CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[muCephi]

@muCephi, infringement happens. There will always to be anomalies who abuse any system you set up beyond all reason. Axanar tried to claim fair use, and no one was suggesting we may have to repeal fair use provisions in copyright law because of Axanar. If we treat everyone as if they were the greatest extreme, fan fiction will cease to exist.

This is pretty much my point. Push too hard, and the studios may well shut it all down. Even a moderate continuing amount of "infringement happens" could do that.

And if the studios shut down the guidelines window, I don't see a lot of prospect for fair use copyright extension for the sake of derivative works like most fan films. A core point of copyright is to protect the authority of the IP owner over derivative works. One can try to change that, but I think until then even a few constant hovering mosquitos of excessive infringement could drive the studios to get out the bug bomb for everyone.

The only offer they're making is not to bankrupt you with legal costs, and if that's the best they're willing to offer, I don't see why people should waste their creativity and energy on a prospect with such inherent risk.

Well sure, its not a license. And for some, probably including me, I might find that a risk to consider if I were making films. And it is not a guarantee of any sort that I can see. But to the best of my non-lawyer knowledge, they simply cannot both make a guarantee and protect their IP. So the choice is to work with it and take the chance they might be "arbitrary", or somehow convince them that they should sign over to the public some of their very high profit IP. I am not really convinced the latter can happen.

I see the studios as being "neighborly" in this. You don't get an absolute set of guaranteed terms when you borrow someone's lawnmower. There's an understanding that the owner still owns and your use is limited, and its at the owner's discretion whether they are happy with what you do - break it, use it for profit, keep it too long, etc. They can demand it back based on their needs, and they can choose not to loan again. I think its a pretty unusual thing for a corporation to lay out anything like this in writing.

 

[Steve Roby]

I distrust, or trust less such verbal suggestions and would prefer it written out for fanfilmdom (even when it's actually written out, it's still not a promise not to sue).

This is starting to remind me of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

• CBS does not want to give you written out instructions.
• CBS does not want to spend time assessing the degree to which fan films are obeying the guidelines.
• CBS does not want to be the fan film police.
• CBS did not want to create the guidelines in the first place.
• CBS does not want to put itself in a position where it might be seen as providing any kind of licence or contract.

If you want to know what the guy at CBS who deals with this stuff for a living thinks about the guidelines, you need to hear what he says and not get hung up on the medium. It's not verbal suggestions, it's a series of questions answered by the guy who has the answers.

 

[dmac]

This is starting to remind me of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

• CBS does not want to give you written out instructions.
• CBS does not want to spend time assessing the degree to which fan films are obeying the guidelines.
• CBS does not want to be the fan film police.
• CBS did not want to create the guidelines in the first place.
• CBS does not want to put itself in a position where it might be seen as providing any kind of licence or contract.

If you want to know what the guy at CBS who deals with this stuff for a living thinks about the guidelines, you need to hear what he says and not get hung up on the medium. It's not verbal suggestions, it's a series of questions answered by the guy who has the answers.

I've zoned into Vogon poetry a few pages back

 

[JRTStarlight]

1. Did you just steal all those words to try and make a point?

To steal? To take them from you? No, no, my children, you misunderstand. We mean only that you should lend us your words for a short time.

I do enjoy this sort of humor - to paraphrase and parody a quote from a favorite show, like TOS or others. Generally, others familiar with the work find it funny, but YMMV. I'm not always sure everyone gets them, or is familiar with the references, or has seen the more than a few examples in my posts these last few days, let alone finds them amusing, but I do enjoy making them. So did I steal, what? Your words? Savik's words? Sargon's words? Dystrom's words? Kirk's words? Nomad's words? V'Ger's words? Monty Python's words? Conan the Barbarian's words? More than a few other fictional characters' words? Am I infringing upon CBS/Paramount's or others' copyrights when I do this? Do you wish to make a citizen's arrest? Have I made any points with you at all? Does it matter?

