CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Michael]

(On a side note, I laughed when the complaint cited April, a character who only appeared in TAS; I guess the Animated Series is back in the canon now. Hooray!)

Even if it's just a side note; I gotta ask: What has TAS' canon status to do with CBS being the legal copyright holder of the animated series?

Also, over the last couple of years it has been argued by many that TAS is officially part of the Star Trek canon again. I think when the official Star Trek website incorporated TAS in some sort of encyclopedia in the early 2000s, many saw that as them accepting TAS as canon. It was also the point when references to TAS began appearing in the live-action Trek series of the time.

 

[Karzak]

I don't know anything about the politics of and between fan productions, but I did a search on these forums last year because I was curious about this Vic fellow from... Star Trek Continues, is it? I found no positive comments here, which read mostly like those against this Alec fellow now - mostly comments about ego and betrayal against the other guy, James Cawley, who seems to have stayed out of the fray. It is illuminating that Alec has caused a bump in the support for Vic. I wonder whether it's just a matter of who is the lightning rod of the day, and the sheep just move from one place to the other. Anyone counting on solidarity to preserve fan efforts won't find it here.

Either that, or people do (perceived) asshole things and get called out on it when they do, ultimately to be forgiven later. Right now, Alec is doing the asshole thing. Whether or not he'll be redeemed later depends upon what his actions cause towards the future of the fan production community.

The rivalry between Vic and Alec Peters is storied and well-documented here if you know where to look for it. And as someone else said, it's largely all perpetuated (at least online) from the antics and ravings of Alec Peters, who never missed a chance to slam and insult and accuse Mignogna of every crime under the sun, up to and including threatening to sue Mignogna this past summer and making that threat known on Facebook.

Any sort of feud is fueled by both sides, not just one. The Vic vs. James feud would be a good example, but James also has a "thing" with other ex-collaborators, like Patty Wright. All of us are all one step removed but you can't say "you don't have a right to weigh in because you know nothing" and at the same time share a certain amount of info about what took place. You open a Pandora's box when you make public statements. That's why Vic is the master of PR because he doesn't share. Therefore everything negative you hear about him is second-hand, which ultimately makes him look (rightly or wrongly) like he's above the fray and everyone else are manufacturing drama out of thin air.

Whatever faults Vic Mignogna may have, whatever ills he may have committed, he at least knows enough not to engage in the mindless, irrational and petty bickering online in the he-said-she-said court of online public opinion, a skill which Peters has woefully lacked and never learned and for which he is now suffering tremendously from.

Personally, I do not see how, given Peters and Burnett's absurd reactions these last few days, they will be able to recover from this disastrous turn of events. Axanar is not going to be made. Certainly not as a Star Trek film, and whatever hopes Peters and Burnett have had at launching their own studio and directing careers (respectively) are pretty much flushed down the drain at this point. CBS and Paramount are going to slice these guys up like a roast.

It's just a shame -- and I mean this genuinely -- that Peters, whiny crybaby that he is, seems to be doing his damnedest to drag all the other fan film groups through the mud with him on his rapid descent into failure here.

 

[Noname Given]

Mr. Peters' comment effectively saying he has some legal standing can only mean (IMO - and I'm not a lawyer but have worked for/in a court for many years and seen a lot of cases and know a number of Judges) he thinks he will defend on a basis that Paramount/CBS have LOST the ability to enforce their Star Trek trademarks

Thing is, CBS and Paramount filed a copyright violation suit, not a trademark protection suit. Not sure a trademark-based response would get Axanar anywhere.

Doh - didn't see the actual filing. If it's a copyright case, then yes if Mr. Peters is a lawyer - he's a BAD one as in a copyright claim Axanar is DOA with ZERO legal defense. They used 'Ambassador Soval' from 'Enterprise' and Gary Graham (the original actor) reprised the role. <--- !00% indefensible copyright infringement QED. Hell, CBS/Paramount could get a summary judgement as soon as they play a scene from 'Prelude to Axanar' alone.

How Mr. Peters can claim Axanar has ANY legal standing or defense vs a copyright infringement claim is this case is beyond me. What was his law school? A Crackerjack box?

 

[Woulfe]

Con: If 100% of their fans boycott Beyond we'll lose 780,000.

They can easily pick that up by winning the lawsuit. Plus, most will end up watching Beyond anyway.

Well, yeah. And that $780,000 loss isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to what Beyond is likely to generate.

Also, since the Axanards are posting random things...feel free to use this as counter:

That is a nice pic of Gene / The Great Bird

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

As Graham reprised his role, will he be in any trouble also?

 

[Karzak]

Con: If 100% of their fans boycott Beyond we'll lose 780,000.

They can easily pick that up by winning the lawsuit. Plus, most will end up watching Beyond anyway.

