CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Smoked Salmon]

You don't out-Ellison Harlan Ellison. I admire that man for attaining the levels of "blunt curmudgeon" he has reached.

Hey, I like DG. I aspire one day to be as surly.

I'm a writer myself, and if I could be as abrasive as Harlan Ellison, I'd consider myself as having finally made it!

Joking aside, I like David Gerrold, too. I still have my copy of The Trouble with Tribbles, where he described the process behind the episode. I like his sense of humor. I do think he's wrong here, though, and that he most assuredly has a dog in the fight.

Gerrold is just seeing it through the same rose tinted glasses as so many of the fans. He wants to see the production so he makes a defence of it. It's that simple. But fans need to accept that their desire to see the finished film doesn't mean the methods by which it is/was being made are kosher. They need to separate the two.

 

[nx1701g]

The question was "Where do you put the space money?"

That's what CBS/Paramount are asking...

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

The question was "Where do you put the space money?"

That's what CBS/Paramount are asking...

*puts hat on to tip it to you*

Well played, Sir

 

[Professor Zoom]

More from David Gerrold on the Axanar situation and lawsuit.

To be honest, it feels disingenuous, especially when he says he has no dog in the fight. He works as a consultant to the Axanar production, giving notes on the script. He "showruns" New Voyages. And Ares Studios had stated their intention to do produce one of Gerrold's works.

I say that qualifies as having a dog in the fight.

I respect Gerrold, but, reading through his post... he's not very savvy on this. A couple of points stick out...

So let me talk about the lawsuit against Axanar, by CBS and Paramount.
I will qualify my remarks by saying I have no dog in this particular fight, I am only a knowledgeable observer.

As has been said, he has a dog in this fight...

That said, I think the lawsuit was filed without sufficient consideration of the situation.
Fans have been making Star Trek fan films -- and crowdfunding them -- for fifteen years. There's Star Trek New Voyages, Star Trek Farragut, Star Trek Renegads, Star Trek Continues, and probably a few others I'm unaware of. These are all recreations of the original series, with fan actors playing Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. These are all filmed on recreations of the original series bridge and corridors and other sets. They are filmed with replicas of props, costumes, makeup, and set design.

Dave... those are IP all owned by CBS/Paramount...

Now, Axanar -- Axanar is not a recreation of the original series. It's about a battle referred to in passing, in only one episode of the original series. It's about a minor character in one episode and how he became a Starfleet legend. It does not take place on the Enterprise. It does not use any of the characters of the original series. Its closest relationship to the original series is that it takes place in the same universe, many years before Kirk and Spock.

It may not feature Kirk and Spock, but, it features IP owned by someone else... and in fact as an actor playing the same role he did in another Star Trek show...

but, if Axanar represents an infringement on the copyrights of Paramount and CBS, then so does Star Trek New Voyages, Star Trek Farragut, Star Trek Renegades, and Star Trek Continues. And whoever else.

Correct. They are ALL violations of copyright. But, CBS/Paramount have chosen not to go after them. I suspect because of how much money they were raising, and what they were using the money for, i.e., using Star Trek to raise money to build a studio.

And the resulting fannish firestorm would go on for years.

I doubt it.

1) That this fan film represents a significant usage of Paramount/CBS's property.
and

2) Axanar is a profit-making enterprise.

This is where you not being a lawyer comes into play. Profit has nothing to do with it. As others have stated.

Both will be hard to prove, especially the latter, because of all the fan films, Axanar has been the most transparent with its fund-raising and its accounting.

I suspect someone getting a salary and building a studio off of Star Trek's name would be considered a profit. So, their transparency is going to bite them in the ass.

There is a third point that would likely be made in such a court case:

If Axanar represents a threat to the copyright, why haven't Paramount and CBS taken steps to shut down New Voyages, Farragut, Renegades, and Continues? What makes Axanar different? What makes Axanar a threat?

