren't so kosher.
Lin and Abrams rushing in to make peace because an arbitrary war is going on? More like someone just drove a car through all fan activity of all properties everywhere, and the directors, either not understanding or not thinking about the context, rushed in declaring "nothing to see here, move along".
Yay! First, Axanar and RMB block me on Twitter and now I get called a "peddler of hate" publicly by an Axanar supporter. I'm officially a hater.
Cortex, brain stem. Decisions, decisions.
It seems they think a PR war will accrue to the benefit of Axanar -- rile up some segment of fans, get more press. Hey Mr. Bear, you're streaming from my camera, you'll have a twitterstorm of disapproval!
Who wrote this? Google "waves firmament". Remember the firmament was above the flat Earth.
One has to charge the true cost to get uncaring "me want for free" to back off. Thus, court.
Last edited:
The overreach upon fan film permissions should not have been committed; but given the circus came to town, I cannot wait until this is *almost* over.- Status