2. I meant a link to where in copyright law where "permission is implied" as you said.

Well, I've read hours and hours about copyright law these last few days. I've not really found any legal document you requested, but nor have I found any about it where it equates "infringement" with "theft," though many say it is and many more say it is not. Copyright ownership is not some intrinsic right of Man, but one granted to individuals, not for their protection, so much as to encourage their creativity in the first place, which is socially a good thing, but it's up to the law to decide, and usually on a case-by-case basis, when theft has occurred - however eager you may be to define some blanket terminology for everybody and every instance.

This contentious exercise has been on going since copyright laws were first invented hundreds of years ago, and great lawyers argue on both sides of that fence. But I have noticed this: For those who are more comfortable, or insistent, that copyright infringement be equated with theft and stealing, they always seem compelled to subsequently demonstrate clear economic damages in order to make their point. Indeed, since the law currently does provide guidelines where one crosses from civil considerations into criminal considerations, I have no problem equating copyright infringement of that degree to stealing. But short of that, where we remain in civil areas and have not crossed that line, not only do I think it unfair or unwise to call such an infringement theft, many feel it is just linguistic peevery and obstinacy to a perverse degree of pigheadedness to insist it is always stealing or theft, just like any other.

From my perspective, since we have a level of transgression where criminal laws begin to apply, I'd wait until that line is crossed to characterize copyright infringement as stealing or theft.

I've also noticed those who push for the harsher terms seem clearly intent on the associating the more colloquial understanding of theft to the less understood copyright infringement since the law doesn't equate the two, and they don't want the masses to clearly know this, lest they think it is always O.K. since it's not legally theft, but legally a demarcation of when one's ownership rights were infringed and when they aren't infringed.

Anyway, I think you and I can concur if legal minds greater than ours have argued for centuries on this and still do not agree, we two are perhaps not going to come to a consensus here and now. I personally do not find equating all fanfilmdom with theft to be useful, and in fact I find it misleading, inflammatory, and potentially harmful, and the fact copyright law already proscribes what remedies one may take for such infringements, and how those generally differ from the legal remedies one takes for more garden-variety theft, to be quite instructive. If you don't, that's your call, and what benefit you derive from calling every fan film maker a thief, and every fan film viewer an accessary after the fact for willingly and knowingly accepting stolen goods, or whatever, is up to you.

3. Stealing can be fun. My wife used to shoplift lipstick for kicks as a kid. It was still wrong and she stopped as she grew up.

Stopped being a kid? I would hope so.

 

[JRTStarlight]

If you want to know what the guy at CBS who deals with this stuff for a living thinks about the guidelines, you need to hear what he says and not get hung up on the medium. It's not verbal suggestions, it's a series of questions answered by the guy who has the answers.

The problem with the verbal stuff is it's harder to find, confirm, rely on, to whatever degree one can rely on any of it, or show others. But like I like I said, CBS may not want to micro-manage fanfilmdom, but they've dipped their toe in the water by giving the written guidelines, however reluctant they were to give them. If they have more guidelines, like grandfather clauses, or Santa Clauses, which are a more relaxed gift given to some individuals but not others who still get coal, it's not that hard to give them all in written form. But as long as they say we always reserves their right to change our minds and we remind you these guidelines are never legal permission or a legal promise not to sue, it should be fine. If they have more, I wished they'd add them. If they change them, I wished they publish the changes. I don't think it's an unreasonable desire. But I reproduce the more easily found copy here (and hope I'm not infringing upon their copyright of the list - ha ha).

Guidelines for Avoiding Objections:

1. The fan production must be less than 15 minutes for a single self-contained story, or no more than 2 segments, episodes or parts, not to exceed 30 minutes total, with no additional seasons, episodes, parts, sequels or remakes.

2. The title of the fan production or any parts cannot include the name “Star Trek.” However, the title must contain a subtitle with the phrase: “A STAR TREK FAN PRODUCTION” in plain typeface. The fan production cannot use the term “official” in either its title or subtitle or in any marketing, promotions or social media for the fan production.

