CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[SuperSpaceMan]

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)

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.

Thanks JD, I did lose it once if I remember. This is not my first rodeo, so my skin has gotten a little more thicker.

Could you imagine, if the film DID get released, and it sucked..... I mean, maybe I want this film made just to see that eventuality... HAH

 

[jespah]

It helps to look at what the American Bar Association says about IP Law:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/y..._practice_series/elements_of_a_copyright.html

Profit does not enter into the equation at all. Neither does nonprofit status. Neither do salaries.

To establish infringement, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”[1]

Ownership of a valid copyright consists of: “(1) originality in the author; (2) copyrightability of the subject matter; (3) a national point of attachment of the work, such as to permit a claim of copyright; (4) compliance with applicable statutory formalities; and (5) (if the plaintiff is not the author) a transfer of rights or other relationship between the author and the plaintiff so as to constitute the plaintiff as the valid copyright claimant.”[2] A copyright registration certificate from the Copyright Office serves as prima facie evidence of elements (1) through (4). If the defendant rebuts the plaintiff’s prima facie evidence, then the above elements of valid copyright ownership become essential to the plaintiff’s case.

CBS/Paramount has 1 - 4 (valid copyright, see - http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw...KSf0g-LSq8xlNKFUnUPW&SEQ=20160104153724&SID=1 )

Transfer of rights I am sure is also proven.

And ... that's all she wrote, folks.

 

[Professor Zoom]

It helps to look at what the American Bar Association says about IP Law:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/y..._practice_series/elements_of_a_copyright.html

Profit does not enter into the equation at all. Neither does nonprofit status. Neither do salaries.

To establish infringement, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”[1]

Ownership of a valid copyright consists of: “(1) originality in the author; (2) copyrightability of the subject matter; (3) a national point of attachment of the work, such as to permit a claim of copyright; (4) compliance with applicable statutory formalities; and (5) (if the plaintiff is not the author) a transfer of rights or other relationship between the author and the plaintiff so as to constitute the plaintiff as the valid copyright claimant.”[2] A copyright registration certificate from the Copyright Office serves as prima facie evidence of elements (1) through (4). If the defendant rebuts the plaintiff’s prima facie evidence, then the above elements of valid copyright ownership become essential to the plaintiff’s case.

CBS/Paramount has 1 - 4 (valid copyright, see - http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw...KSf0g-LSq8xlNKFUnUPW&SEQ=20160104153724&SID=1 )

Transfer of rights I am sure is also proven.

And ... that's all she wrote, folks.

Pretty much. I think Axanar brings up the "not making any profit" is to try and make themselves look like other fan films.

But, the reality is, CBS could sue them as well. Axanar was egregious and greedy, that's why I believe CBS sued them.

Personally, I hope CBS never explains why they chose Axanar. I like mysteries.

 

[JD]

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)

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.

Thanks JD, I did lose it once if I remember. This is not my first rodeo, so my skin has gotten a little more thicker.

Even if you did lose it once, you've still behaved a lot better than I imagine Peters would. Hell, at least you have a finished product to defend and use as evidence, the Axanar people don't even have that.

 

[Tom]

Meanwhile, Axanar's Indiegogo is to 574k, 2k more than the last time I looked a couple days ago. People just love to throw there money away on a project that will never get done.

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

Meanwhile, Axanar's Indiegogo is to 574k, 2k more than the last time I looked a couple days ago. People just love to throw there money away on a project that will never get done.

My contribution towards their next fundraiser...

photo hosting

 

[Professor Zoom]

Meanwhile, Axanar's Indiegogo is to 574k, 2k more than the last time I looked a couple days ago. People just love to throw there money away on a project that will never get done.

I'm a little shocked that Indigogo is allowing it to continue. I'm assuming, like Kickstarter, they get a fee for every transaction. They are knowingly taking funds being raised on IP that belongs to someone else.

I can't believe their own lawyers are letting it happen. They must believe they are well protected.

