Wow - they were up to version 7.3 - talk about not being able to just settle on a final version.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
To save time:
Script summary - Garth is great/awesome/amazing/fantastic/genius/modest/loved by all
PEW! PEW! PEW! PEW!
Klingon lady saves the day - but Garth hired her, so his is still teh best!
People get together to love on Garth.
The End.
I won't lie, I mainly posted this here hoping @Maurice would find the time to take a look at it. He's been pretty critical of even the best-regarded fan films and I'd love to get a hot take on how much of a hot mess this is.
(Emphasis mine.)John Van Citters - Vice President for Product Development at CBS said:
That doesn't sound like they're implying permission to you?!?
...Troll-ish semantic posturing that falsely implies a felony criminal act and adds nothing to the conversation.
Well, there could certainly be a for-profit licensing regime if CBS wanted to, but that's not what I meant. I was referring to a free license that codifies restrictions similar to what's in the guidelines. Basically, a license that allows fan film makers to "come in out of the cold" and nothing more. CBS would still be free to ignore license violations if they wanted to, as they can ignore guidelines violations now. They simply wouldn't have the legal ability to sue people who played by the rules, which they seem to indicate that wouldn't do now for fan film makers that have no license.
I can't find it in a simple search. This is what I'm talking about. If the guidelines are unclear, they should update the guidelines, not depend on the community to disseminate every little statement they make on an assortment of Internet articles and podcasts.
If that were true, many open source and Creative Commons licenses wouldn't exist.
I made it through act 1 and I'm confused.
What I've heard through this who saga from teh axanar supporters is how Axanar is real trek and JJ/DSC are trash and the trek they want is intellectual with character development and has gene's optimistic view of the future.
I see none of that in act 1. I see klingons bahaving wihout honor, battle scene after battle scene after battle scene, and a ridiculous maneveur by garth in order to make his legend grow and the crew worship him.
What I've heard through this who saga from teh axanar supporters is how Axanar is real trek and JJ/DSC are trash and the trek they want is intellectual with character development and has gene's optimistic view of the future.
I see none of that in act 1. I see klingons bahaving wihout honor, battle scene after battle scene after battle scene, and a ridiculous maneveur by garth in order to make his legend grow and the crew worship him.
Great post and I agree on all points @Jedi_Master it really is an invitation to come worship at the Church of Alec.......Republic should really feel like shit for pimping Axanar to their followers.
Not really. Especially when there is this on the Star Trek website. After all of the guidelines, there is this...
Bolding mine. It seems pretty clear. The specific words, "do not constitute approval or authorization" contradict your "implied permission"
Like I said, you could scroll past my posts.
That said, I never said copyright infringement was a felony act. It isn't. That doesn't make it NOT stealing from an ethical and moral point of view.
Corporations will not give up their right to sue individuals or groups without a struggle, and they certainly will NEVER do so just for good "PR" or good "customer relations."
Exactly. Without being able to hold onto their IP, a studio has nothing.
Ah, but what I quoted wasn't in the guidelines. The language you quote says that the guidelines don't constitute approval. They make no claims as to whether or not anything else does.
Furthermore, I've heard a lot of people on this board say that you have to take into account not just the literal language of the guidelines, but what is said by in various interviews and statements by people from CBS. Either the guidelines are the ultimate authority or not. It can't be both.
I can also reply to your posts with disapproval. That's the risk we all take when posting.
You actually used the word "theft" to describe it at one point, and "stealing", the word you've most commonly used, is a synonym for theft. Theft is a criminal act, and some forms of theft are indeed felonies. So I should correct myself in saying that your use of language implied criminality, rather then specifically a felony.
Note that under the law, derivative works are only a misdemeanor, not a felony, if there is some kind of commercial of financial gain, so under no circumstances does your standard, non-commercial fan film fall under criminal law.
