In a van, down by the river.On the curb next to the dumpster.
In a van, down by the river.On the curb next to the dumpster.
Yet again, the 'Lawyer By Training' shows his legal incompetence.NEW on AxaMonitor: Peters Threatens Legal Action Against AxaMonitor, Others Over McIntosh's Coming Blooper Reel. Read more »
« Protecting the rights of the actors involved … is a laughably hypocritical notion coming from Alec, [who] used Tony Todd‘s name and likeness for months knowing full well that he had dropped out of the production. » — Terry McIntosh
![]()
They have been contacted as we speak. Gary Graham will not be on board, because of the Vulcan Scene debacle. He wants to distance himself from Axanar. Kate Vernon replied, she's ok with it. Christian Gossett would participate. J.G. Hertzler hasn't replied yet. Even Tony T. has been contacted, his reply hasn*'t come yet.As long as McIntosh has a copy of each person's release, and if such a release includes the mention of "bloopers" or "blooper reel," I doubt there's anything Peters could do to stop him. However, without the release from each person shown in the blooper reel, McIntosh is treading on thin ice. Each actor would have to bring their own grievance, though, as far as I understand it. This actually came about, iirc, because some actors objected to Gene Roddenberry's showing of the blooper reel during his 70's tour, "An Evening with Gene Roddenberry." I'm not sure that any objected to the fact that there were bloopers, but rather, because they weren't being compensated for the showing.
To be fair, Peters' reaction was the opposite. He said it wasn't worth his time. See here »Wasn't he going to sue anyone who leaked the Axanar movie script, and then didn't? If he doesn't do something if/when Terry posts the bloopers after making a second threat, it won't look good.
Most actor contracts, which take care of compensation, include broad language allowing producers to use any footage for promotional purposes as the producers see fit. That can include bloopers, and bloopers don't have to be specified for producers to use the footage.As long as McIntosh has a copy of each person's release, and if such a release includes the mention of "bloopers" or "blooper reel," I doubt there's anything Peters could do to stop him. However, without the release from each person shown in the blooper reel, McIntosh is treading on thin ice. Each actor would have to bring their own grievance, though, as far as I understand it. This actually came about, iirc, because some actors objected to Gene Roddenberry's showing of the blooper reel during his 70's tour, "An Evening with Gene Roddenberry." I'm not sure that any objected to the fact that there were bloopers, but rather, because they weren't being compensated for the showing.
Most actor contracts, which take care of compensation, include broad language allowing producers to use any footage for promotional purposes as the producers see fit. That can include bloopers, and bloopers don't have to be specified for producers to use the footage.
It'll be at the warehouse he calls a studio.Is anyone actually going to this "Axacon" thing? Other than the party-faithful, of course. I can't envision much more than the first row of chairs in the conference room being filled. More waste of donator money that was supposed to go towards making the film(s). If any of it is actually remaining to begin with, of course. How the hell is he going to pay for a convention venue?
He's a little tattle-tale, isn't he? I mean, this is reminiscent of him calling CBS / Paramount to report copyright infringements on the part of Star trek Continues / New Voyages / etc. I'll bet he had a lot of fiends as a kid. "Teacher, teacher! Billy was being mean to Johnny!"“Release of actors’ images without their approval is a violation of their rights,” Peters wrote. “I will let everyone know that Terry has violated every actor’s rights and that the agents for those actors can proceed against Terry and you.”
I was sure Alec had said somewhere during the lawsuit that if anyone posted the script online they'd be sued? Maybe I'm misremembering.To be fair, Peters' reaction was the opposite. He said it wasn't worth his time. See here »
So it appears the former Star Trek actors who appeared in 'Prelude to Axanar have now bailed on the current project. And while Kate Vernon doesn't seem to mind being a part of a Blooper real, I have to wonder if she'd be willing to come back and do any further actual appearance for the project?UPDATE on AxaMonitor: Trek Actors Cast Doubt on Axanar Legal Threat Against Prelude Blooper Reel. Read more »
After Vulcan Scene debacle, actor Gary Graham says he now wants to "stay well clear" of Axanar.
Technically, Alec Peters does have a Copyright on the work his group did - it's just 100% legally unenforceable by him or his group.There isn't any automatic copyright assignment of derivative works. Once Peters shared his super cool neat-o concept of CSB/Paramount's IP to the public, the public has just as much ownership to it as Peters has, which is zero by the way.
Copyright law vests the original work’s copyright owner with the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Therefore, the owner in the preexisting work must authorize the creation of a derivative work in order for it to be separately owned by another. If not authorized, the preparation of a derivative work constitutes copyright infringement of the preexisting work and is not copyrightable. But if authorized, and an absent an agreement otherwise, the owner of the preexisting work will not have any copyright ownership in the derivative work.Technically, Alec Peters does have a Copyright on the work his group did - it's just 100% legally unenforceable by him or his group.
Um - that's what 'legally unenforceable by Peters" means.Copyright law vests the original work’s copyright owner with the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Therefore, the owner in the preexisting work must authorize the creation of a derivative work in order for it to be separately owned by another. If not authorized, the preparation of a derivative work constitutes copyright infringement of the preexisting work and is not copyrightable. But if authorized, and an absent an agreement otherwise, the owner of the preexisting work will not have any copyright ownership in the derivative work.
Unless Peters was granted assignment, he owns noting in the Star Trek Universe.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.