CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Amaris]

I can write a porn script that would blow your mind.

That is what we're talking about, right?

 

[Lynsioux]

And you can charge people to sit in those upstairs windows and watch the filming. OK, you can charge men. Men will pay.

 

[Amaris]

And you can charge people to sit in those upstairs windows and watch the filming. OK, you can charge men. Men will pay.

Not the way I'm writing it.

 

[YJAGG]

In Feel-a-ramma?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mudd]

Fans don't know what they want until someone gives it to them. That's because they're mostly consumers, not creators.

They don't know what they may like until they see it - they know what they want as certainly as the average consumer rolling up to the Mcdonalds' drive-through.

 

[jespah]

@Michael Hinman and all who are interested - I have the stipulation. But I don't have a place to host it. It's a PDF. I can email it to whoever wants it, but aside from the titles and signatures, this is all it says -

Pursuant to L.R. 8-3, the Parties stipulate to extend time to respond to the
initial Complaint by no more than 30 days, until February 22, 2016. Defendants
have agreed that no shooting or filming of the motion picture entitled Axanar will
commence or continue through the date of the extension.

 

[dahj]

^^
If anything that stipulation is just a convenient excuse for AP for not doing any filming for another month.
What were they supposed to shoot with unfinished script, sets and no actors anyway?

 

[KennyB]

@Michael Hinman and all who are interested - I have the stipulation. But I don't have a place to host it. It's a PDF. I can email it to whoever wants it, but aside from the titles and signatures, this is all it says -

But because of the wording it allows him to do ANYTHING else in terms of pre-production and set construction.....but if it was ME I wouldn't be hawking my line of IP infringing merchandise and plans for future products based around the IP that I don't own......

 

[Earthrise]

@Michael Hinman and all who are interested - I have the stipulation. But I don't have a place to host it. It's a PDF. I can email it to whoever wants it, but aside from the titles and signatures, this is all it says -

Pursuant to L.R. 8-3, the Parties stipulate to extend time to respond to the
initial Complaint by no more than 30 days, until February 22, 2016. Defendants
have agreed that no shooting or filming of the motion picture entitled Axanar will
commence or continue through the date of the extension.

That's one way to give someone more rope.

 

[BillJ]

Remember when this was about making a fan film?

I really can't.

 

[muCephi]

I really can't.

There's a fix for that, but it has a down side

 

[muCephi]

They don't know what they may like until they see it - they know what they want as certainly as the average consumer rolling up to the Mcdonalds' drive-through.

using this creative freedom with a popular product category would be what a serious startup business would do. if you insist on only using the ingredients of a big mac, in the order the ingredients are usually stacked, and sell it under golden arches with a clown as your marketing gimmick, in exchange for donations, just leaving off the name "McDonalds", you may have a problem.

 

[muCephi]

So I was wondering, if the law firm wants to make some impact in the copyright/trademark area, using this case as leverage, how do the changes they seek and the potential broader commercial motivations of the changes come together? These days it seems often the case that behind the scenes commercial interests are trying to roll back protections of the public in one way or another and create stronger monopolies and less labor/independent creator security.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The current holders of licenses for Star Trek books and games may have something to say (legally) about Axanar planning on infringing on their exclusive licenses, for which they paid a pretty penny, mind you.

It astounds me, this sense of entitlement that makes them believe they can just create this clearly commercial movie-and-merchandise operation and think that being "fans" and taking "donations" somehow shields them from legal action for trading off other people's property.

Precisely.

I can see how the licensing implications might have been the Red Line that Axanar finally crossed. The studio may have been willing to look the other way with a fan film, as they had with other fan films, but when they started branching out into other endeavors where companies were paying them for the rights for Star Trek that Axanar was assuming for free, that became a problem because Axanar was devaluing the license. A licensee would say, "CBS, why are we paying you for this, when they're doing the same thing for free?"

 

[urbandefault]

using this creative freedom with a popular product category would be what a serious startup business would do. if you insist on only using the ingredients of a big mac, in the order the ingredients are usually stacked, and sell it under golden arches with a clown as your marketing gimmick, in exchange for donations, just leaving off the name "McDonalds", you may have a problem.

“Look, me and the McDonald’s people, we have sort of a misunderstanding. See, they’re McDonald’s. I’m McDowell’s. They got the Golden Arches. Mine is the Golden Arcs. See, they got the Big Mac. I got the Big Mick. They both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions. But they use a sesame seed bun. My buns have no seeds.”

http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/b...k-infringement-comedy-for-independence-d.html

 

[CaptGrumpy]

The current holders of licenses for Star Trek books and games may have something to say (legally) about Axanar planning on infringing on their exclusive licenses, for which they paid a pretty penny, mind you.

It astounds me, this sense of entitlement that makes them believe they can just create this clearly commercial movie-and-merchandise operation and think that being "fans" and taking "donations" somehow shields them from legal action for trading off other people's property.

This. It's the sense of entitlement that bothers me almost as much as the arrogance of "i can do it better" & "this is the Trek that 'real' fans want.

 

[Mudd]

Okay, so it's very specifically production.

 

[Mudd]

This. It's the sense of entitlement that bothers me almost as much as the arrogance of "i can do it better" & "this is the Trek that 'real' fans want.

Yep. Personally I'm a lot more demanding where "real Star Trek" is concerned.

 

[Count Zero]

Didn't they even want to get established Trek writers to do the novels?

It astounds me, this sense of entitlement that makes them believe they can just create this clearly commercial movie-and-merchandise operation and think that being "fans" and taking "donations" somehow shields them from legal action for trading off other people's property.

Yeah, their sense of entitlement bugs me the most. Just because they don't like the way Trek's currently going they have the right to build their own little commercial endeavour based on their version of Trek. And then they behave worse in regards to what they think created than the "evil corporation" that holds the copyright. I haven't heard of any cases where CBS/Paramount have tried to silence critics of their products and they aren't as litigious as Peters, either.

 

[jespah]

FYI - again - we talked Axa on the G & T Show. Blog post will be up (probably) later today, with YouTube to follow. This was a LONG show. We just finished. So I hope you'll indulge us a possible small delay as it's a lot to blog about.

Many thanks for your kind support. I gotta go out and shovel my driveway while the draft is being written.