• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I just listened to that whole thing ... an hour of my life that I won't get back.

When Alec talked about, bragged about, his efforts over the past four years to get CBS to issue guild lines, the question in my mind was" Why? What did you plan to do that you feared might be pushing the envelope? There's proof right here on Trek-BBS that he was provided with a list of "rules" that every other fan-film project followed and that CBS seemed to be okay with.

He still claims that CBS never gave him any sort of warning or C&D notice and went straight to a law suit. To me, that just doesn't sound right. I will laugh my butt off if it comes out at trial that he was given a C&D letter and ignored it (and then lied about it).

The thing about claiming Prelude is fair-use because it's a documentary just killed me. It might be scripted to look like one, but it's really NOT one. It's all in-character / in-universe. It'd be like saying The War Of The Worlds radio play was a new alert.
 
Alec Peters is a liar who will say anything to get his way.

I will never go to any conventions where he is a guest. The fact that he somehow smooth talked Abrams and Lin makes me sick to my stomach. I thought they were smarter than that.
 
BillJ said:
How are we suppose to get up in arms if we apply common sense?
Click to expand...

I won't keep going on about this as the world will sort it out anyway. I am not trying to get up in arms. I am just observing places where the guidelines might eventually see some easing, and wondering whether one of the studio assertions is in any sense illegal as an intimidation tactic intended to deprive people of their rights. Its curiosity, not fishing for fault.
 
Sgt_G said:
Okay, I just listened to that whole thing ... an hour of my life that I won't get back.

When Alec talked about, bragged about, his efforts over the past four years to get CBS to issue guild lines, the question in my mind was" Why?
Click to expand...

My guess is he felt any guidelines, being concrete, would give him at least one stone to stand upon and lever his empire against. There's a reason the studios wanted to leave people like him with only quicksand to walk upon.
 
muCephi said:
I won't keep going on about this as the world will sort it out anyway. I am not trying to get up in arms. I am just observing places where the guidelines might eventually see some easing, and wondering whether one of the studio assertions is in any sense illegal as an intimidation tactic intended to deprive people of their rights. Its curiosity, not fishing for fault.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to talk about things we can do to try and ease the restrictions, some folks are doing that. It's another thing when people are bitching and moaning about these guidelines like they somehow ruin their lives, it seems many more folks are acting that way.
 
Shane Plays said:
Well, if that's the tack you take (which you are of course welcome to), then you must also consider that in the case of CBS and Paramount questions have been raised in regards to which portions of the IP is owned by whom, and also the chain of custody as it were over the decades.
Click to expand...
Chain of custody? Really?

If you want to see a case where something like that was truly an issue, go read up on the SCO Group's claim of ownership of UNIX System V when they attacked users of Linux.

This... not even close to the same.

In this case what we are looking at is analogous to deciding to hold a block party at the house at the corner of the street, and even though you aren't charging for admission, you are setting up concession stands for selling drinks and food. You arguing chain of custody would work just as well as a defense here (questioning if the current residents legally own the property) as it well for Axanar in their case.

I'm sure you asked some hard hitting questions of Peters, right? Like how much intermingling of funds and resources was there between Axanar and the resurrected Propworx (which has been operating out of the same location for the past few years)? Or did Peters agree to speak with you because you weren't prepared to ask those types of questions?
 
I personally think that AP is relieved that the guidelines were issued; it gives him an out so that he doesn't have to make the movie. There is no way after years of hype that he could have produced a film or anything else that could live up to all of his boosting; how could he? Easy out for him, really.
 
BillJ said:
It's one thing to talk about things we can do to try and ease the restrictions, some folks are doing that. It's another thing when people are bitching and moaning about these guidelines like they somehow ruin their lives, it seems many more folks are acting that way.
Click to expand...

Identifying useful arguments could be a precedent to negotiating. "Could you clarify please whether there are circumstances where fan films might be welcome to register their unique aspects of their work" may not be a question for today, but it could be a solid one after things have calmed down a bit. IMO.
 
muCephi said:
Identifying useful arguments could be a precedent to negotiating. "Could you clarify please whether there are circumstances where fan films might be welcome to register their unique aspects of their work" may not be a question for today, but it could be a solid one after things have calmed down a bit. IMO.
Click to expand...

