CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I don't really see what film festivals have to do with any of this, to be honest (except perhaps as proof of unauthorized performance of a copyrighted work if CBS decided to go that way).
I mean, yeah, the opinion of the guy who replied seems a bit... out there... but going after Prelude's awards just seems a bit too vindictive to me. It unnecessarily crosses the line from sitting around here and speculating on the possible meanings of the evidence we have, to actively trying to harm Axanar before it's had its day in court.
Not really down with trying to make them unnecessarily miserable.
Complaining to IGG about a fundraising campaign is one thing -- they were very apparently taking money for what is almost certainly a lost cause, and misrepresenting themselves in doing so, thus harming the donors. But removing a long-since-awarded film accolade?
That doesn't seem to really matter much other than to give them grief.
I mean, yeah, the opinion of the guy who replied seems a bit... out there... but going after Prelude's awards just seems a bit too vindictive to me. It unnecessarily crosses the line from sitting around here and speculating on the possible meanings of the evidence we have, to actively trying to harm Axanar before it's had its day in court.
Not really down with trying to make them unnecessarily miserable.
Complaining to IGG about a fundraising campaign is one thing -- they were very apparently taking money for what is almost certainly a lost cause, and misrepresenting themselves in doing so, thus harming the donors. But removing a long-since-awarded film accolade?
That doesn't seem to really matter much other than to give them grief.
What I meant was legally-- there's nothing in the case itself that will have him ordered to close shop. I am left to wonder how hard-line CBS/Paramount will be about damages: if he agrees to stop production, will they drop the request for damages? Is that all that matters to them, the production?
These are lawyers for big corporations, i don't know if they'd care so much to "stick it" to him. So my question comes back to their motive: do they want to shut him down, get the money, ensure he doesn't operate any kind of studio with the money he raised or some combination of these?
They may be wanting to make a point here.
If a mosquito is determined to bite, got through the net, and won't accept repeatedly being brushed away as an answer, and you don't care to receive the virus it is carrying, I suppose you could catch it in a bottle and walk it to a place where it wouldn't follow you back and would live out its life in peace. But chances are you would use resources at hand to put an end to it.
We can speculate, but we don't know to what extent they'll want to "make a point." After all, filing an injunction and a lawsuit is a pretty big point.
I'm not saying they won't go after the money, but they just as likely may not, and will be content to shut down the movie. Just curious what everyone thinks the odds are of Axanar getting the big-picture win: no Trek movie, but they keep the studio.
I'm not saying they won't go after the money, but they just as likely may not, and will be content to shut down the movie. Just curious what everyone thinks the odds are of Axanar getting the big-picture win: no Trek movie, but they keep the studio.
Yes, that's one aspect of it that CBS/Paramount could argue: you only earned that money because of OUR brand.
But again, curious as to their specific motive. I've known some brand owners who just want the thing shut down, others that want the money they earned from it (no matter how little) and other's who want the money, but dont want to go to the lengths they'd need to in order to get it.
But again, curious as to their specific motive. I've known some brand owners who just want the thing shut down, others that want the money they earned from it (no matter how little) and other's who want the money, but dont want to go to the lengths they'd need to in order to get it.
If a film festival makes clear in the terms and conditions for entry that copyrighted material must be approved by the copyright holder, then I think it is fair to ask whether a film would have its award removed should it come out that it contained copyrighted material which the filmmaker did not have permission to use.
The current lawsuit would seem to make it fairly clear that the copyright holder does not approve of the use of their copyrighted material in this film, but I certainly can understand the desire to wait and see the result of the lawsuit before acting. Only, this particular festival seems to indicate that they don't care what the result of the lawsuit is - they've already decided for themselves that violating copyright in this way is okay... which goes against their own terms and conditions, but there you have it.
In all fairness, I have also heard back from two other festivals, both of which have made it clear that they are watching the lawsuit with interest, and both of which have indicated that should it be proven in a court of law that Axanar Productions violated the law, they will take the appropriate steps. I doubt they will demand that the physical award be returned, mind you, but they may well remove the honor from their respective websites, or at least mark the 'win' with an asterick.
I share the comments of this particular festival, as I am quite honestly stunned by the attitude that copyright does not matter to them. This is particularly alarming, as they claim it does matter in their terms and conditions, so this dismissal of the matter only makes them come off as not being true to their own rules.
