CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[urbandefault]

If that's the case, why isn't there a lawsuit against Star Trek Continues for their indiegogo campaign? I believe Star Trek Phase II has also had crowdfunding.

Or any fan film that takes donations via credit cards?

Not sure the fee processing applies as profit. Also, the profit would go to the processor not the fan film.

So I think the discussion should remain on the underlying principals, not the scale.

Ok, how about the for-profit studio and unlicensed merchandise?

Pointing fingers at others to take attention away from one's own misdeeds is a non-starter. You won't change minds about LFIM that way, and it won't win a lawsuit.

That's the underlying principle.

 

[Jody Wheeler]

"CBS guidelines read like a condensed version of Star Wars rules because, by and large, they are, with tweaks to language and for differences between the extending of licenses and providing a way for non-licensees to avoid getting sued. CBS/Paramount and Lucasfilm/Disney have designed both sets of rules to protect their rights to their IP, while still providing an acceptable way for fans/non-rights holders to make something they love.

"If the Trek guidelines are draconian, it’s because the Star Wars ones are too. Axanar got exactly what they asked for."

http://1701news.com/node/1250/come-not-between-draconians.html

 

[Professor Zoom]

If that's the case, why isn't there a lawsuit against Star Trek Continues for their indiegogo campaign? I believe Star Trek Phase II has also had crowdfunding.

Or any fan film that takes donations via credit cards?

Not sure the fee processing applies as profit. Also, the profit would go to the processor not the fan film.

So I think the discussion should remain on the underlying principals, not the scale.

I'm fine if we talk about the principles: Axanar straight up stole someone's IP for their own financial gain. In a way the others hadn't, i.e. salary and to fund a for profit studio. That certainly broke the spirit of the fan films.

As someone who creates his own work, I am a big proponent of copyright protection. It's there to protect me and my work and, yep, big corporations.

CBS and Paramount have been very lenient, perhaps to much, with fan films. YMMV. They have allowed this to become a business.

Regarding the fee, it's a profit for Kickstarter, and if I were CBS, I would send them a Cease and Desist from having ANY Star Trek material on their site. None of it is licsensed.

But, again, to the underlining principals: ALL fan films are in violation of copyright--save for parodies. That's a fact. That's the law.

 

[muCephi]

If that's the case, why isn't there a lawsuit against Star Trek Continues for their indiegogo campaign? I believe Star Trek Phase II has also had crowdfunding.

Or any fan film that takes donations via credit cards?

Not sure the fee processing applies as profit. Also, the profit would go to the processor not the fan film.

So I think the discussion should remain on the underlying principals, not the scale.

I think if you made a list of what actions each project took which violated the 'make no money' framework, and you reject Alec's bogus assertion about "spend it all == no profit", then you have your answer. Axanar did, over and over and egregiously, the rest didn't.

The whole talking point area of "its no different than what any other fan did, or would eventually do (really, I mean *really*?)", is so bogus. Its an attempt to obscure outrageous actions taken only by Axanar.

At any moment with any subject of human affairs, there is the theoretical framework of possibilities, and there is the concrete history of what people actually did with it. Both are important, and its ok to talk about the theory. But the court case and the guidelines appear to be overwhelmingly in response to Axanar's atronomical cash grab compared to all other fan films. That act kinda buries the theory for now. IMO. Mosquito keeps biting you, you get that mosquito out of the way and put up a net. Debate ecology some other time.

 

[OtherGene]

No, that's an actual Gossett quote as far as I can tell............this is what I was talking about

I see, cheers for that. Honestly, some of the twitter stuff is incredibly funny but it's hard to take it all in at times. And then there's the parody twitter stuff too...

 

[oswriter]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but Axanar certainly triggered it, but 250k Kickstarters created an environment where it was going to happen sooner or later.

It's worth pointing out the 15-minute, two-episode restriction really has nothing to do with Axanar, as it is a proposed standalone feature. This rule is clearly directed at ongoing one-hour series like Continues and Farragut. And I assume this is because CBS wants to restrict potential competition (well, confusion, anyways) with CBS All Access and the new series.

 

[Warped9]

It's worth pointing out the 15-minute, two-episode restriction really has nothing to do with Axanar, as it is a proposed standalone feature. This rule is clearly directed at ongoing one-hour series like Continues and Farragut. And I assume this is because CBS wants to restrict potential competition (well, confusion, anyways) with CBS All Access and the new series.

