CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[jespah]

This ^ (what SeerSGB said)

Here's the deal.

Profit has nothing to do with the tort. IP infringement is proven either way. But the making of serious coin means (1) CBS/Paramount got wind of it. Trust me, they neither know nor care about Joe from Peoria and his $500 Trek fan film shot with his cellphone camera. But $1 M with a semi-pro look and feel, and SAG-AFTRA members reprising their roles? Oh yeah, there's very little that can be argued as being transformative there. And that rightfully hit their radar.

and (2) there's a pocket there. I saw elsewhere (might have been on the Axanar site itself but I have read so much stuff on this lately, I can't recall, sorry) someone asking why not go against a smaller production?

Because - surprise! - taking down this production will have far more of an impact, plus suing for $150k/violation doesn't mean diddly for Joe from Peoria's $500 fan film. Joe is fine - the courts aren't going to hand over the deed for his house to CBS/Paramount. Even if they did, that would only cover 1 - 2 violations. But with close to $1.5 M in assets (fan $$ raised plus AP's own personal assets), 10 violations can be paid for.

Not that CBS/Paramount needs the cabbage. They don't. But it makes little sense to steamroll Joe in Peoria. Better to go after AP and get something for your troubles.

PS The blonde in those pictures? She's Doe defendant #1.

 

[oswriter]

I suppose it depends on the specific production. Something could take place in the Federation in events referred to in Trek but still cast a new insight or understanding of the original work.

And anyway I read up more on Fair Use and Copyright Infringement and Copyright Infringement requires the act to be 'willful and for profit', so fan productions that do not make profit should not be Copyright Infringement. The exceptions apply to copying and distribution.

It actually says for nonprofit educational usage - there is no argument that axanar or indeed any of the fan films i can think could make that leap..

The Copyright Act actually specifies four factors when considering a fair use argument:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the proportion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

A commercial use can still be fair use. There was a 2014 case in New York that addressed this. The Weinstein Co. produced Lovelace, a biopic about adult film actress Linda Lovelace. In that film, the producers recreated several small scenes from one of Lovelace's actual movies, Deep Throat. The Deep Throat copyright holder then sued the Weinstein Co. for infringement.

The judge ruled for the Weinstein Co.:

[T]he court finds that defendants' use, or recreation, of the three scenes from Deep Throat constitutes transformative use, adding a new, critical perspective on the life of Linda Lovelace and the production of Deep Throat. Deep Throat is a pornographic film containing seventeen scenes of explicit sexual content. Conversely, Lovelace is a critical biographical film that documents the tragic story of Linda Lovelace and provides a behind-the-scenes perspective on the filming of Deep Throat. It does not contain any nudity. Defendants have recreated the three challenged scenes in order to focus on a defining part of Lovelace's life, her starring role in Deep Throat.

Does this help Axanar? I'm not sure. Peters isn't making a biopic about an actor who appeared in a Star Trek movie. He's making an actual Star Trek movie.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

God...

I hope Peters doesn't turn this into a porno - "Assanar - The Klingon Invasion"

 

[SeerSGB]

I'm still waiting for Uncle Sam to come in looking for answers. I don't wish ill on anyone when it comes to the IRS, so I hope that Axanar's and Peters ledgers a squeaky clean.

 

[Squiggy]

Fan films should qualify under Fair Use if they aren't using specific copyrighted characters or profiting off the product....

Everything that makes Star Trek "Star Trek" has been copywritten or trademarked. The design of the ships, Vulcans, Starfleet, the Federation, transporters, phasers, etc.

I'm sure that even referring to traveling faster than the speed of light and referring to it as "warp" is a no-no.

If you don't use anything that's protected, then it's not identifiable as Star Trek. And if you're targeting Star Trek fans to give you money, it won't be as successful because you might as well be making any show with humans in space. Won't bring in the crowds.

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

I'm still waiting for Uncle Sam to come in looking for answers. I don't wish ill on anyone when it comes to the IRS, so I hope that Axanar's and Peters ledgers a squeaky clean.

Under "Advice of counsel " Peters has said he cannot answer if Ares Studios is for or not for profit....

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

I'm still waiting for Uncle Sam to come in looking for answers. I don't wish ill on anyone when it comes to the IRS, so I hope that Axanar's and Peters ledgers a squeaky clean.

Under "Advice of counsel " Peters has said he cannot answer if Ares Studios is for or not for profit....

Was that advice at the bottom of a bottle of whiskey?

 

[oswriter]

Fan films should qualify under Fair Use if they aren't using specific copyrighted characters or profiting off the product....

Everything that makes Star Trek "Star Trek" has been copywritten or trademarked. The design of the ships, Vulcans, Starfleet, the Federation, transporters, phasers, etc.

I'm sure that even referring to traveling faster than the speed of light and referring to it as "warp" is a no-no.

If you don't use anything that's protected, then it's not identifiable as Star Trek. And if you're targeting Star Trek fans to give you money, it won't be as successful because you might as well be making any show with humans in space. Won't bring in the crowds.

Indeed, the lawsuit cites things like the Vulcan's "pointy ears" as part of their copyright.

Actually, one thing I did notice is the complaint also specifically cites "bridge design" as a copyrighted element. That's the sort of thing which might concern me if I'm doing another fan film that replicates the TOS bridge.

 

[JoeZhang]

Oh, so my little media studies thing would be okay then?

You are in the UK right - our IP laws are slightly different but yes if it was educational i cannot see why.

 

[Squiggy]

Question for the fan-film producers in here:

If you were willing to work with AP before, does all this make you less likely to work with him in the future, or are you willing to cut him a break because of what he could bring to your project?