To put it another way, if I were to create a work, and then someone else decides to use characters I have created in their own work, without my permission, then apparently this festival would only 'consider' my complaint. This position is disrespectful of all artists.
The current lawsuit would seem to make it fairly clear that the copyright holder does not approve of the use of their copyrighted material in this film, but I certainly can understand the desire to wait and see the result of the lawsuit before acting. Only, this particular festival seems to indicate that they don't care what the result of the lawsuit is - they've already decided for themselves that violating copyright in this way is okay... which goes against their own terms and conditions, but there you have it.
In all fairness, I have also heard back from two other festivals, both of which have made it clear that they are watching the lawsuit with interest, and both of which have indicated that should it be proven in a court of law that Axanar Productions violated the law, they will take the appropriate steps. I doubt they will demand that the physical award be returned, mind you, but they may well remove the honor from their respective websites, or at least mark the 'win' with an asterick.
I share the comments of this particular festival, as I am quite honestly stunned by the attitude that copyright does not matter to them. This is particularly alarming, as they claim it does matter in their terms and conditions, so this dismissal of the matter only makes them come off as not being true to their own rules.
To put it another way, if I were to create a work, and then someone else decides to use characters I have created in their own work, without my permission, then apparently this festival would only 'consider' my complaint. This position is disrespectful of all artists.
They apparently brought in a heavy hitter IP firm. They could've used their internal legal team if they just wanted to scare Peters.
They might hope for that but there's no incentive at all for CBS/Paramount to go along with this if they can crush the whole thing altogether.
And that's where it'll end even if the other things work out. I doubt many people would be willing to sink even more money into the company of a guy who sunk his company twice. Not even the Axaminions. They're currently rallying behind Peters because they've invested so much into the project (some of them, anyway) and don't want to lose that. But giving even more money to a new project is something different. Then you have a lot of previous donors who wouldn't donate to Peters again. Enticing totally new people to donate will also be difficult as reports on the law suit are easily found on the net.
That's a pretty good point.
Why does it surprise you that someone who runs a film festival might not care about copyright?
There are a lot of different views of copyright and intellectual property in general. They're entitled to theirs. If they're not distributing anything, then it's irrelevant. As far as I'm aware, it's not a crime to hang an award on a film that illegally uses someone else's IP. If they're distributing the film, that's different -- and there are legal arenas where the IP owners can handle that issue.
Only thing you can really do is make your opinion of the festival organizers known in communities of filmmakers who might submit to the festival. Beyond that, there's not much available in the way of remedies.
As far as ignoring their own T&C... They probably only have the thing as a legal CYA anyway.
I suppose one could argue prior art against the pointy ears, antennae, and green/blue skinned aliens claims 
maybe even show Wagon Train as prior art for the main concept, and quote GR. There's probably a SF story out there somewhere from the golden age that describes a circular bridge with the captain sitting in the middle. There probably are blinkenlights control panels in a Buck Rogers serial that could passably look and feel like a trek console. Beings with ridged heads might appear on one or another SF pulp cover. There might be a lot one could do to disassemble the CBS claims if one had infinite resources at hand.
maybe even show Wagon Train as prior art for the main concept, and quote GR. There's probably a SF story out there somewhere from the golden age that describes a circular bridge with the captain sitting in the middle. There probably are blinkenlights control panels in a Buck Rogers serial that could passably look and feel like a trek console. Beings with ridged heads might appear on one or another SF pulp cover. There might be a lot one could do to disassemble the CBS claims if one had infinite resources at hand.
I suppose one could argue prior art against the pointy ears, antennae, and green/blue skinned aliens claims
I don't think a circular control room is something that you can copyright. But it's more the circular control room with certain details that makes it unique.
Yes, I agree. The aggregate of features of an Andorian is probably unique, but perhaps only if the name Andorian and the backstory of their particular planet is attached. I doubt Trek was initially built with a large copyright compliance effort
, and there could be substantial barn doors waiting to be found now that prior art is so much easier to research. If I were owner of an IP firm with lots of mad money to spend, and I really wanted to pry trek away from CBS, I might threaten to make good on such research unless I could see space made for fan films. Will watch with bemusement as this analysis is retconned into the Axanar story.- Status