CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Professor Zoom]

Sigh.

And have to parse the legalese of the terms of service to see if it qualifies as a report-able incident and then have to argue with you over that? Pass.

I promise you, I won't parse, argue, or anything. If you want to report me, go right ahead.

I'm pretty sure that trademark doesn't make a distinction between the title and the body.

This is where you are wrong. A great example of this is Captain Marvel. BUT WHICH?! Both and why one Captain Marvel is now Shazam.

So, DC bought the rights from Fawcett for Captain Marvel, ironically after forcing Fawcett to stop producing Captain Marvel comics after suing them successfully for copyright infringement. They felt Superman was to close to Captain Marvel. Anyway, Fawcett sold off Captain Marvel, DC comics bought it. But, for a time they didn't publish anything with Captain Marvel in the title.

In the late 1960s, Marvel came out with THEIR Captain Marvel... and the trademark to boot. DC couldn't publish a comic with Captain Marvel on the cover... they couldn't trade on it... So, they did the next best thing... The Power of Shazam! Of course within the body of the comic, he was still called Captain Marvel.

Hell, the TV show was called Shazam because they didn't have the trademark.

Eventually, fairly recently, DC just gave it up and changed the character's name to Shazam--as by the point many people thought that was the character's name. Though, why would someone shout their own name to change into a super hero, I have no idea.

So. Trademark does carry a distinction.

There are certain criteria in which you are allowed to reference a trademark (e.g. "Star Trek is a television series created by Gene Roddenberry..."), but if you were to write an epic fictional poem about Buffy and kept using her name, it would probably be trademark infringement, regardless of the title.

Well. The question is, what do you mean "about"? Do you mean "about a fictional character named Buffy"? Or about meaning "another adventure of Buffy the Vampire Slayer?" The first would be Fair use, the second would be copyright infringement. Unless the title of your poem was "Buffy The Vampire Slayer Meets Sherlock Holmes." Then, that would be trademark infringement AND copyright infringement. Good think Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain!

It wouldn't be theft either way. By the way, "theft" is defined as "the action or crime of stealing", so now you are implying criminality!

Sure. But not one that would be prosecuted for under criminal law. What's your point?

1) You can't copyright ideas, remember? You just said so. So now you're conflating the simple and lawful exchange and dissemination of ideas with unlawful theft.

Right. I'm not sure what point you're making. Let me repeat the question, I'll even set the scene.
At a party, you tell me this fantastic idea for a novel. You tell me the scenes, the characters, all of the great juicy bits. It's spectacular. Being unscrupulous, I race home and over a drug fueled weekend I churn out a novel, I give it to my agent and he gets it sold. And, of course, I don't share any of the money, fame, and all the power that comes with being a writer.

How would you describe my act of taking your franchise creating idea from you? Is there a particular adjective that you would use? Did I just borrow your idea? Am I just sharing your idea with people? Or did I steal your idea and now I have Harry Potter money?

Sadly , of course, you can't sue me for copyright infringement, but, you could call me a thief!

2) It should be pointed out that the person who came up with the copyrighted material is not necessarily the copyright holder. In fact, in the case of CBS, it's highly probable.

Duh. It's work for hire. It's industry standard. What does that have to do with anything?

3) Copyright infringement is not always clear cut. Someone can think they're making fair use of something, or that their character or plot is sufficiently different not to infringe, and still be found guilty of infringement by the courts. This is one of the reasons the word "stealing" isn't helpful. Is whether or not Dark Matter is "stealing" from Trek solely dependent on whether a particular jury thinks so? Can someone "steal" without intending to?

We agree! It is for a courts to decide. For example this artist reprinted people's instagram pictures and hung them in a museum. He MAY have modified some of the captions. He was sued by those people. He claimed fair use, and he won. (though, I think that's a pretty shitty ruling.)