I don't buy that. I don't see how there could be any confusion over this whatsoever. In this they are then punishing STC and the like even though they bent over backwards not to get on CBS' bad side.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't buy that. I don't see how there could be any confusion over this whatsoever. In this they are then punishing STC and the like even though they bent over backwards not to get on CBS' bad side.

I don't think the intention was to punish STC directly, but they are collateral damage. In this, CBS is playing fair. Everyone is being treated equally, everyone is given the choice to play by the same guidelines.

 

[oswriter]

I don't buy that. I don't see how there could be any confusion over this whatsoever. In this they are then punishing STC and the like even though they bent over backwards not to get on CBS' bad side.

I agree there's no genuine risk of confusion. But lawyers tend to look at any potential confusion as problematic. This is a common problem in trademark law, but I think the same principle is being applied here. CBS does not want anyone offering something that looks like All Access, i.e. a unique series of "Star Trek" episodes available online.

As much as I get the Axanar backlash, what really prompted this was the announcement of the new series. I remember thinking the day CBS made the announcement that this would be the end-of-the line for the ongoing fan series. CBS could look the other way post-Enterprise when there was no series in active development, but once that hiatus ended--and especially once the decision was made to distribute online--I don't think it mattered how respectful STC and the other groups were. The lawyers were not going to allow them to proceed any further.

 

[BillJ]

"True Fans" want someone to blame? All they have to do is look in the mirror. As many of them enabled Alec Peters even after it was clear he was a con-artist.

 

[Karzak]

Here we have a perfect example of how to to PR successfully and how to completely botch it up like a moron. Here are two screenshots from the TrekZone Spotlight interviews with Alec Peters and Vic Mignogna, respectively.

Peters is slouching, looks manic, haggard, old and can't even be bothered to light himself decently. His eyes wander off as he tries to conceive whatever excuse he thinks he can use to justify his wrongdoing and likewise to deflect on to others his own problems. If ever there were an example of someone who absolutely has no clue how to comport themselves publicly, it's this guy. Peters simply comes across as worn out but still bitter and trying to convince the whole world he's not the scumbag we all know him to be.

Mignogna on the other hand is well lit, postured well, and engaging with the camera. The passion of his ideas and commentary are evident not only in his words but in his actions here. The guy knows how to be on camera, he knows how to communicate, and if you've seen the interview, you can't help but respect him for his take on the matter.

In terms of professionalism, I think we all know who the real professional between these two is.

 

[asurob]

If that's the case, why isn't there a lawsuit against Star Trek Continues for their indiegogo campaign? I believe Star Trek Phase II has also had crowdfunding.

Or any fan film that takes donations via credit cards?

Not sure the fee processing applies as profit. Also, the profit would go to the processor not the fan film.

So I think the discussion should remain on the underlying principals, not the scale.

Once again you ignore the basic information people of put to you...talk about the company store selling unlicensed star trek stuff...what was that there for...how about the studio that was funded by donors that AP and co have said repeatedly they intend to use to make money from. And then there is the salary that AP drew from donor money.

This case has little to do with the crowdfunding and every thing to do with how those proceeds were being used. If I recall the number correctly Axanar has made 1.5 million dollars in donation money.

We have seen 1 bad trailer, partially built sets and no one has cast. As a donor I was promised a patch or two in 2014....nearly 2 years ago...the court case certainly has prevented those being made and sent.

Will you address these things?

 

[Jedman67]

The answer is money. "Star Trek" continues to exist because it makes money. Other fan films were left alone because it was not worth the money to go after them. Why Axanar? Take your pick of offenses, but someone at CBS or Paramount decided there was more value in bringing this case than not.

I misread your post as saying "Star Trek Continues" etc.

 

[Noname Given]

However, if you go after one thing but not go after another, your legal right to challenge can in turn be challenged.

This is the principal behind companies like Apple being so litigious over things like "iWhatever"... if you don't protect it every time, the case can be made it's not yours to protect in another instance.

There's so much anger being sent towards Axanar and Alec Peters, yet the underlying principals remain the same... there are also legal and philosophical questions that can be directed towards CBS & Paramount.

Regarding Axanar itself, it hasn't gone to trial. At this point all there are are accusations, counter accusations and rampant internet speculation.

