Once you got the money, you don't need to be doing with actually answering questions.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Once you got the money, you don't need to be doing with actually answering questions.
Can we infer from this then that Alec was also paying his SAG dues out of the Kickstarter funds?
yeah, pretty easy to see where all the problems have come from in that one little exchange.
Can we infer from this then that Alec was also paying his SAG dues out of the Kickstarter funds?
The did list "Union Fees" on the 2015 Annual Summary... so you can bet your bottom dollar Alec's dues are paid for.
Once you got the money, you don't need to be doing with actually answering questions.
This is where my $15.00 stuff comes from.. because I was talking to people about this sort of stuff while the Idigogo was going on, (in an unrelated FB Group) and Terry Shows up, and says, "I see you only gave $15.00 why are you so upset by what we are doing" or something to that effect.. Basically trying to shame me for the amount of my donation....
That damn Alec.............paranoid much? Way to treat a supporter too.
Once you got the money, you don't need to be doing with actually answering questions.
This is where my $15.00 stuff comes from.. because I was talking to people about this sort of stuff while the Idigogo was going on, (in an unrelated FB Group) and Terry Shows up, and says, "I see you only gave $15.00 why are you so upset by what we are doing" or something to that effect.. Basically trying to shame me for the amount of my donation....
I recognize this will likely be a moot point in a few weeks, but if Peters was serious about filing for tax-exempt status for Axanar, his "only donors matter" argument will raise a serious red flag at the IRS. Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) groups are "public charities." This means they must disclose certain information to the public regardless of whether they are donors or not. Having worked and dealt with a lot of these groups over the years, I have never seen one publicly chastise a member of the public for seeking information about an organization's finances.
And this is exactly why Starfleet needs to mandate douche sensors on the next class of starship.
That's a really shitty attitude.
"I see you only gave $15..."
Fock them.
"I see you only gave $15..."
Fock them.
Is the thing here to point out that Peters paid himself a salary? Maybe someone mentioned this before, this thread seems to grow by leaps and bounds and it's hard to keep up, but people working for non-profits or not for profit enterprises can make a living from it. Even 501 c3 executives can be compensated. The thing is, it should be "reasonable" compensation given things like the nature of the work and the overall budget of the non-profit. Too many charities are criticized today for paying too much for administration. Some even as high as $3 of every $10 donated going to cover administrative costs like salaries.
So, it's never bothered me that Peters has taken a salary and compensated others while claiming to be not for profit (although he probably could've been more upfront about it).
Again, I'm no expert here, but as I understand it, a company can be non-profit as long as long as all money it takes in goes back into building the business and fulfilling its stated mission. That can include paying people (employees) reasonably for their work in carrying out these tasks. The business can even make a profit, but all profits must be put back into the business. Now, if Peters had shareholders who were getting dividends from profits, or he was skimming profits and putting them into another business, that would be a problem.
Again, this is an IP issue, first and foremost. Profit or non-profit really don't enter into it except for Axanar Productions allegedly using CBS/Paramount IP as a springboard to build a new commercial business. The IP violations and making money off of CBS/Paramount's IP (for profit or not) drive this case.
That's why I think crowdsourcing is going to be an area that IP holders watch even more closely. The problem with even the most innocent attempt to raise money that way is that there is cache in the brand name associated with the project. People didn't give to Axanar because they wanted to see a movie about some schmuck named Robert Schmidtdorffer, who is an intergalactic explorer in a totally original universe created by Peters. They gave because, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, it's "Star Trek". That could be said to be making money off of the IP holder's back. And when the amount taken in reaches over $1 million, well -- .
That damn Alec.............paranoid much? Way to treat a supporter too.
Once you got the money, you don't need to be doing with actually answering questions.
This is where my $15.00 stuff comes from.. because I was talking to people about this sort of stuff while the Idigogo was going on, (in an unrelated FB Group) and Terry Shows up, and says, "I see you only gave $15.00 why are you so upset by what we are doing" or something to that effect.. Basically trying to shame me for the amount of my donation....
That exchange really bothers me. Just because the guy did not donate Alec disses him, even though he was supporting Alec. I am just disgusted by this. I treat every Str fan with the utmost respect whether they donated or not.
Terry is in the wrong here to. If they donated $10 or $10,000 it does not matter, these are people that believed in your project and want to donate to help make it happen, all donations are equally important. This attitude irritates me (and i don't get that easily irritated)
Regarding the salary: Axanar is NOT a non-profit entity. Not actually. it ISN'T a 501 c 3. So, comparing it to an actual non-profit isn't right.
Also: him taking a salary is profiting from someone else's IP.
He should not have taken a salary. If his problem is working 60 hours a week--which one wonders, were you making a movie in those 60 hours or finding more ways to raise money--then, maybe he shouldn't work that much on a fan film.
Regardless of what he wants to say, he personally profited from the money raised on someone else's IP.