3. The content in the fan production must be original, not reproductions, recreations or clips from any Star Trek production. If non-Star Trek third party content is used, all necessary permissions for any third party content should be obtained in writing.

4. If the fan production uses commercially-available Star Trek uniforms, accessories, toys and props, these items must be official merchandise and not bootleg items or imitations of such commercially available products.

5. The fan production must be a real “fan” production, i.e., creators, actors and all other participants must be amateurs, cannot be compensated for their services, and cannot be currently or previously employed on any Star Trek series, films, production of DVDs or with any of CBS or Paramount Pictures’ licensees.

6. The fan production must be non-commercial:
• CBS and Paramount Pictures do not object to limited fundraising for the creation of a fan production, whether 1 or 2 segments and consistent with these guidelines, so long as the total amount does not exceed $50,000, including all platform fees, and when the $50,000 goal is reached, all fundraising must cease.
• The fan production must only be exhibited or distributed on a no-charge basis and/or shared via streaming services without generating revenue.
• The fan production cannot be distributed in a physical format such as DVD or Blu-ray.
• The fan production cannot be used to derive advertising revenue including, but not limited to, through for example, the use of pre or post-roll advertising, click-through advertising banners, that is associated with the fan production.
• No unlicensed Star Trek-related or fan production-related merchandise or services can be offered for sale or given away as premiums, perks or rewards or in connection with the fan production fundraising.
• The fan production cannot derive revenue by selling or licensing fan-created production sets, props or costumes.


7. The fan production must be family friendly and suitable for public presentation. Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any harmful or illegal activity, or any material that is offensive, fraudulent, defamatory, libelous, disparaging, sexually explicit, threatening, hateful, or any other inappropriate content. The content of the fan production cannot violate any individual’s right of privacy.

8. The fan production must display the following disclaimer in the on-screen credits of the fan productions and on any marketing material including the fan production website or page hosting the fan production: “Star Trek and all related marks, logos and characters are solely owned by CBS Studios Inc. This fan production is not endorsed by, sponsored by, nor affiliated with CBS, Paramount Pictures, or any other Star Trek franchise, and is a non-commercial fan-made film intended for recreational use. No commercial exhibition or distribution is permitted. No alleged independent rights will be asserted against CBS or Paramount Pictures.”

9. Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law.

10. Fan productions cannot create or imply any association or endorsement by CBS or Paramount Pictures.

CBS and Paramount Pictures reserve the right to revise, revoke and/or withdraw these guidelines at any time in (at?) their own discretion. These guidelines are not a license and do not constitute (legal) approval or (legal) authorization of any fan productions or a waiver of any rights that CBS or Paramount Pictures may have with respect to fan fiction created outside of these guidelines.

 

[jespah]

This was part of the U.S.S. Republic newsletter. They're the group that puts together Treklanta (formerly called TrekTrax).

Wow, you can spend your weekend doing the kind of organizational work for someone else that most people can't stand doing about their own closets! Can I get someone to come here and organize the junk drawer? I think it swallowed a Buick.

 

[Steve Roby]

The problem with the verbal stuff is it's harder to find, confirm, rely on, to whatever degree one can rely on any of it, or show others.

How so? It's the official word of the official source in an official podcast available on the official website and elsewhere. Someone who can't figure that out probably won't know enough about fan films to know that the guidelines exist at all.

More to the point, the grandfathering is not part of the guidelines, it's a comment on who should be following the guidelines.

 

[Krandor]

Wow, you can spend your weekend doing the kind of organizational work for someone else that most people can't stand doing about their own closets! Can I get someone to come here and organize the junk drawer? I think it swallowed a Buick.

Why do you think he's doing this? It is wirj Alec doesn't want to do.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

This is pretty much my point. Push too hard, and the studios may well shut it all down. Even a moderate continuing amount of "infringement happens" could do that.