For my part, I think that if no one is actually making any money that it would be wisest to leave the fan films alone. Fandom has contributed just as much if not more to the strength of the Star Trek IP over the decades as the "official" stuff.

What you state is correct if C/P was suing under Trademark law; but they are not. Copyright law allows you to prosecute selectively without any penalty or prejudice under then law. (I'm surprised the 'lawyer by training' Alec Peters didn't mention that fact to you in his interview.) And the case is in the trial process (in the discovery phase) - which is all part of proper legal due process. Many legal arguments made by Erin Ranahan of the Axanar defense team have been dismissed by the Judge (also part of legal due process.)

If no one was making money, I might agree with you - but as Alec Peters admitted to paying himself a $38K salay; not to mention outfitting a warehouse studio that both Alec Peters and RMB have claimed would be used for other for profit productions. In the end Axanar and Alec Peters HAVE made money off the Axanar project. So your point is rather moot.

 

[OtherGene]

Here we have a perfect example of how to to PR successfully and how to completely botch it up like a moron. Here are two screenshots from the TrekZone Spotlight interviews with Alec Peters and Vic Mignogna, respectively.

Peters is slouching, looks manic, haggard, old and can't even be bothered to light himself decently. His eyes wander off as he tries to conceive whatever excuse he thinks he can use to justify his wrongdoing and likewise to deflect on to others his own problems. If ever there were an example of someone who absolutely has no clue how to comport themselves publicly, it's this guy. Peters simply comes across as worn out but still bitter and trying to convince the whole world he's not the scumbag we all know him to be.

Mignogna on the other hand is well lit, postured well, and engaging with the camera. The passion of his ideas and commentary are evident not only in his words but in his actions here. The guy knows how to be on camera, he knows how to communicate, and if you've seen the interview, you can't help but respect him for his take on the matter.

In terms of professionalism, I think we all know who the real professional between these two is.

I can't quite see from the image but did Mignogna get through the interview without contacting his carer?

Sorry, not carer, that's insulting to carers.

 

[Sgt_G]

ALL fan films are in violation of copyright--save for parodies.

Well, no. You could do a commentary about Star Trek giving your opinion about the show/movie (and even embed clips from said show/movie). You could do a documentary about the history of making the show or even the "life story" of one character. Those are also "fair use".

But please do note that Prelude is NOT a documentary. A documentary presents real-world facts and opinions. The so-called mockumentary is nothing more than a scripted screenplay made to look like an in-universe / in-character documentary. But it's fake, as fake as the "news alert" that the War Of The Worlds radio play was.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

So short of someone like Alec declaring he’s off on holiday with the donors money and he’s now king of the ant people, I don’t think many are going to look past that to grasp the damage Axanar ultimately caused.

Not the ant people, Alec has declared himself king of fan films instead.

umm... King of the Galaxy (0:00 - opening introductions)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhbNoRl4Oyo&list=PL-tk1t1bPBlf6R8n_K8N-hf8s9T4trvZJ

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Professor Zoom]

Well, no. You could do a commentary about Star Trek giving your opinion about the show/movie (and even embed clips form said show/movie). You could do a documentary about the history of making the show or even the "life story" of one character. Those are also "fair use".

But please do note that Prelude is NOT a documentary. A documentary presents real-world facts and opinions. The so-called mockumentary is nothing more than a scripted screenplay made to look like an in-universe / in-character documentary. But it's fake, as fake as the "news alert" that the War Of The Worlds radio play was.

Exactly. When I was speaking of fanfilms I was referring to those that were dramatic ones. Not documentaries.

 

[Indysolo]

I don't buy that. I don't see how there could be any confusion over this whatsoever. In this they are then punishing STC and the like even though they bent over backwards not to get on CBS' bad side.

And yet we have this clip from CNN demonstrating that people can be confused by fan films. They even attribute it to CBS.

Neil

 

[mos6507]

"If the Trek guidelines are draconian, it’s because the Star Wars ones are too. Axanar got exactly what they asked for."
http://1701news.com/node/1250/come-not-between-draconians.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Star Wars never got the equivalent of a Star Trek Continues or Axanar, no long-form projects with 6-7 figure budgets. SW fan-films were already kind of limited to short vignettes. Therefore there was no big collateral damage from issuing the guidelines.