CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[wtriker1701]

I predict: Star Trek Axanar will NEVER see the light of day.
But then again... I never believed it anyway, since the first Kickstarter debacle came about. It all just grew out of proportion - and then: delay after delay.

There will be close to nothing left of the original idea Peters had. And that movie... will it please the crowd that had funded it? Will there be more excuses, how it had been CBS/Paramount's fault? I'm afraid: yes.

#IStandWithAxEDanar

 

[oswriter]

Can someone please provide a link to Alec's announcement from today (i.e., recasting Garth)?

http://www.axanarproductions.com/casting-axanar/

So to sum up, Axanar is a professional production. But it's also a non-commercial "fair use" of copyrighted materials. Glad we cleared that up.

You know, when I was looking over some of the commentaries on the Carol Publishing case, I saw one legal analyst who thought the defendants might have a shot on appeal--which never happened--by arguing educational fair use. Basically, the guy who wrote "The Joy of Trek," said the whole purpose of the book was to teach his wife about Star Trek. The analyst thought the Court of Appeals might buy this, although it was still a long-shot.

And keep in mind, that author actually was a practicing lawyer with a full-time job, not an aspiring film producer. And he still got crushed.

 

[Mark 2000]

Basically, the guy who wrote "The Joy of Trek," said the whole purpose of the book was to teach his wife about Star Trek.

Did he marry a four year old or a dog?

 

[oswriter]

Basically, the guy who wrote "The Joy of Trek," said the whole purpose of the book was to teach his wife about Star Trek.

Did he marry a four year old or a dog?

That information was not in the court records I found. But I believe New York did not legalize marriages to dogs until after this case was decided, so I'll assume he married a four year old.

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

Yes, we all have our Star Trek favorites (and we would love to get Jeffrey Combs), but beyond that, we are casting a wide net with a professional casting director in charge.

I hope Combs stays as far away from this production as he can... He is way to talented an actor to be tied to this nonsense...

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

Can someone please provide a link to Alec's announcement from today (i.e., recasting Garth)?

http://www.axanarproductions.com/casting-axanar/

So to sum up, Axanar is a professional production. But it's also a non-commercial "fair use" of copyrighted materials. Glad we cleared that up.

You know, when I was looking over some of the commentaries on the Carol Publishing case, I saw one legal analyst who thought the defendants might have a shot on appeal--which never happened--by arguing educational fair use. Basically, the guy who wrote "The Joy of Trek," said the whole purpose of the book was to teach his wife about Star Trek. The analyst thought the Court of Appeals might buy this, although it was still a long-shot.

And keep in mind, that author actually was a practicing lawyer with a full-time job, not an aspiring film producer. And he still got crushed.

Thats the thing about this whole fair use part of Copyright law...

I read your blogs which were immeasurably helpful, but I still can't see this production on the face of it being considered "Educational". Not one bit....

From Wikipedia School of Law...

17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[3]

 

[oswriter]

I read your blogs which were immeasurably helpful, but I still can't see this production on the face of it being considered "Educational". Not one bit....

Oh, don't misunderstand me. I don't see any "educational" defense for Axanar.

 

[GSchnitzer]

Can someone please provide a link to Alec's announcement from today (i.e., recasting Garth)?

I know, he would never EVER speak out, but I would love to hear James' thoughts on this whole thing....

Too bad he is to classy of a guy for that....

James has been pretty mum on the whole thing--and has encouraged fellow STNV staffers to do the same--at least for the time being.

 

[JoeZhang]

James has been pretty mum on the whole thing--and has encouraged fellow STNV staffers to do the same--at least for the time being.

Most sensible approach.

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

I read your blogs which were immeasurably helpful, but I still can't see this production on the face of it being considered "Educational". Not one bit....

Oh, don't misunderstand me. I don't see any "educational" defense for Axanar.

Sorry, I hope You don't think I was saying you were... I am just trying to figure out how ANYONE with any modicum of common sense could see this under Fair Use, with the criteria established in copyright law...

 

[Smoked Salmon]

There is no fair use. Sometimes people need to stop trying to be clever by looking at the ins and outs of authority and take a step back for a second.

The real questions this situation asks are as follows:-

1) Is it for all intents and purposes a professional movie?

2) Can the public potentially mistake it for an official production?

3) Is someone making money off of it?

4) Is it overtly and entirely based on the property it infringes?

If the answer to even one of those is yes, how can a fair use defence possibly succeed?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I'd also add that one also has to consider when something ceases to be a complimentary tribute and then becomes a commercial competitor. This has unquestionably become the latter.