And if the studios shut down the guidelines window, I don't see a lot of prospect for fair use copyright extension for the sake of derivative works like most fan films. A core point of copyright is to protect the authority of the IP owner over derivative works. One can try to change that, but I think until then even a few constant hovering mosquitos of excessive infringement could drive the studios to get out the bug bomb for everyone.

This illustrates the advantage of a carefully crafted fan license. It protects the fans that adhere to its conditions while allowing the studio to go after the rule breakers.

Well sure, its not a license. And for some, probably including me, I might find that a risk to consider if I were making films. And it is not a guarantee of any sort that I can see. But to the best of my non-lawyer knowledge, they simply cannot both make a guarantee and protect their IP. So the choice is to work with it and take the chance they might be "arbitrary", or somehow convince them that they should sign over to the public some of their very high profit IP. I am not really convinced the latter can happen.

IANAL, but so far as I know, that's just not how copyright works. A license comes with conditions, and those conditions must be adhered to or you loose your license and are guilty of copyright infringement. Granting a license does not remove your IP rights, it simply grants limited rights to the license holder under the terms of the license.

I see the studios as being "neighborly" in this. You don't get an absolute set of guaranteed terms when you borrow someone's lawnmower. There's an understanding that the owner still owns and your use is limited, and its at the owner's discretion whether they are happy with what you do - break it, use it for profit, keep it too long, etc. They can demand it back based on their needs, and they can choose not to loan again. I think its a pretty unusual thing for a corporation to lay out anything like this in writing.

That's called a verbal contract, and it can be enforced or used as a defense in a court of law. If CBS verbally gave you explicit permission to make a fan film, that might be enforceable as a license under the law. I think. Again, IANAL.

How so? It's the official word of the official source in an official podcast available on the official website and elsewhere. Someone who can't figure that out probably won't know enough about fan films to know that the guidelines exist at all.

More to the point, the grandfathering is not part of the guidelines, it's a comment on who should be following the guidelines.

I'm sorry, but the guidelines are easily Goggle-able, while people have to know in advance about the podcast, and have to listen through the entire 1 hour 17 minute long podcast, and the have to know the specific podcast to listen to. Furthermore, that doesn't include all the ancillary statements and comments that modify the guidelines in various ways, and I know of no central location on the Internet where all of this is documented. It is very likely that someone coming into this cold and hears about the guidelines will take the guidelines literally without modification.

Also, there's also an issue of the lawyers not necessarily knowing about some of these comments. What happens if someone conforms to the "amended" guidelines and still gets sued? It's far better to have everything written down in one place than to depend on off-the-cuff statements made across a dozen interviews.

 

[KennyB]

Why do you think he's doing this? It is wirj Alec doesn't want to do.

What not RocketWorx anymore?

 

[Professor Zoom]

To steal? To take them from you? No, no, my children, you misunderstand. We mean only that you should lend us your words for a short time.

I do enjoy this sort of humor - to paraphrase and parody a quote from a favorite show, like TOS or others. Generally, others familiar with the work find it funny, but YMMV. I'm not always sure everyone gets them, or is familiar with the references, or has seen the more than a few examples in my posts these last few days, let alone finds them amusing, but I do enjoy making them. So did I steal, what? Your words? Savik's words? Sargon's words? Dystrom's words? Kirk's words? Nomad's words? V'Ger's words? Monty Python's words? Conan the Barbarian's words? More than a few other fictional characters' words? Am I infringing upon CBS/Paramount's or others' copyrights when I do this? Do you wish to make a citizen's arrest? Have I made any points with you at all? Does it matter?



Well, I've read hours and hours about copyright law these last few days. I've not really found any legal document you requested, but nor have I found any about it where it equates "infringement" with "theft," though many say it is and many more say it is not. Copyright ownership is not some intrinsic right of Man, but one granted to individuals, not for their protection, so much as to encourage their creativity in the first place, which is socially a good thing, but it's up to the law to decide, and usually on a case-by-case basis, when theft has occurred - however eager you may be to define some blanket terminology for everybody and every instance.