The millions dollars? The studio? The giving away of ships based on IP they don't own? But, in the end, it doesn't matter. They chose to do it. They CAN do it.

Paramount/CBS's response would likely be that Axanar represents a professional level of production. Well, yes -- but so does New Voyages. (I can't speak for any of the others on that, although I do know that many professionals have been involved with Continues and Renegades.)

Doesn't it make it NOT a fan film then?

Lucasfilm is the model.

It's the model that would most benefit Axanar. CBS/Paramount doesn't need fan films. LucasFilm doesn't need fan films.


Ugh.

Anyway. I know I'm late to the party. But, as a writer, quite frankly, good on CBS/Paramount for shutting down Axanar. Stealing IP is stealing. Yeah, it sucks that CBS/Paramount hasn't stopped it before, but, that doesn't mean it wasn't stealing.

When you hire professionals you aren't making a fan film anymore.

 

[Danlav05]

FYI Mr Gerrold it's STarSHIP Farragut and Renegades is set post-Nemesis.

Plus most Trek fans like more than just The Original Series, TNG is just as legit.

Thanks.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Anyway. I know I'm late to the party. But, as a writer, quite frankly, good on CBS/Paramount for shutting down Axanar. Stealing IP is stealing. Yeah, it sucks that CBS/Paramount hasn't stopped it before, but, that doesn't mean it wasn't stealing.

When you hire professionals you aren't making a fan film anymore.

Gerrold, and the fans support what he's saying, and those calling for a boycott, are frankly a bunch of ungrateful so and so's. Getting to make fan films is a privilege, not a right - and this is what so many of them seem to miss. It is the generosity of studios like Lucasfilm, the BBC and CBS/Paramount that has allowed major sci-fi franchise fans to play in the sandbox as they have. People need to stop seeing them as corporate villains and realise that are just protecting their interests in what is rightfully theirs. What you say about using the project for indirect commercial endeavours is entirely correct as it is the stage where so called fans in the guise of Peters & Co are sticking their middle fingers up at the generosity of the studio and taking liberties for their own selfish interests. That's when a studio can't go on turning a blind eye.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

FYI Mr Gerrold it's STarSHIP Farragut and Renegades is set post-Nemesis.

Plus most Trek fans like more than just The Original Series, TNG is just as legit.

Thanks.

Sacrilege!!!! He he he.

It is funny that we seems to be in a era where TNG is the show to look down on.

 

[oswriter]

Hey guys,

Working on a new blog now. I found the smoking gun.

Didn't anyone ever tell you most of us are impatient?

Here you go.

To summarize for those of you too lazy to click, in 1998 Paramount sued the author and publisher of an unauthorized Star Trek non-fiction book which basically contained wholesale plot descriptions from TOS. A New York federal judge ruled for Paramount. In doing so, the judge addressed several arguments relevant to the Axanar situation.

1. The defendants argued Paramount should be barred from suing them because the studio failed to pursue other parties who produced similar unauthorized Star Trek books. Here's what the judge said in response:

It is possible that Paramount believed that the other books did not infringe on the Star Trek Properties. It is also possible that Paramount simply has had a change in corporate policy, determining that the market is now ripe for this type of derivative product. Regardless, the lack of earlier litigation against other similar works is simply irrelevant.

2. The defendants argued their book did not duplicate any existing "Star Trek" book and therefore did not hurt the studio's copyright. Again, the judge said that was irrelevant. The defendants' book "serves as a potential substitute" for anyone who wants to learn about the "fictional history of Star Trek." The same argument would apply to Axanar, which is expressly marketed as illustrating a part of Star Trek's fictional history.

3. The defendants said their book only contained a small amount of potentially infringing material, thereby leaving the work as a whole non-infringing. Once more, the judge disagreed: "Copying only small portions of a series of copyrighted works offers no protection for a defendant."

 

[Michael]

Works for me.

