And more work requires more billable hours.
More billable hours with a client who can't or won't pay means you put less hours in meaning you have a weaker defense.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
More billable hours with a client who can't or won't pay means you put less hours in meaning you have a weaker defense.
In fairness, when your legal defense doesn't actually exist, it probably doesn't matter how strong or weak it is.
In 2009, I went to my first Trek convention. At the time I was the admin on Alec's costume & prop Forum. I had a monkey I used to break the ice and take pictures with people. Alec is the only one I asked the entire convention who refused to hold the monkey for a picture. Later, when he was sucking up to Anthony Pascale, founder of TrekMovie.com, I took a pic of the two of them with Anthony holding the monkey. And one with Alec's then-girlfriend holding the monkey.
Of all people, he should have accommodated my request as I spent hours every day watching over the Forum like a mother hen. I bet there are people here who would agree with that characterization of my role. Anyhoo, he had too much supposed dignity to go along with the bit. That was the same convention where he told me (falsely) that a mutual friend was a crossdresser. Dignity, yup.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what a handful of misinformed fans think. This story is basically off the radar for most people and they're the ones from which a jury would be drawn from.
AP isn't winning any PR war because he's preaching to the already blind converted.
The Axanar debacle is cropping up on FB beyond pages devoted solely to Axanar or whatever and the overwhelming response is against AP except for the few devoted Axanites screaming "haters."
AP didn't just piss off CBS. He also alienated pretty much the entire fan production community.
Everything is stacked against him. He can't win on any front whatsoever.
AP isn't winning any PR war because he's preaching to the already blind converted.
The Axanar debacle is cropping up on FB beyond pages devoted solely to Axanar or whatever and the overwhelming response is against AP except for the few devoted Axanites screaming "haters."
AP didn't just piss off CBS. He also alienated pretty much the entire fan production community.
Everything is stacked against him. He can't win on any front whatsoever.
Last edited:
Are you sure it was Alec that refused? I mean, monkeys have dignity too.
Are you sure it was Alec that refused? I mean, monkeys have dignity too.
"No, not with that guy. I'm a professional, you know. Now pass me that banana"
No need to get into specifics.
The sooner Alec Peters is ejected from STAR TREK fandom, the better. I can't wait until he's fully a pariah in the fan community.
Wrt/ the studios, I doubt there are any stipulations that could ban Alec from running a prop business that happens to sell Trek items, and I would be surprised if they actually tried to ban him from making fan films within the guidelines, since it could get into freedom of speech issues. Wrt/ fans, memory is relatively short and doing something that satisfies fans appetites legitimately could put him back in the graces of many who were not burned by the fundraiser.
The only way I see this happening is if Alec declares the Trek world to be so full of haters that he righteously walks away. But then, what expertise could he claim?
Is it any wonder he is fighting to try to walk away with something, anything however small, that he can point to and say "see, my accusers were wrong"? The slightest scrap would give him the personal hook to tell himself all criticisms are invalid.
Last edited:
Plus - it's a Civil trial meaning they DON'T need all 12 Jurors to agree on a verdict, just 9 of 12.
Um, remember, the Guidelines GUARANTEE NOTHING. Neither CBS nor Paramount is giving any fan the right to do anything with Star Trek. It's also NOT a 'Freedom of Speech' issue; as that only pertains to the government going after you criminally and locking you up (denying your personal freedom) for what you say.
'Star Trek' is currently OWNED jointly by CBS and Paramount. They have full rights to control what is said and who produces what with regard to that IP. <--- That's WHY C/P joijntly sued Alec Peters and Axanar; and also why (so far from the Judge's rulings to date) they're winning their case.
Last edited:
I agree, and the fact that folks are more aware than ever of the shenanigans he engaged in while conducting his previous "business ventures" means that he will have a harder time picking up the pieces and starting over. This is (most likely) why he is trying to "live it up" right now because eventually he will be reduced to nothing.
Wouldn't you say, though, that being guidelines or everyone, the studio is implicitly guaranteeing nondiscriminatory application?
The freedom of speech part would enter with parody or documentation which could be a subset he could focus on within the guidelines, even if he wouldn't have to.
I'm just noting that at the core of it all there seem to me to be several barriers from outright stipulating a ban on Alec from making Trek-themed media. Perhaps there is a copyright equivalent of a restraining order, though?