 

[Woulfe]

I never understood the need to go to just about every con out there. I mean he could have done the cons or the banner ads I saw online everywhere trying to raise money. That would have been a little less excessive.

He wanted to "promote" the film in person at these cons

Get the fans to rally behind his "pet project" so to speak

Which is why he has such a "large" following

;-)

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

There is no fair use. Sometimes people need to stop trying to be clever by looking at the ins and outs of authority and take a step back for a second.

The real questions this situation asks are as follows:-

1) Is it for all intents and purposes a professional movie?

2) Can the public potentially mistake it for an official production?

3) Is someone making money off of it?

4) Is it overtly and entirely based on the property it infringes?

If the answer to even one of those is yes, how can a fair use defence possibly succeed?

1. If the producers are to be believed, this is a professional movie. They have a paid production staff, they have paid actors/Director.. they have taken out insurance... they have promoted themselves as professional...

2. CNN Mistook Renegades for a an official production.. so perhaps

3. This is tricky... Is drawing a salary "Making money" I agree 100% that it is... but not everyone in the Jury pool might see it as such

4. Absolutely...

That's why I think, they are trying to muddy the waters around number 3 so much.. thats why the non profit 'red herring' as I like to think of it is thrown out there so much.... just to confuse the reality is, that the producer, the guy who's said, I wanna make my own fan film, is making a salary, making his fan film, is most certainly profiting from it.

 

[seigezunt]

I'd also add that one also has to consider when something ceases to be a complimentary tribute and then becomes a commercial competitor. This has unquestionably become the latter.

Which all the comments from supporters vis a vis "CBS is afraid of us" are unconsciously, or consciously pulling from.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I never understood the need to go to just about every con out there. I mean he could have done the cons or the banner ads I saw online everywhere trying to raise money. That would have been a little less excessive.

He wanted to "promote" the film in person at these cons

Get the fans to rally behind his "pet project" so to speak

Which is why he has such a "large" following

;-)

That's actually a very effective way of promoting something.

I really don't think Peters is incompetent. I just think he's made the fatal mistake of thinking he knows better than others.

 

[Campe]

69k people is a large following? I'll remember that when I produce my own project based on the IP of... oh... I don't know... Thundercats.

Ho!

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

The way I see it is this:- Peters is of the belief that Axanar is The Undiscovered Country, thought he could go Where No Man has Gone Before and wanted to take fan films to the Final Frontier. He is under the assumption that CBS are trying to create a Balance of Terror but all he will get is A Taste of Armageddon! I can predict that, with all of Alec's law breaking, he will get no Errand of Mercy from CBS/Paramount...

Using crowdsourcing to pay for a profit making business is The Doomsday Machine of all plans when he assumes that all he wants is A Piece of the Action. His hopes in court will be gone in a Wink of an Eye and That Which Survives will be nothing

 

[Smoked Salmon]

There is no fair use. Sometimes people need to stop trying to be clever by looking at the ins and outs of authority and take a step back for a second.

The real questions this situation asks are as follows:-

1) Is it for all intents and purposes a professional movie?

2) Can the public potentially mistake it for an official production?

3) Is someone making money off of it?

4) Is it overtly and entirely based on the property it infringes?

If the answer to even one of those is yes, how can a fair use defence possibly succeed?

1. If the producers are to be believed, this is a professional movie. They have a paid production staff, they have paid actors/Director.. they have taken out insurance... they have promoted themselves as professional...

2. CNN Mistook Renegades for a an official production.. so perhaps

3. This is tricky... Is drawing a salary "Making money" I agree 100% that it is... but not everyone in the Jury pool might see it as such

4. Absolutely...

That's why I think, they are trying to muddy the waters around number 3 so much.. thats why the non profit 'red herring' as I like to think of it is thrown out there so much.... just to confuse the reality is, that the producer, the guy who's said, I wanna make my own fan film, is making a salary, making his fan film, is most certainly profiting from it.

To (3), I'd cite the coffee and other merchandising to be evidence of profit making, if not for them then for third parties.

Also, if it is a "fan" film, why is Peters' girlfriend getting paid, let alone himself?

If he had money and was bankrolling the whole affair I could just about see the argument, even if he was having to pay for professional help. But he's just whoring off the good nature of the public. Seriously, what contribution does his girlfriend make to the project that warrants her being paid multiple times the likes of Burnett?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

The way I see it is this:- Peters is of the belief that Axanar is The Undiscovered Country, thought he could go Where No Man has Gone Before and wanted to take fan films to the Final Frontier.

Shames he's now entwined in many Shades of Grey.