That's really strange. I can't make the site show up, whichever browser I'm trying it in. All I get is an the error message saying that it can't find the server. The site does work, however, when I view it with the Google Translator.

To be honest, Gerrold's and Zicree's reaction to all of this is disenchanting for me. I really admire Zicree's phenomenal work for the original Twilight Zone and am baffled that all his inside Hollywood knowledge doesn't seem to inform his stance on the Axanar case.

 

[Squiggy]

Dave... those are IP all owned by CBS/Paramount...

That's his defense? That replicas don't count?

 

[Warped9]

Hey guys,

Working on a new blog now. I found the smoking gun.

Didn't anyone ever tell you most of us are impatient?

Here you go.

To summarize for those of you too lazy to click, in 1998 Paramount sued the author and publisher of an unauthorized Star Trek non-fiction book which basically contained wholesale plot descriptions from TOS. A New York federal judge ruled for Paramount. In doing so, the judge addressed several arguments relevant to the Axanar situation.

1. The defendants argued Paramount should be barred from suing them because the studio failed to pursue other parties who produced similar unauthorized Star Trek books. Here's what the judge said in response:

It is possible that Paramount believed that the other books did not infringe on the Star Trek Properties. It is also possible that Paramount simply has had a change in corporate policy, determining that the market is now ripe for this type of derivative product. Regardless, the lack of earlier litigation against other similar works is simply irrelevant.

2. The defendants argued their book did not duplicate any existing "Star Trek" book and therefore did not hurt the studio's copyright. Again, the judge said that was irrelevant. The defendants' book "serves as a potential substitute" for anyone who wants to learn about the "fictional history of Star Trek." The same argument would apply to Axanar, which is expressly marketed as illustrating a part of Star Trek's fictional history.

3. The defendants said their book only contained a small amount of potentially infringing material, thereby leaving the work as a whole non-infringing. Once more, the judge disagreed: "Copying only small portions of a series of copyrighted works offers no protection for a defendant."

Peters is thoroughly screwed. He better bring his own lubricant because I doubt CBS while provide him with any.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Hey guys,

Working on a new blog now. I found the smoking gun.

Didn't anyone ever tell you most of us are impatient?

Here you go.

To summarize for those of you too lazy to click, in 1998 Paramount sued the author and publisher of an unauthorized Star Trek non-fiction book which basically contained wholesale plot descriptions from TOS. A New York federal judge ruled for Paramount. In doing so, the judge addressed several arguments relevant to the Axanar situation.

1. The defendants argued Paramount should be barred from suing them because the studio failed to pursue other parties who produced similar unauthorized Star Trek books. Here's what the judge said in response:

It is possible that Paramount believed that the other books did not infringe on the Star Trek Properties. It is also possible that Paramount simply has had a change in corporate policy, determining that the market is now ripe for this type of derivative product. Regardless, the lack of earlier litigation against other similar works is simply irrelevant.

2. The defendants argued their book did not duplicate any existing "Star Trek" book and therefore did not hurt the studio's copyright. Again, the judge said that was irrelevant. The defendants' book "serves as a potential substitute" for anyone who wants to learn about the "fictional history of Star Trek." The same argument would apply to Axanar, which is expressly marketed as illustrating a part of Star Trek's fictional history.

3. The defendants said their book only contained a small amount of potentially infringing material, thereby leaving the work as a whole non-infringing. Once more, the judge disagreed: "Copying only small portions of a series of copyrighted works offers no protection for a defendant."

I said as much a couple of days ago. There is no smoking gun. You do not need to read past authority to have been able to deduce this. Infringement is infringement and the flexibility of the studio towards fan productions doesn't deny them their rights under the law.

 

[oswriter]

I said as much a couple of days ago. There is no smoking gun. You do not need to read past authority to have been able to deduce this. Infringement is infringement and the flexibility of the studio towards fan productions doesn't deny them their rights under the law.