This contentious exercise has been on going since copyright laws were first invented hundreds of years ago, and great lawyers argue on both sides of that fence. But I have noticed this: For those who are more comfortable, or insistent, that copyright infringement be equated with theft and stealing, they always seem compelled to subsequently demonstrate clear economic damages in order to make their point. Indeed, since the law currently does provide guidelines where one crosses from civil considerations into criminal considerations, I have no problem equating copyright infringement of that degree to stealing. But short of that, where we remain in civil areas and have not crossed that line, not only do I think it unfair or unwise to call such an infringement theft, many feel it is just linguistic peevery and obstinacy to a perverse degree of pigheadedness to insist it is always stealing or theft, just like any other.

From my perspective, since we have a level of transgression where criminal laws begin to apply, I'd wait until that line is crossed to characterize copyright infringement as stealing or theft.

I've also noticed those who push for the harsher terms seem clearly intent on the associating the more colloquial understanding of theft to the less understood copyright infringement since the law doesn't equate the two, and they don't want the masses to clearly know this, lest they think it is always O.K. since it's not legally theft, but legally a demarcation of when one's ownership rights were infringed and when they aren't infringed.

Anyway, I think you and I can concur if legal minds greater than ours have argued for centuries on this and still do not agree, we two are perhaps not going to come to a consensus here and now. I personally do not find equating all fanfilmdom with theft to be useful, and in fact I find it misleading, inflammatory, and potentially harmful, and the fact copyright law already proscribes what remedies one may take for such infringements, and how those generally differ from the legal remedies one takes for more garden-variety theft, to be quite instructive. If you don't, that's your call, and what benefit you derive from calling every fan film maker a thief, and every fan film viewer an accessary after the fact for willingly and knowingly accepting stolen goods, or whatever, is up to you.



Stopped being a kid? I would hope so.

So, in other words: no, there's no implied permission.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission is...?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Wow, you can spend your weekend doing the kind of organizational work for someone else that most people can't stand doing about their own closets! Can I get someone to come here and organize the junk drawer? I think it swallowed a Buick.

The best part: you have to have your membership dues paid up. You are paying for the opportunity!

 

[Krandor]

What not RocketWorx anymore?

He'll run rocketworx which mostly consists on atacking people on the internet like he did this morning and the peon volunteers can organize his star trek collection

 

[Jedi_Master]

This was part of the U.S.S. Republic newsletter. They're the group that puts together Treklanta (formerly called TrekTrax).

There is so much that is wrong with that invitation that it is hard to put together a cogent response.

But think of it this way - imagine a person beckons a prostitute over to their vehicle window, lowers the window and says to the prostitute: "How much? How much are you going to pay for the privilege of sexually servicing me?"

Alec Peters has multiple FOR-PROFIT businesses, businesses that fund his personal life style. For several months the items that belong to one of his businesses - "Propworx" - has been languishing in a Georgia warehouse, a warehouse that VOLUNTEERS helped him relocate to, and that a business Alec doesn't own has "sponsored" (which is likely how Alec is paying the rent).
While the bits and pieces of inventory that belong to Propworx have been sitting in that warehouse, Alec's primary Propworx partners (in other words, the people who did the actual work) have formed their own business venture, wholly separate from Alec.
Alec on the other hand has beebopped to various conventions, sat in his underbritches watching cat videos and randomly posting angry messages about Donald Trump or various "haters" he dislikes, and has completed a "first draft" of a 15 minute script that he has sent to various of his "core team" for "notes."

TWO MONTHS from now "volunteers" - that have PAID THEIR DUES - will be able to serve as free labor for Alec's FOR PROFIT business, and set it up so that Alec can get another infusion of cash for his care-free lifestyle.
All of this is hidden under multiple layers of fandom. This is pure horsemanure, and I am ashamed of any fan group, club, production, or mailing list that would willing participate in such blatant exploitation.