BUT, I'm not a court of law. My words hold no legal standing. So, when you are making a fan film, you are specifically taking something that isn't yours. And no, in this case, raising money, building sets, getting actors, you are INTENDING to make a fan film. You intend to take something that isn't yours.

Also, you imply that fan fiction cannot ever fall under fair use. A parody might be fan fiction, and it would still be fair use. I recall a story about a female version of the Doctor called "Doctor What", for example.

AH. Parody. It's protected speech. (Though, oddly, satire, being a different form of comedy, isn't protected.) Parody is something that is making fun of the thing itself. So, it's taking pains to make fun of the source material. It's purpose is to make fun of the thing. Do you think anyone would mistake a parody for the thing itself? Do you think there's any confusion between Doctor What and Doctor Who?

But, that's not what most fan films are doing. They aren't parody.

And let's not forget the Star Trek Porn Parodies. They laugh, LAUGH at the fanfilm guidelines!

CBS is not legally required to enforce license restrictions any more than they have to enforce the guidelines now.

Yeah, but, that would be a stupid business practice. Like, who in their right mind would license something and then just look the other way?

Only if Paramount got the new characters as part of a settlement or existing contract. That's why Guideline #9 rubs me the wrong way...

This means your original characters. Hope you didn't borrow a character from a story you wrote and intend to file a copyright on.

Why not? That character isn't copyrighted in your Star Trek fan film. Because you CAN'T. They don't want you to because they don't want you to claim some sort ownership if they were to use a character similar to yours. They don't care about your characters.

 

[Mr. Nova]

Wait, I think I have a royal Fizzbin! Uh, no, because this is Wednesday.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm saying the very nature of copyright law and how our society works requiring us to settle civil matters in the courts rather than take the law into our own hands suggests anyone has (implied, but not legal) permission to use another's IP.

Oh, good, I was worried that someone was going to go all Punisher-like and start settling IP theft with guns rather than with lawyers. Hollywood would turn into a bloodbath.

 

[urbandefault]

It's work for hire. It's industry standard.

Also covered in copyright law.

 

[Sgt_G]

On the plus side, all of this is getting us closer to the goal of 1701 pages.

 

[Professor Zoom]

On the plus side, all of this is getting us closer to the goal of 1701 pages.

I'm giving it everything I got.

 

[urbandefault]

All the argument about infringement as it applies to AP and Axanar is moot. Alec Peters admitted infringement in the settlement, and the terms are clear.

No other productions have been sued, and it's not likely that any others will be. Pointing fingers is counter productive.

The guidelines are what they are, decided on by the owners of Star Trek, and they won't be changed by disgruntled fans gurgling and spitting bile. CBS and Paramount can apply the guidelines, or not, at will. They get to pick and choose who gets shut down, and who doesn't. It's their prerogative, backed up by law.

You don't have to like it. Just like everything else in life. Suck it up and smile, or just walk away.

That's your prerogative.

 

[carlosp]

Peters: Won't Purse Legal Action Against Axanar Script Leak
Sorry this is a bit late. Here's the AxaMonitor story on Terry McIntosh leaking the Axanar script that got Alec Peters sued, with Peters' stating he won't 'waste his time' taking legal action against the disclosure. Read more »

 

[dmac]

I'm giving it everything I got.

That you are.
Nothing serious but....
I wonder who would complain if the Guidelines went to the other extreme.
Must Raise and spend a minimum of $10 million dollars (with proof of deposit/receipts)
Must hire at least two former Star Trek actors
Must have at least 117 minute run time
Must include at least 2 epic space battles
Must have at least 1 family unfriendly scene
Must recreate in detail at least 2 scenes from a Star Trek movie or episode
Must pay all cast and crew sag wages
Must not sell or profit in any way from the making of this fan film...lol

 

[Professor Zoom]

That you are.
Nothing serious but....
I wonder who would complain if the Guidelines went to the other extreme.
Must Raise and spend a minimum of $10 million dollars (with proof of deposit/receipts)
Must hire at least two former Star Trek actors
Must have at least 117 minute run time
Must include at least 2 epic space battles
Must have at least 1 family unfriendly scene
Must recreate in detail at least 2 scenes from a Star Trek movie or episode
Must pay all cast and crew sag wages
Must not sell or profit in any way from the making of this fan film...lol

Lol. That would be amazing.