Well, yeah. And that $780,000 loss isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to what Beyond is likely to generate.

Also, since the Axanards are posting random things...feel free to use this as counter:

 

[oswriter]

Hope this comes out alright - here is a claim somebody has on the "We Stand With Axanar facebook page

It's bollocks.

Yep. Allow me to quote Samuel Goldwyn.

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."

Even if there was a so-called "gentlemen's agreement", that doesn't mean doodly.

And the poster might (just might!) want to look up what precedent means in the legal field. This is pretty much what it is.

Off the cuff verbal agreements aren't precedents - which can be changed anyway.

Y'know, the thing I find most interesting is that it feels like any conversation of any sort with anyone even remotely concerned with CBS and/or Paramount is touted as being ironclad binding stuff.

It's not.

While oral contracts may be enforceable in court, you still have to prove a contract exists--i.e., that there was a "meeting of the minds" between the parties. I don't see how Axanar Productions could prove this happened. Nor is a vague promise not to sue the same thing as a license to use a copyrighted work. As I noted in another post on this case, Star Trek is not open source software.

 

[Squiggy]

They can easily pick that up by winning the lawsuit. Plus, most will end up watching Beyond anyway.

Well, yeah. And that $780,000 loss isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to what Beyond is likely to generate.

Also, since the Axanards are posting random things...feel free to use this as counter:

I saved and then posted to Alec himself and posted on the "official" Axanar page

You're doing the Lord's work.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Even if it's just a side note; I gotta ask: What has TAS' canon status to do with CBS being the legal copyright holder of the animated series?

Nothing. They own the copyright, just like Lucasfilm owns the copyright to all the Star Wars EU stuff that is no longer canon.

 

[Maurice]

Axanar is never going to win on the Copyright front. And on the Trademark front the fan arguments are weak weak weak. Some are claiming "failure to police". Here's an example of a major brandname in such a situation...

In addition to naked licensing, the failure to police the use of a mark by unauthorized users can result in a court ruling of abandonment. When Anheuser-Busch failed to protest to DuBois Brewing Company’s use of “Budweiser” for an extended period of time (1905–1940), the court ultimately found that the junior user could not be prevented from using the term in connection with their beer. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Du Bois Brewing Co., 175 F.2d 370 (3rd Cir 1949). Although the defendant is no longer in business (perhaps bought out by the plaintiff?), a mark which is very valuable today was at one point available for use by a competitor of Anheuser-Busch.

Note the very lengthy period of time. Note that Du Bois Brewing Co. was a commercial enterprise. Note that Paramount/CBS have stopped plenty of unauthorized for-profit uses of their brand and trademarks re Trek over the years. If anyone tried the "abandonment" tactic CBS could simply counter with what is known as "progressive encroachment", whereby a Trademark was not robustly defended because previous encroachments did not constitute acts that change the nature of the use of its trademark or which caused brand confusion to its potential customers (small numbers of fans don't represent enough market share to count as such). Axanar positioning itself as it has crosses the line into brand confusion, ergo CBS by this very case is defending its trademarks, which are by no means abandoned.

A trademark owner is not required to uncover all possible uses that might conflict, or immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer. At the same time, a complete failure to enforce will lead to a weakening of an owner’s marks, loss of distinctiveness over time and, as we saw in this case, potential forfeiture of certain available remedies. So, at a minimum, owners should establish an appropriate level of proactive monitoring of USPTO registration applications, the Internet and other uses in commence.

Emphasis mine.

(SOURCE LINK)

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Well, yeah. And that $780,000 loss isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to what Beyond is likely to generate.

Also, since the Axanards are posting random things...feel free to use this as counter:

I saved and then posted to Alec himself and posted on the "official" Axanar page

You're doing the Lord's work.

Thanks... Alec doesn't seem to be a happy little bunny - can't think why

 

[oswriter]

As Graham reprised his role, will he be in any trouble also?

It's unlikely. The CBS/Paramount complaint identifies multiple "JOHN DOE" defendants including anyone who "aided in the writing of the scripts for the Axanar Works or producing or directing the films, and those persons who designed or caused to be designed the infringing sets, costumes, props and other elements in the Axanar Works that infringe copyrighted Star Trek elements." There is no mention of actors, only those who contributed to the writing or design elements of the project.

I would also speculate CBS and Paramount will not name a SAG-AFTRA member in good standing like Graham as a defendant in a copyright lawsuit. It might unnecessarily antagonize the union.

 

[jespah]

It's bollocks.

Yep. Allow me to quote Samuel Goldwyn.

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."

Even if there was a so-called "gentlemen's agreement", that doesn't mean doodly.

And the poster might (just might!) want to look up what precedent means in the legal field. This is pretty much what it is.