The "Captain" of the USS Republic Group should be ashamed, Alec should be ashamed and anyone who chooses to PAY to voluntarily assist a lazy and incompetent parasite in running his business is a pitiable fool.

This IS NOT WHAT BEING A STAR TREK FAN IS ABOUT, and anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan and deserves to be permanently exiled from the fan community.

 

[muCephi]

This illustrates the advantage of a carefully crafted fan license. It protects the fans that adhere to its conditions while allowing the studio to go after the rule breakers.

I hope I am not giving a wrong impression. Making a case for a limited fan license is fine with me. I just don't think CBS/P are going to approve it. IMO, video is the core of how people come to know characters and see the Trek world. I do not think there is any chance the studios are going to allow such a solid space (full length, serialization, etc.) for other groups to inject their own characters and worldmaking into the Trek created by studio. Even if the studios could make enough profit on it I don't think they would want to share the monopoly this much.

And licensing within the current limits, I am not sure what their motivation would be there either, because in the end they have to justify costs against gains before their board and shareholders, and fan film makers are such a small group. "Because it would make people happy and possibly draw more interest to Trek" would be weighed against administrative costs, possible legal complications, and losing rights to go in directions the fans have injected and arguably might own.

But good luck if you want to try.

 

[Jedman67]

I'm sorry, but the guidelines are easily Goggle-able, while people have to know in advance about the podcast, and have to listen through the entire 1 hour 17 minute long podcast, and the have to know the specific podcast to listen to. Furthermore, that doesn't include all the ancillary statements and comments that modify the guidelines in various ways, and I know of no central location on the Internet where all of this is documented. It is very likely that someone coming into this cold and hears about the guidelines will take the guidelines literally without modification.

Also, there's also an issue of the lawyers not necessarily knowing about some of these comments. What happens if someone conforms to the "amended" guidelines and still gets sued? It's far better to have everything written down in one place than to depend on off-the-cuff statements made across a dozen interviews.

The podcast was transcribed here on TrekBBS in the Fan Film forum. The podcast is also an opinion offered by one of the people responsible for issuing the guidelines; nothing in the podcast is enforceable.
The TL;DR version is that Van Critters stated that they were not looking to shut anything down, just rein in the fan films to be "real" fan films and not near-studio quality productions that could potentially confuse unaffiliated customers.
Nothing was said about "grandfathering" other than they didn't want any film in the middle of production to interpret this as a Cease & Desist.
Which is not the same as "go right ahead" since that may imply tacit license.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Has any fan production been able to get the general public to pay for a finished product?
If I am distributing licenses, I would want to make sure that the person I license can actually make some money.

 

[jespah]

Has any fan production been able to get the general public to pay for a finished product?
If I am distributing licenses, I would want to make sure that the person I license can actually make some money.

And that is why there won't be fan film licenses. Licensing is for profit. Fan films are not supposed to be.

Quod erat demonstratum.

There, I used Latin, so now I can charge extra. I expect a larger slice of pie this time.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

So, it finally happened. Terry McIntosh (y'all remember him, right?) just decided he'd had enough of Alec* and posted the entire Axanar feature script, Axanar v7.3 in particular.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/axamonitor/237968543384667/

And uh just for some real fun, I've shared that helpful PDF using DocDroid,
http://docdro.id/equpRvG

Happy readings!



* in particular, this recent bait-dangling:

 

[jamestyler]

This was part of the U.S.S. Republic newsletter. They're the group that puts together Treklanta (formerly called TrekTrax).

I assume the Republic is SFI?

Not entirely sure why a fan club would push for this? I've seen quite a few in that overall club try and promote Axanar. I really can't fathom why any club would encourage the ripping off and in this case, taking advantage of it's members just to rub shoulders with this maniac.