I can see both sides of this issue. I register the script to protect the studio and all the people that volunteered to create it from any trolls that decide to disrupt it. CBS/Paramount doesn't want to have people claim they stole their work. Actually we are probably asking for the same protection.
For now I'll have to wait for some clarification on the issue.
 
BillJ said:
It's one thing to talk about things we can do to try and ease the restrictions, some folks are doing that. It's another thing when people are bitching and moaning about these guidelines like they somehow ruin their lives, it seems many more folks are acting that way.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think the guidelines were a mistake. CBS and Paramount would have been better off just saying point-blank, "We don't license fan films, we don't want creative professionals under guild contracts working on fan films, and we want crowdfunding platforms to stop allowing third parties to raise money off our IP." Instead we have these passive-aggressive non-binding rules that are just giving people to cause to complain.

Overall, the studios should have been much more aggressive in dealing with this situation. If it were me, I would not have just filed a civil lawsuit and hoped they would fold quickly, a strategy that obviously did not pan out. I would carpet bomb these guys with every legal weapon available. For example, I would go to the Federal Trade Commission and make the case that there are hundreds of examples of "misleading" and "deceptive" acts (which is expressly banned in the FTC's enabling legislation). Trust me, I covered the FTC for 10 years. They have made cases against much smaller groups based on less evidence than is already in the public record here.
 
mkstewartesq said:
I'll add the following: who is threatening anyone with a lawsuit?

I'm seeing a common misconception among various people that the guidelines are various things that they are not. They are not a threat to sue if a filmmaker does not comply with them. They are not a threat to sue if a filmmaker affirmatively does anything that is prohibited by the guidelines. Finally, they are not even "rules" to which there is any stated consequence if they are broken.

They are, merely, exactly what they say they are: guidelines which, if a filmmaker follows all of them, he or she can consider himself or herself free from the threat of a lawsuit by the studio. However, there is no corresponding statement – express or implied – in the guidelines that there is automatically any punitive consequence to not following the guidelines. The Studio may object or it may not. The only clear consequence from not following any of the guidelines is that the studio has not affirmatively told you that they will not object to your production. That's it.

The guidelines simply provide a safe harbor if you follow all of them – but they do not in any way constitue a threat of - or grounds for - liability if you do not. It is strictly the choice of the filmmaker as to whether it wants to follow the stated conditions and avail itself of the safe harbor that is being offered.

M
Click to expand...
This is what I've begun to think. It mightn't be what many are automatically assuming.
 
oswriter said:
"We don't license fan films, we don't want creative professionals under guild contracts working on fan films, and we want crowdfunding platforms to stop allowing third parties to raise money off our IP."
Click to expand...


Ok... So if Alec recasts so that he doesn't have sag actors, and only solicits at conventions or his own website he can make his film?

These guidelines are written with Alec's weaseling in mind. They were made so he can't do this again.
 
I have a confession to make.
I enjoyed listening to Alec, just the study of the righteous pathological condition alone is priceless. It's almost another Harry Mud style character that can lie cheat and nearly destroy the ship while reminding everyone that he was he, that saved the day.
 
oswriter said:
I'm starting to think the guidelines were a mistake. CBS and Paramount would have been better off just saying point-blank, "We don't license fan films, we don't want creative professionals under guild contracts working on fan films, and we want crowdfunding platforms to stop allowing third parties to raise money off our IP." Instead we have these passive-aggressive non-binding rules that are just giving people to cause to complain.

Overall, the studios should have been much more aggressive in dealing with this situation. If it were me, I would not have just filed a civil lawsuit and hoped they would fold quickly, a strategy that obviously did not pan out. I would carpet bomb these guys with every legal weapon available. For example, I would go to the Federal Trade Commission and make the case that there are hundreds of examples of "misleading" and "deceptive" acts (which is expressly banned in the FTC's enabling legislation). Trust me, I covered the FTC for 10 years. They have made cases against much smaller groups based on less evidence than is already in the public record here.
Click to expand...
Every point in the guidelines is directed at what AP has done. In my opinion, the guidelines are an overt statement to AP that he has stepped over the line drawn in the sand and it will not be permitted.

The guidelines are specifically written so that AP can not produce Axanar, or any other Trek related property.

Just my opinion, and I could be wrong. I don't think so, but hey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top