"Banning" Alec would make him a martyr. Ignoring him is the best answer, and the most just response to his actions.
No. If you read everything (including the fine print at the end, nether CBS nor paramount are guaranteeing anything to anyone. They maintain all rights to act as they see fit with regard to the Star trek franchise.
Again, 'Freedom of Speech' only applies to criminal prosecution by the government for what you say. It has NOTHING at all to do with Civil matters and the case between Alec Peters/Axanar and C/P is a 100% Civil case.
For example, on this very BBS you and I do not have full Freedom of Speech. The administrators and moderators here can come in and remove/edit/modify our posts at will - and it's all perfectly legal because they own these forums and are free to run them as they see fit. Were you to sue for an edit or removal of a post and said "They violated my Freedom of Speech..." the Judge would immediately dismiss the case. Why? Again, the Admins OWN this board and provide it as a private service. if you don't like the service they provide, you are free to NOT make use of it.
The ONLY way they could get in trouble is if they modified a post to say something libelous - and attributed it to you; or they libeled you personally. But again, neither of these last two situations relate to "Freedom of Speech" as defined in the U.S. Constitution.
Again, CBS and Paramount co-OWN Star Trek. the benefit of that (which they are in fact suing to protect); is that they have the final say as to who is allowed to work on producing Star Trek material; as well as have full say in the final content of that material. You, as a fan, have NO RIGHT to do or make anything Star Trek related - and even if C/P offer guidelines that say "If you follow these and make something Star Trek related we PROBABLY won't take action against you - BUT we retain ALL RIGHTS to do so if we see fit..."<--- Which is what the Guidelines they put forth ultimately do say. They cede fans NOTHING with regard to Star Trek - they are neither a contract nor an implied license.
Last edited:
Something else to keep in mind regarding PR, the Reason video, etc.--all of this hurts Axanar's legal case. In other words, the more Axanar protests it is a fan film the more likely it will lose at summary judgment.
As for some sort of Peter Rose-style ban, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding as to what that actually means. Pete Rose can still go to baseball games as a paying customer. He can even engage in baseball-related business. What he can't do is participate in any MLB-sanctioned event without prior approval from the Commissioner. C/P can do the same thing with Peters through a memo to all its divisions: HEY, DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THIS GUY!
I don't think it would be a major problem. An injunction or settlement could stipulate that he's not allowed to infringe any C/P copyrights in the future; if he did so anyway, he would then be subject to a breach of contract or contempt proceeding. Wording things in these terms avoids any First Amendment problems.
As for some sort of Peter Rose-style ban, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding as to what that actually means. Pete Rose can still go to baseball games as a paying customer. He can even engage in baseball-related business. What he can't do is participate in any MLB-sanctioned event without prior approval from the Commissioner. C/P can do the same thing with Peters through a memo to all its divisions: HEY, DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THIS GUY!
The problem is that the Axanar side is selling this narrative that "fan film = fair use," which of course is nonsense, but it's enough to curry favor among some small corners of the media. But this is also why I think that stuff like the Reason video actually hurts Axanar more than it could possibly help. One of the keys to an infringement case is demonstrating the infringer is marketing to the same people as the copyright holder. Clearly that's the case here: Axanar is making a film targeted directly at hardcore ST fans. So the more LFIM protests he's just making a fan film, the more he proves C/P's case for them.
The injunction in that 1998 case, by the way, was won by Jonathan Zavin, now CBS/P's lead attorney against Axanar.
And it's something that would be refuted by every other fan production who recognize they operate at CBS/P's graciousness.
Thanks so much for that clarification. Like many people I keep forgetting that 'freedom of speech' is defined within specific contexts.
I am a bit surprised that a fan production meeting all the guidelines and not materially different from others could be picked out for a lawsuit solely based on the studios' whim. For example, a protected class as is often recognized in civil rights and government contracting. Alec may not be a protected class, but what if the studios sued a production made by a company that proclaims itself to be of a (sometimes, in some circumstances) protected class, where their production was otherwise faultless wrt/ the guidelines? Could the studio be open to accusations of discrimination in a commercial relationship?
I'm not sure what you mean by "protected class." That's a concept applicable in Fourteenth Amendment-Equal Protection Clause cases. It has no relevance in the context of copyright infringement. A copyright holder is free to "discriminate" as much as it wants with respect to selective enforcement.
- Status