 

[dmac]

Peters: Won't Purse Legal Action for Axanar Script Release
Sorry this is a bit late. Here's the AxaMonitor story on Terry McIntosh's public release of the Axanar script that got them sued, with Alec Peters' stating he won't 'waste his time' taking legal action against the disclosure. Read more »

I read that, I thought it was a joke written by a 3rd grader....
COMPUTER Subspace communications are offline.
GARTH When they’re back up then. And I’d like some music, please. Copland.

 

[jespah]

I'm giving it everything I got.

Is it wrong that I read that in Scotty's voice?

 

[dmac]

Is it wrong that I read that in Scotty's voice?

Does it sound like..... "A'm giein' it everything ah git."?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Is it wrong that I read that in Scotty's voice?

Nope. That was my intention.
More pie for you!

 

[dmac]

Aye lassie ye'll be needing a bawherr mair bridie.

 

[urbandefault]

Peters: Won't Purse Legal Action for Axanar Script Release
Sorry this is a bit late. Here's the AxaMonitor story on Terry McIntosh's public release of the Axanar script that got them sued, with Alec Peters' stating he won't 'waste his time' taking legal action against the disclosure. Read more »

I'd have to say that Peters has no standing for a lawsuit, since he accepted terms of a settlement that stipulated he could not claim copyright protection for anything related to Star Trek, or something like that. Case closed.

Nothing to see here, Axanuts. Move along home.

 

[Noname Given]

Peters: Won't Purse Legal Action for Axanar Script Release
Sorry this is a bit late. Here's the AxaMonitor story on Terry McIntosh's public release of the Axanar script that got them sued, with Alec Peters' stating he won't 'waste his time' taking legal action against the disclosure. Read more »

Wow - if that was a real candidate for the final version of the film; if that's what Alec Peters calls 'Star Trek' , I'm glad this garbage will be condensed into a 30 minute talking heads piece because character wise; there's NOTHING there:

- Garth is confident and has no hesitation or doubt whatsoever in ANYTHING. You get no real insight into his background or anything. he makes the 'right' decision every time and always comes out on top. (Hell, there's a bit where he's on a planet to recover a data disk, and is informed there's Klingon's on the surface and a D-6 in orbit. Garth tells his second in command he needs the D-6 disable for 'leverage' - and the result (because we don't see a second of THAT battle because hey, Garth ain't ON his ship); the second in Command call back down "The D-6 is disabled..." and the Ares? "the paint's scratched..." <--- Yep, I guess this is humor in Alec Peter's mind.

- You have an Engineer that by what's said and what happens puts Mr. Scott to shame because he can give you power that isn't there and fix anything in "ten minutes" - but again, we're given NOTHING in regard to that character's background - like almost every character he seems just a set dressing.

- Corax the shape-shifting Intelligence Officer is probably the ONLY character they do give some background on (and by some I mean hardly any, but it's MORE than any other character). Interesting that I guess at this time in Star Fleet history, there's no Captains should romantically fraternize with those under their Command - but hay, I's Garth right?

I mean hell, the majority of the script is 24th century (and no NOT a typo on my part) style technobabble pew pew. What I find hilarious is that it seems Klingon sensor officers CAN'T tell the difference between Starships and Shuttles (only High Ranking Officers like Kharn can.)<--- And that seems to be part of Garth's brilliant/deceptive ploy that of course works flawlessly. And sorry, but the conclusion to the 'Battle of Axanar' makes no sense. Earlier in the script the Klingons are savoring victory because they feel there's one last battle to be won and Earth will be theirs.