Is the thing here to point out that Peters paid himself a salary? Maybe someone mentioned this before, this thread seems to grow by leaps and bounds and it's hard to keep up, but people working for non-profits or not for profit enterprises can make a living from it. Even 501 c3 executives can be compensated. The thing is, it should be "reasonable" compensation given things like the nature of the work and the overall budget of the non-profit. Too many charities are criticized today for paying too much for administration. Some even as high as $3 of every $10 donated going to cover administrative costs like salaries.
So, it's never bothered me that Peters has taken a salary and compensated others while claiming to be not for profit (although he probably could've been more upfront about it).
Again, I'm no expert here, but as I understand it, a company can be non-profit as long as long as all money it takes in goes back into building the business and fulfilling its stated mission. That can include paying people (employees) reasonably for their work in carrying out these tasks. The business can even make a profit, but all profits must be put back into the business. Now, if Peters had shareholders who were getting dividends from profits, or he was skimming profits and putting them into another business, that would be a problem.
Again, this is an IP issue, first and foremost. Profit or non-profit really don't enter into it except for Axanar Productions allegedly using CBS/Paramount IP as a springboard to build a new commercial business. The IP violations and making money off of CBS/Paramount's IP (for profit or not) drive this case.
That's why I think crowdsourcing is going to be an area that IP holders watch even more closely. The problem with even the most innocent attempt to raise money that way is that there is cache in the brand name associated with the project. People didn't give to Axanar because they wanted to see a movie about some schmuck named Robert Schmidtdorffer, who is an intergalactic explorer in a totally original universe created by Peters. They gave because, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, it's "Star Trek". That could be said to be making money off of the IP holder's back. And when the amount taken in reaches over $1 million, well -- .
First and foremost this *IS* an IP issue. CBS is suing Axanar, and Alec, and 20 some other unnamed John Does for Copyright infringement.... that's WHY they are suing them.
The thing is, Axanar has basically said, "We have just done what the other guys have done". and I don't think that's the case.
We can only speculate what is different about Axanar, vs. Other Fan films, that CBS has turned a blind eye to. I know that over in the Axanar Fans Group Terry won't permit that speculation, under the guise of Armchair lawyering... The problem is, CBS Motivation for pursuing this case isn't about law. There is something different about Axanar, no matter what they tell you over there.
I have stated my opinions as to why Axanar was targeted.
The Person Making star trek received a full time salary making a Star Trek film. While, Renegades paid their primary producer Sag scale for his acting, he was not paid to produce the film. This is Unique to Axanar.
Crowdsourced funds were channeled into building sizable assets (Ares Studios). Yes, while other fan films have production facilities, those facilities were by and large NOT built using donations. (Some sets, were, but the production facility and their infastruture were not) This is unique to Axanar
Axanar said, that the assets the acquired using monies raised using CBS IP would be used for commercial venture. No other Fan film has done this, this is unique to Axanar.
Calling oneself an Independent Professional Feature, is not done by other fan films, this is unique to Axanar
The Non-Profit nonsense, is just a red herring at best.. Unless they are going to claim Fair use.. but, as of this moment, they are not a non-profit organization. Further, because Axanar isn't currently a Not-For Profit organization, it means, that as a corporation it is owned by someone. I am speculating that means Peters owns a company worth upwards of $1,000,000.00 that was fully funded by fundraisers using CBS IP.
Well, no, he wasn't a non-profit in an legal sense, but he claimed he was acting like one. And by acting like one, he thought all else was OK regarding the "Star Trek" stuff.
You're right though, his salary was tainted by coming from use of CBS/Paramount IP. That's the point. That's the real illegality. If there were no IP issues involved, and it was a completely original project, I'm not sure there's anything to see, here. The guy would be just a shady guy who gets money from people to fund dubious projects and make a living.
I don't think anyone donating to him thought part of that donation may go to buy his groceries and pay his car insurance (or whatever), but that was really pretty naïve of them, I'd say.
Yeah, it seems really inapproriate to me to be so snotty with someone who is supporting you in this situation.
I do have to compliment you Tom, I don't remember ever seeing you lose your cool in the Renegades thread, even when people didn't like it. I can't imagine how Peter and his followers will react to bad reviews of Axanar. At this point I'd almost have to fear for my safety if I said something bad about Axanar.
The thing is, all the profit/non-profit stuff only matters if CBS needs or wants to explain why they are going after Axanar rather than anybody else (which AFAIK they don't have to do).
Otherwise, it's completely open and shut and needs no more excuse beyond the fact Axanar used CBS IP.
But it doesn't MATTER if he thought he was acting like a non-profit. You either ARE or your AREN'T.
Though, I don't think he thought he was acting like a non-profit organization. I bet you Kickstarter money that he thought as long as the FILM didn't make any money he would be ok. He didn't think taking a salary was wrong.
This whole Non Profit organizations pay salaries bullshit defense came after he got served with the lawsuit.
the thing is though: I don't think his salary would be an issue for anyone if that was including in the crowdsourcing campaign (with original IP, of course.) People get paid on movies, that's part of the budget.
But, we all know, he wouldn't have raised nearly this much without Star Trek attached to it.
To be blunt: I think all of those donating where just excited to get something for their money and didn't really think about the reality: this guy is stealing (for them) from CBS and at some point the hammer was coming down.
- Status