 

[E-DUB]

There seems to be a presumption on the part of CBS/Paramount that fandom is a "Zero-sum game". In other words, if I send 15 bucks to Axanar or STC, that's fifteen bucks that they don't get. I don't know if that's true.

 

[ozzfloyd]

There seems to be a presumption on the part of CBS/Paramount that fandom is a "Zero-sum game". In other words, if I send 15 bucks to Axanar or STC, that's fifteen bucks that they don't get. I don't know if that's true.

It's not true, but it's also wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

There seems to be a presumption on the part of CBS/Paramount that fandom is a "Zero-sum game". In other words, if I send 15 bucks to Axanar or STC, that's fifteen bucks that they don't get. I don't know if that's true.

At this point, I would assume that it's the OPPOSITE of True....

 

[Ion]

It seems like the best approach is with a fan franchise is to start cheap, be productive, and scale up because amateur and ambitious writing and directing will inevitably lead to fanwank, which money will exacerbate.

Meh. There have been more bad out-of-pocket fan films than there have been "big-budget" fan films, good or otherwise. That's more a function of the writer and producer than the budget. With only a few "big-budget" fan productions in existence, I'd just say "give it time" -- but then, I think that's pretty much over with now.

Time will tell.

I could have sworn I saw some language vis a vis the crowd funding that basically says "there is a risk." But people are thinking that the donors would still be able to sue for breach?

Depends. If Peters misrepresented what he was "selling", then yes, he could get sued. Unfortunately for our potential plaintiffs in this story, he'll long since be broke if this goes the way I think it will, so there would be very little point in doing so.

I think the next shoe to drop here will be some sort of move against the crowdfunding platforms. Maybe not a full-scale lawsuit, but CBS and Paramount now clearly view crowdfunded productions as a problem that needs to be addressed.

I don't imagine we'll ever hear a peep about that. I think you said it earlier: someone will be having lunch with someone.

"You wouldn't like me when I'm angry..."

I don't get why Peters thinks that the legal definition of non-profit even matters. As I said to someone upthread, there is a massive difference between what's legal, and what the IP owner will permit...

One more reason why the whole thing gave me douche chills from the start. Peters and his school of "thought" (if we can call it that) are just sickening.

And the primary reason I didn't donate. Between the questions about Peters' history, and the way in which he responded to people he didn't like... I have enough red flags now that I need to put up a web store and start selling them.

They're taking up too much space.

It helps to look at what the American Bar Association says about IP Law:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/y..._practice_series/elements_of_a_copyright.html

Profit does not enter into the equation at all. Neither does nonprofit status. Neither do salaries.

To establish infringement, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”[1]

Ownership of a valid copyright consists of: “(1) originality in the author; (2) copyrightability of the subject matter; (3) a national point of attachment of the work, such as to permit a claim of copyright; (4) compliance with applicable statutory formalities; and (5) (if the plaintiff is not the author) a transfer of rights or other relationship between the author and the plaintiff so as to constitute the plaintiff as the valid copyright claimant.”[2] A copyright registration certificate from the Copyright Office serves as prima facie evidence of elements (1) through (4). If the defendant rebuts the plaintiff’s prima facie evidence, then the above elements of valid copyright ownership become essential to the plaintiff’s case.

CBS/Paramount has 1 - 4 (valid copyright, see - http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw...KSf0g-LSq8xlNKFUnUPW&SEQ=20160104153724&SID=1 )

Transfer of rights I am sure is also proven.

And ... that's all she wrote, folks.

This.

 

[Tom]

Meanwhile, Axanar's Indiegogo is to 574k, 2k more than the last time I looked a couple days ago. People just love to throw there money away on a project that will never get done.

I'm a little shocked that Indigogo is allowing it to continue. I'm assuming, like Kickstarter, they get a fee for every transaction. They are knowingly taking funds being raised on IP that belongs to someone else.

I can't believe their own lawyers are letting it happen. They must believe they are well protected.

They can get sued too. Forget the fact that they are collecting money for project in violation of Copyright. They are posting Star Trek images on there website, CBS could get them for just that if they wanted to.