But yeah, so the new Constitution Class isn't being built at Axanar (it's towed in near the end to help turn the tide of the fight) - and because the Klingons lost at Axanar and Garth says, "The Galaxy's big enough for the both of us..." <-- I assume referring to both the Klingon Empire and the Federation; Kharn basically goes, Okay, I guess you're right, I'll stand down and inform the High Council the War's over... (yes, I over-simplified just a bit, but it IS how that comes across in the script.)

The typos and mis-characterizations are funny too:

I mean in the teaser they honestly have a somewhat cowardly Federation officer begging for his life - and the Klingons of course are disgusted (that's definitely in charcater for Klingons) and Chang basically plays along and allows the officer to believe Chang will let him go - but IN THE SCRIPT as the officer moves to go, he's described in the following way:

Realizing he has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, the proud Starfleet officer makes a break for it past Chang.
^^^
Proud? This guy was whimpering for his life? (as described by the klingon warriors themselves in the script.)

Then there's this (which speaks for itself:

EXT. SPACE - THE EARTH (OPTICAL) 91
rises over the Moon’s surface, an image as stirring in the
22nd Century was it was in 1968. The ARES enters the frame,
cruising past the Moon on its way home.
^^^
22nd Century? I thought Alec Peters was the keeper of the 'True Star Trek Canon'™ - so I guess TOS took place in the 22nd Century, eh?

And again, as someone who likes the TOS era - as well as the pre-TOS "The Cage" era - sorry, but having the Ares Class Cruisers easily capable of Warp Factor 8 - when even the Starship/Constitution Class ships of "The Cage" era were never shown surpassing Warp Factor 7 AND they are supposed to be the 'better' ship than the Ares Class...

Also, I'm sorry, but I can't see EITHER the Federation OR the Klingon Empire have that many large starships to commit to ONE battle in this pre-TOS era. (YMMV of course.)

Then there's the fact of this scene's dialogue exchange:

ADMIRAL RAMIREZ:
"Sam, when you’ve recovered the
survivors, I need you to relieve
our fleet near Kantare. They’re
taking a helluva pounding."

The viewscreen switches back to Travis.

TRAVIS:
"Understood, sir. Helm, you heard
the man! Set course for--"

The transmission CUTS. It’s replaced with a live TACTICAL MAPof the battle near Kantare.
^^^^
My problem with how that's presented? The Admiral clearly says: "Sam, when you've recovered survivors..."

Yet Captain Travis IMMEDIATELY replies: "Understood, sir. Helm, you heard the man! Set course for--"

Either Travis is deaf, or that was that FASTEST 'search' for survivors in Star Fleet history.

Again, overall it's just mostly technobabble (which the TOS era had little to none of hence my characterization that it comes across as '24th Century era in tone) - and there NO character development or real character conflict (beyond the fact of course that the Feds and Klingons are at war with each other.) To me it comes across as very flat, and just an excuse to let Tobias Richter carry Alec Peters script with visuals that look like they were from a high end Star Trek videogame cutscene. (No they aren't horrible, but Alec Peter's insistence that Tobias Richter's work looks as good as a professional film...no, just no.)

And lastly - I love how Alec Peters immediately stated after Tony Todd bailed that 'Admiral Ramirez' had always been seen as a minor character anyway (and maybe there IS a later version where Alec Peter's CHANGED the Character's name) - but, for a 'minor character' he sure has a lot of scenes and dialogue and is shown effectively directing tactical movements of Federation starship assets and going over parts of Garth's plan with Garth.