Off the cuff verbal agreements aren't precedents - which can be changed anyway.

Y'know, the thing I find most interesting is that it feels like any conversation of any sort with anyone even remotely concerned with CBS and/or Paramount is touted as being ironclad binding stuff.

It's not.

While oral contracts may be enforceable in court, you still have to prove a contract exists--i.e., that there was a "meeting of the minds" between the parties. I don't see how Axanar Productions could prove this happened. Nor is a vague promise not to sue the same thing as a license to use a copyrighted work. As I noted in another post on this case, Star Trek is not open source software.

Exactly. Verbal contracts can and do exist - but they are maddeningly difficult to enforce. A quickie off the cuff statement is not a meeting of the minds.

PS Read your blog post - it lays things out rather nicely.

 

[Red Shirt]

Hi, I'm obviously here. After reading this thread I couldn't help but add my 2 cents.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=189130&highlight=axanar+alec&page=26 (post #381)

Jumping the gun here, as we haven't even built anything yet! But yes, our plan is to open up the sets to other productions.

We are even working on a Sci Fi film school with some big names. More on that later.

Well it was supposed to be an emergency exit, but we nixed that. It just messed with the symmetry.

It seems fishy to me that Alec Peters is basically starting his own for profit production studio built off of fan donations as a direct competitor of CBS/Paramount with a rival business model, including ripped-off IP as part of his profit margin.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=189130&highlight=axanar+alec&page=68 (post #1012)

Why don't you ask FOR PROFIT ventures like Creation Entertainment why they use volunteers? Or Wizard World who also

uses volunteers?

Axanar, and every fan film is a non-profit venture, and so they ask for volunteers to help. They don't have "employees" as you claim. You obviously

neither make nor assist in making fan films and just bitch a lot it seems.

You really seem hung up on these guys who get paid zero for making AMAZING Star Trek, who work tirelessly for us fans, using volunteers. Your bitching

is really poor taste.

For what it's worth, someone in the TrekMovie comics just posted some of Axanar's other salaries.

EXPENSES
Salaries
1099 $17,420.00
Alec Peters $38,166.57
Diana Kingsbury Deferred till 2016
Robert Burnett $5,000.00
Curtis Laseter $9,800.00
Salaries $48,042.31

Odd that Alec Peters claimed he didn't have "employees" yet pays salaries to others and himself with no small amount of money in the process. I'm all for fan based ST fiction however sadly enough, AP can't see he's crossed a line throwing fellow Trekkers offerings under the bus while futilely trying to save himself. That not only speaks volumes about his character, he's hurting the very community he supposedly was making a fan film for.

 

[Karzak]

Spotted this on the Axanar Fan Group just now.

Clearly they're passing out the hash pipe at the Ares Studios commune in Valencia because this guy is high as a kite.

 

[oswriter]

Axanar is never going to win on the Copyright front. And on the Trademark front their claims are weak weak weak. They are claiming "failure to police". Here's an example of a major brandname in such a situation...

Is Axanar actually saying they plan to raise a trademark defense? Because if they are, then they haven't read the lawsuit. CBS and Paramount did not raise a single trademark claim. This is purely a copyright lawsuit. The trademarks are irrelevant (he says in Borg monotone).

 

[dub]

I see your Roddenberry propaganda meme and raise you another:

 

[Karzak]

In case anyone wants to know what the face of denial coupled with a complete break from reality look like, here you go:

 

[oswriter]

Yep. Allow me to quote Samuel Goldwyn.

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."

Even if there was a so-called "gentlemen's agreement", that doesn't mean doodly.

And the poster might (just might!) want to look up what precedent means in the legal field. This is pretty much what it is.

Off the cuff verbal agreements aren't precedents - which can be changed anyway.

Y'know, the thing I find most interesting is that it feels like any conversation of any sort with anyone even remotely concerned with CBS and/or Paramount is touted as being ironclad binding stuff.

It's not.

While oral contracts may be enforceable in court, you still have to prove a contract exists--i.e., that there was a "meeting of the minds" between the parties. I don't see how Axanar Productions could prove this happened. Nor is a vague promise not to sue the same thing as a license to use a copyrighted work. As I noted in another post on this case, Star Trek is not open source software.

Exactly. Verbal contracts can and do exist - but they are maddeningly difficult to enforce. A quickie off the cuff statement is not a meeting of the minds.

I blog professionally for a number of law firms. I've reviewed hundreds of breach of contract cases, and I honestly cannot recall the last time I saw an oral contract upheld by a court anywhere in the United States. I mean, I know it happens, but it's not an everyday occurrence.

PS Read your blog post - it lays things out rather nicely.

Many thanks. My guess there will be much more to write about.

 

[Squiggy]

Remember, people who donated: You paid for the spread!