Okay, I was being dramatic when I said "smoking gun," but I think this particular case is important because it directly addresses Star Trek. I don't see how Axanar defenders can ignore or argue around this.

 

[oswriter]

Works for me.

That's really strange. I can't make the site show up, whichever browser I'm trying it in. All I get is an the error message saying that it can't find the server. The site does work, however, when I view it with the Google Translator.

Perhaps your browser hates my Iceland-based web host. Here's a link to all of my Axanar posts so far. Hope that helps.

http://skipoliva.com/index.php/category/axanar-litigation/

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

You know, I know he couldn't have done the huge stages that Ares had, but if Peters had done filming on Speakers Corner in the UK, he would be been covered and been immune from prosecution due to certain laws

 

[Professor Zoom]

Dave... those are IP all owned by CBS/Paramount...

That's his defense? That replicas don't count?

I'm not sure what the defense is, other than, others did it too.

Which, is a pretty shitty defense.

And a writer, who lives and dies by copyright protections is shoveling this shit? Amazing.

 

[PPatters]

Here you go.

What I like most about what you wrote here is a quote from the judge's decision:

The test for substantial similarity is “whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.”

More-so even than the book in question here, Axanar meets this test. Why does it meet this test? Dozens of reasons, but most importantly, because Axanar Productions itself admits it meets this test.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I said as much a couple of days ago. There is no smoking gun. You do not need to read past authority to have been able to deduce this. Infringement is infringement and the flexibility of the studio towards fan productions doesn't deny them their rights under the law.

Okay, I was being dramatic when I said "smoking gun," but I think this particular case is importance because it directly addresses Star Trek. I don't see how Axanar defenders can ignore or argue around this.

The fact that it addresses Star Trek is neither here nor there. It could equally apply to any franchise property. The position is made clear by the law, and that is that unauthrorised derivative works of this nature are a breach of copyright. End of. The question the court needs to decide is whether or not there is fair use. That is the only kind of defence that would apply here, and the fact that Peters has indirectly used the production as a vehicle for commercial activities is the real smoking gun, and I don't think he has a leg to stand on in that regard.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Here you go.

What I like most about what you wrote here is a quote from the judge's decision:

The test for substantial similarity is “whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.”

More-so even than the book in question here, Axanar meets this test. Why does it meet this test? Dozens of reasons, but most importantly, because Axanar Productions itself admits it meets this test.

The only test that Peters is going to take soon is the one for STIs after spending a few months with a 450LB cellmate who misses his wife

 

[Professor Zoom]

I said as much a couple of days ago. There is no smoking gun. You do not need to read past authority to have been able to deduce this. Infringement is infringement and the flexibility of the studio towards fan productions doesn't deny them their rights under the law.

Okay, I was being dramatic when I said "smoking gun," but I think this particular case is importance because it directly addresses Star Trek. I don't see how Axanar defenders can ignore or argue around this.

The fact that it addresses Star Trek is neither here nor there. It could equally apply to any franchise property. The position is made clear by the law, and that is that unauthrorised derivative works of this nature are a breach of copyright. End of. The question the court needs to decide is whether or not there is fair use. That is the only kind of defence that would apply here, and the fact that Peters has indirectly used the production as a vehicle for commercial activities is the real smoking gun, and I don't think he has a leg to stand on in that regard.

It may not be neither here nor there legally, but, for some of the Star Trek fans who are standing with Axanar, this specific case might open their eyes a little.

Here you go.

What I like most about what you wrote here is a quote from the judge's decision:

The test for substantial similarity is “whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.”

More-so even than the book in question here, Axanar meets this test. Why does it meet this test? Dozens of reasons, but most importantly, because Axanar Productions itself admits it meets this test.

The only test that Peters is going to take soon is the one for STIs after spending a few months with a 450LB cellmate who misses his wife

1. Rape isn't funny.
2. He's not going to jail for copyright infringement.