 

[Zaminhon]

An excerpt from Indiegogo's Terms of Service:

I have obtained licenses substantially similar to the foregoing from all individuals who created any uploaded images, videos or other content or whose names or likenesses appear in any images, videos or other conent uploaded to this form."Content" means all material and information supplied in this form, including my name, photographs, audio and video recordings, logos, artwork, and text.

source

Are they still liable?

 

[Iamnotspock]

I predict negotiations will be short.

"You were right about one thing, jespah..."

 

[Ion]

I'm a little shocked that Indigogo is allowing it to continue. I'm assuming, like Kickstarter, they get a fee for every transaction. They are knowingly taking funds being raised on IP that belongs to someone else.

I can't believe their own lawyers are letting it happen. They must believe they are well protected.

They can get sued too. Forget the fact that they are collecting money for project in violation of Copyright. They are posting Star Trek images on there website, CBS could get them for just that if they wanted to.

This, to me, is probably one of the most interesting aspects of this situation.

In addition to Tom's point about the images (which I hadn't even considered), it's absolutely stunning that they're being so cavalier about letting people continue to donate without (IMO) sufficient warning.

There's a reason McDonalds has "WARNING: COFFEE IS HOT" or some such on their coffee cups. They got sued because coffee was hot -- something fairly obvious to most of us -- and that was the court-mandated result. I wonder if this is the eventual fate of this sort of thing on the crowdfund sites -- something along the lines of "you must have big, obvious warnings containing known risks" or some such.

As I said before, at least it's on there now -- but it should be in big red bold letters up at the top, where people are pretty much guaranteed not to miss it. How many just go, look at the pretty pictures, and then donate?

That said, I stand by my original opinion: given the potential PR nightmare, I'm guessing we'll never know what happens with that, if anything.

IMO, the crowdfunders are simply a form of unregulated financial institution. Maybe a bit too unregulated, and that's something I wouldn't often say.

 

[Karzak]

I predict negotiations will be short.

"You were right about one thing, jespah..."

 

[JD]

Meanwhile, Axanar's Indiegogo is to 574k, 2k more than the last time I looked a couple days ago. People just love to throw there money away on a project that will never get done.

That is unbelievable. Even if I was a supporter and wanted to donate, I still wouldn't put a single $ into Axanar until I knew for a fact it was going to continue.
I thought when I was looking at Kickstarter a few months back it said that money wouldn't actually be taken out of you're account until the campaign was over, did I misunderstand that? Was it just once the goal was met?

 

[Professor Zoom]

An excerpt from Indiegogo's Terms of Service:

I have obtained licenses substantially similar to the foregoing from all individuals who created any uploaded images, videos or other content or whose names or likenesses appear in any images, videos or other conent uploaded to this form."Content" means all material and information supplied in this form, including my name, photographs, audio and video recordings, logos, artwork, and text.

source

Are they still liable?

It's a good question. If they aren't, THEY are the big scammers in this. Axanar will burn, lose all of it's money, while Indiegogo and Kickstarter get to keep their fees? Wow.

That doesn't seem right.

But, even with that in their terms of service, if they KNOW someone doesn't really have permission to use the IP, are they still covered? They had to know that Axanar didn't really have permission--it was IN the funding risks....

 

[Ion]

Meanwhile, Axanar's Indiegogo is to 574k, 2k more than the last time I looked a couple days ago. People just love to throw there money away on a project that will never get done.

That is unbelievable. Even if I was a supporter and wanted to donate, I still wouldn't put a single $ into Axanar until I knew for a fact it was going to continue.
I thought when I was looking at Kickstarter a few months back it said that money wouldn't actually be taken out of you're account until the campaign was over, did I misunderstand that? Was it just once the goal was met?

That's true for Kickstarter, but IndieGoGo apparently allows ongoing campaigns.

 

[Firebird]

So, Alec outright admitted he took a salary because Axanar is his "job?" How does he not see that means he's making a profit from the movie? Unless he's somehow justifying it to himself by saying that money goes to "bills" - which is still a crock of shit. There's no way in hell I'd donate my money to a fanfilm just to line someone's pockets.