I would question the ethics of defining a word as broadly as possible for the sole purpose of creating a perceived equivalence. Under your definition of stealing, a person robbing you at gunpoint and a teenage girl posting a poem about Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Facebook are both "stealing", but to call them morally and ethically equivalent is absurd.
In the short term, there will continue to be resistance to fan licensing, yes. However, I think the real issue is that this is uncharted territory with regards to case law, and that can be scary for copyright holders. If you look at the GNU General Public License, it was generally questioned whether or not the license could even be legally enforceable until it finally upheld by courts in several jurisdictions. I suspect that there will have to be a "first penguin" who has to attempt fan licensing before it becomes a generally accepted practice.
That's a false equivalence. Providing a fan license need not gut the studio of their IP rights. It all has to do with how the license is written.
Thanks for the executive summary; very much appreciated.
No, that's not permission. The guidelines state that fan films may continue as long as the particular guidelines are met; without being shut down or sued by CBS (unless the guidelines change or are revoked).
CBS desires fan films to continue as long as they toe the line. CBS cannot, for legal reasons, permit fan films to continue in any way shape or form, as that may constitute a legal license which would impact their rights.
The net effect may be the same to the average consumer, but there is a real significance should this ever end up in court.
This is just semantics. One of the definitions of "permit" is to "provide an opportunity or scope for (something) to take place". CBS is most definitely doing that. The law doesn't care about permission. It cares if you granted an explicit license. CBS is exploiting the gap between the two.
There is the Kindle Worlds program, which publishes fan fiction based around certain licenses whose owners have authorized their use.
lol. That's some sound legal thinking.
True. But, I'm not going to not call it stealing.
1. So, then, some fan films might fall into criminality for theft? Stealing?
2. Again, I never said it was criminal.
1. I don't think using the word stealing to mean "taking something that doesn't belong to you" as a overly broad definition. It's what the word means.
2. Your poem about Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a pretty bad example. And I wouldn't call it theft. The poem is about another work--which would fall into fair use, AND, it's not using IP to recreate an episode of Buffy (because it's a poem) AND no one would mistake it for an episode of Buffy (because it's a poem.)
There's no short term for fan licensing. It will not happen. Studios will not just give out licenses for people to make fan films. Studios will not sell licenses for people to make fan films. It will not happen.
In fairness to the membership fee's part, that's all the Republic and them being arsey. As a chapter of Starfleet International, each member has to pay an annual fee in order to be a member of SFI, and in turn a member of the Republic. The fee's are due to the club, not Axanar, and they're insisting that you can only join their club-sanctioned slave labour as a member of the club; non members not invited.
Personally I think that's a bit shitty (I don't believe fandom should come at a premium) but it's shitty on the clubs part, not Alec's. For a bizarre change!
(edit: Kind of not Alec, I just noticed the 'captain' off Republic is part of Axanar's 'inner circle' so he's probably asked for help and they're using it as a club activity, because clearly being a maid is good club business)
Personally I think that's a bit shitty (I don't believe fandom should come at a premium) but it's shitty on the clubs part, not Alec's. For a bizarre change!
(edit: Kind of not Alec, I just noticed the 'captain' off Republic is part of Axanar's 'inner circle' so he's probably asked for help and they're using it as a club activity, because clearly being a maid is good club business)
To wit: formal, published statements regarding a specific matter carry more weight than an 'informal' interview, podcast, editorial, oped etc in court.
If theoretically, CBS would sue Star Trek Ongoing for infringement, they wouldn't sue for disobeying guidelines; they would sue for copyright infringement.
At best, the guidelines only create a window of non-enforcement.
If theoretically, CBS would sue Star Trek Ongoing for infringement, they wouldn't sue for disobeying guidelines; they would sue for copyright infringement.
At best, the guidelines only create a window of non-enforcement.
Fine, it's semantics - and a good lawyer can still make a distinction. Words are important, even words that have very similar meanings can have completely different repercussions.
Well said. Much better than my LOL.
- Status