 

[oswriter]

I'm still waiting for Uncle Sam to come in looking for answers. I don't wish ill on anyone when it comes to the IRS, so I hope that Axanar's and Peters ledgers a squeaky clean.

Another thing to consider is the CBS/Paramount lawyers may know more about Axanar's finances than the general public, including the Axanar donors. This might be a factor in why they've chosen to act at this time.

 

[Woulfe]

I'm still waiting for Uncle Sam to come in looking for answers. I don't wish ill on anyone when it comes to the IRS, so I hope that Axanar's and Peters ledgers a squeaky clean.

IF, and I do mean IF, the IRS gets involved in this mess...

Checkmate, Game, Set, Match...

It's over, no backpedaling, no sweet talking, no worming....

Stick a fork in it, it's done, no trial needed at all...

 

[Squiggy]

These are the same people who think the new series can't take place in the Abramsverse because CBS didn't come up with the alternate timeline.

I'm a non-attorney spokesperson (quite possibly the dumbest disclaimer ever), so all I know about the law is via osmosis by being married to one and her sister being one, but this isn't that hard to figure out.

 

[nx1701g]

I'm still waiting for Uncle Sam to come in looking for answers. I don't wish ill on anyone when it comes to the IRS, so I hope that Axanar's and Peters ledgers a squeaky clean.

Another thing to consider is the CBS/Paramount lawyers may know more about Axanar's finances than the general public, including the Axanar donors. This might be a factor in why they've chosen to act at this time.

Very possible. We only have what they posted on their website to go by.

Then again, and this is from reddit, there was a poster who claimed to be from the Enterprise-D Construction Project. He claimed that he approached CBS Legal about his project and they told him they were going to go after several fan productions in 2016.

It could have just been someone claiming it happened, but then again it could be true too.

(This was discussed at the beginning of the thread on Wednesday - around page 17 I think).

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Fan films should qualify under Fair Use if they aren't using specific copyrighted characters or profiting off the product....

Everything that makes Star Trek "Star Trek" has been copywritten or trademarked. The design of the ships, Vulcans, Starfleet, the Federation, transporters, phasers, etc.

I'm sure that even referring to traveling faster than the speed of light and referring to it as "warp" is a no-no.

The use of 'warp' for FTL predates Trek by some decades. The thing with words and ideas is that they're not interchangeable. As Trek fans we're conditioned to think that 'transporter' means a Trek teleport (the word most other sci-fi uses), but for a layman, a transporter is just a device from getting something from a to b. Of course there's fair use and parody, half the comedy in Stargate comes from Star Trek references, and they abound in anime (pointed eared aliens with bowl hair-cuts in Tenchi Muyo).

I think ParaCBS still operates from a position of common sense, realising that Star Trek has to be recognised in context, that IP infringement is taken as a whole, not by elements. They're not at the Taylor Swift level of idiocy yet, trying to trademark the words 'Star' and 'Trek' seperately.

 

[Karzak]

Question for the fan-film producers in here:

If you were willing to work with AP before, does all this make you less likely to work with him in the future, or are you willing to cut him a break because of what he could bring to your project?

"What he could bring to your project" --- you mean like a lawsuit?

No thanks.

 

[SeerSGB]

These are the same people who think the new series can't take place in the Abramsverse because CBS didn't come up with the alternate timeline.

I'm a non-attorney spokesperson (quite possibly the dumbest disclaimer ever), so all I know about the law is via osmosis by being married to one and her sister being one, but this isn't that hard to figure out.

Exhibit A on the whole attempting to substitute Axanar for CBS's official production. The faithful really aren't doing nothing but giving CBS fodder.

 

[S'kai]

Slightly off topic, but I am doing a media course (just to brush up a few things) and had planned a little mickey take of me in a Starfleet uniform thinking it was all real and going round my life thinking I was kirk...

Would CBS/Paramount be okay with that under fair use?

Parody.

Allowed.

 

[OpenMaw]

The use of 'warp' for FTL predates Trek by some decades. The thing with words and ideas is that they're not interchangeable.

Yeahhh, and it would be pretty damned unfair if that was the case anyway because a "space warp" may be the only way to go FTL, and thus any future science fiction show trying to demonstrate a realistic future with FTL travel would be at the mercy of Trek? I don't think so.

Plus I know other science fiction series that use warps. Space Battleship Yamato uses "warp", I know some of the alien species in Doctor Who use a form of "warp" if i'm not mistaken.

"What he could bring to your project" --- you mean like a lawsuit?

No thanks.

All that talk of traitors and disloyal non Trekkers too. CULT OF PERSONALITY BABY!

 

[SeerSGB]

I'm still waiting for Uncle Sam to come in looking for answers. I don't wish ill on anyone when it comes to the IRS, so I hope that Axanar's and Peters ledgers a squeaky clean.

Another thing to consider is the CBS/Paramount lawyers may know more about Axanar's finances than the general public, including the Axanar donors. This might be a factor in why they've chosen to act at this time.

Very possible. We only have what they posted on their website to go by.

Then again, and this is from reddit, there was a poster who claimed to be from the Enterprise-D Construction Project. He claimed that he approached CBS Legal about his project and they told him they were going to go after several fan productions in 2016.

It could have just been someone claiming it happened, but then again it could be true too.

(This was discussed at the beginning of the thread on Wednesday - around page 17 I think).

Axanar might be the warning: "See what we did to these fuckers? Yeah, get your shit straight or shutdown cause you're next"