Again that's my analysis - and I have done a few fan produced 'Airplane' (The Movie) style anime parody scripts (10 such projects from 1989 - 2003 which we showed at many an anime con and had a small following back in the day who wished we gave out copies, but I WAS afraid of being sued because many were prior to the Parody case that gave fan parodies more latitude.
^^^
I mention that because even the scripts we produced as parodies, we still often had more character development and background then what was displayed in Alec Peter's 'Axanar' script above. I don't hold myself as any sort of 'professional scriptwriter' in any real regard - but IMO even on a fan level that Axanar script is IMO just plain BAD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR: Sorry, but after a read of that script; if that's what Alec Peters calls: "True Star Trek in the Spirit of Gene Roddenberry's 'Vision'..."™ <---- Hahahahahaha! If GR read this script I'm 100% certain he'd roll in his Grave. Remeber, GR called Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan "Too militaristic."; and this Axanar script is 80% combat technobabble to pew pew.

 

[Steve Roby]

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.

Yep. That's why Black's Law Dictionary exists. That's why legal databases tend to have a database of words and phrases legally defined. Words are really, really important in law.

If folks think the guidelines are harsh, just imagine how great it would be as an official licensee to have CBS all up in your grill 24/7.

Yeah, that's what the "just give Axanar a licence" people don't understand. Look at the novels. CBS didn't give Pocket a licence and then step back and let them do whatever they want. Novels don't get written until CBS signs off on the proposal, and they don't get published until CBS signs off on the final product (and of course the editor is much more involved with the writer, but CBS Licencing is involved through the process). If fan films were licenced, CBS would almost certainly be much more actively involved in saying, no, you can't use that culture; no, that storyline is too close to something already in the works elsewhere; no, we'd prefer you focus on this character and leave that one out of the story; etc.

I seem to remember when DC Comics had a wonderful post-TWOK comic series, with really nice original characters, and after a while, Paramount stepped in and buh-bye new characters and storylines.

That situation was nothing like Axanar. As I remember it, Paramount was just fine with what the comics were doing. The comics wouldn't have been published otherwise. The problem was Richard Arnold, who worked directly for Gene Roddenberry, inserting himself into the approvals process. He interfered with the novels, too, always by claiming to speak for Roddenberry -- though I seem to remember one writer who knew Majel Barrett Roddenberry did an end run by presenting an idea to her to pass along to Gene. The story goes that Arnold tried to shoot it down, saying GR was against it, only to be told that GR heard about it through Majel and was okay with it. No idea how accurate the story is. Still, when Roddenberry died, Arnold was marched off the Paramount lot by security, and a lot of Trek novelists had a celebratory series of posts on Compuserve (and probably Genie, too, though I wasn't online over there) about Arnold losing his position of power.

TLDR: Sorry, but after a read of that script; if that's what Alec Peters calls: "True Star Trek in the Spirit of Gene Roddenberry's 'Vision'..."™ <---- Hahahahahaha! If GR read this script I'm 100% certain he'd roll in his Grave. Remeber, GR called Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan "Too militaristic."; and this Axanar script is 80% combat technobabble to pew pew.

It's awful, as far as I'm concerned. There's none of the vaunted spirit of Star Trek, there's none of the vision of the sainted Gene, there's no characterization, and the dialogue is painful, everyone showing off how badass they are. Some of Garth's "genius" moves would only work if dozens of variables were right; they couldn't be used more than once or twice. If you know Red Dwarf, imagine a few dozen characters saying "Ace RImmer -- what a guy!" over CGI of a hundred starships exploding.

 

[Mudd]

Arnold was let go shortly after Roddenberry's death - a matter of a couple of weeks, IIRC; he wasn't the one who was marched out by security as quickly as the folks in charge could make the call.

 

[Steve Roby]

Arnold was let go shortly after Roddenberry's death - a matter of a couple of weeks, IIRC; he wasn't the one who was marched out by security as quickly as the folks in charge could make the call.

Oh, am I thinking of Maizlish? Well, it was a long time ago now. But I do remember Trek novelists rejoicing in Arnold's departure. Fans too, I should add -- some popular Star Trek novelists were sidelined for a year or three because Arnold didn't like their work.