AND, according to Peters, he hasn't even casted his production yet.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
AND, according to Peters, he hasn't even casted his production yet.
"Something in return" is going to depend on his bargaining power. Personally I don't see that he is in a strong position in that regard (looking at it from a general point of view), so unless his lawyers have a specific legal argument arising from authority, that may just give a defence some decent merit, then his bargaining position won't be great. I gather from the recent interview that the gist of their defence will be that the studio hasn't come down on other productions so I presume they will argue the studio has given some sort of implied licence for the use of the IP. Well, I can't speak for Californian authorities in that regard so it may be that the firm thinks they have a point of law on which to create authority and, so, from that point of view, the case could be worth it if it goes to trial and they set precedent through a win. Otherwise I don't see what argument can be made for such an overt use of a major IP - and I must say, that from a purely common sense point of view, I would be surprised if a court did set a precedent that implied permission can exist in situations like this, with major brands in question, and the consequence of that would be perverse, with the floodgates open for all kinds of copycat productions popping up.
Of course!But you will leave the wig on, right?
They both seem very similar in that both are about war, darkness and space battles. To me that's only a shred of what Trek is about.
This is one of those things I don't get. Prelude was how long ago? What has he been doing all this time? Why leave it to the last minute to cast the thing?
He's not concerned about helping the case, that's lost. He's concerned about his own legend. He will build his next venture on the reputation he comes out of this with.
If CBS wanted Axanar to "file off the 1701" they would have sent a letter to do so. And Axanar probably would have complied and claimed the 'we are better' argument. Case closed - infringement over - fan film to come.
The fact that they sued - big time - by surprise it seems - implies to me that they object to more than just this being a fan film. They don't like the business practices they see. They don't like the moneys raised. They don't like the "we will be better". They don't like this person associated with their brand, and went after him personally. They don't like the fact that they are 3 years in and still need to raise money. And they don't like the toys, books, coffee, studio-to-make-scifi etc.
Axanar is also really far behind schedule and one could also conclude CBS wants to stop them from raising funds to make a non-existent Trek project. They want to PROTECT the fans from someone who has not delivered and shows little sign of being able to deliver. Really, its February. Shooting was supposed to begin. Are the sets ready? Is their a cast? Et alia.
The fact that they sued - big time - by surprise it seems - implies to me that they object to more than just this being a fan film. They don't like the business practices they see. They don't like the moneys raised. They don't like the "we will be better". They don't like this person associated with their brand, and went after him personally. They don't like the fact that they are 3 years in and still need to raise money. And they don't like the toys, books, coffee, studio-to-make-scifi etc.
Axanar is also really far behind schedule and one could also conclude CBS wants to stop them from raising funds to make a non-existent Trek project. They want to PROTECT the fans from someone who has not delivered and shows little sign of being able to deliver. Really, its February. Shooting was supposed to begin. Are the sets ready? Is their a cast? Et alia.
BUT considering he would be coming on, as a representative of Axanar, wouldn't getting their counsel's sign-off still apply?
My apologies! =P
Hey! He only didn't mean them after people told him they didn't like them.
Last edited:
Winston & Strawn don't represent Robert; they only represent Alec Peters personally and Axanar Productions, Inc. Robert has not (yet) been named in the suit, and even if he had, it's likely he would need to retain his own counsel, so I'm not sure it would be appropriate to ask him to get a sign-off from attorneys who don't represent his interests.
I don't visit this forum much, but I heard about the lawsuit, and now a month later I am very surprised to see them still pushing forward with this production.
It's an absolute no-brainer, ST fan films exist purely at the discretion of the rights holders, the fact this many have been produced without incident is something we should all be grateful to TPTB for, and anybody who gives a shit about the fan film community would not rock the boat like this.
The moment they said stop, this should have stopped.
It's an absolute no-brainer, ST fan films exist purely at the discretion of the rights holders, the fact this many have been produced without incident is something we should all be grateful to TPTB for, and anybody who gives a shit about the fan film community would not rock the boat like this.
The moment they said stop, this should have stopped.
His reputation won't be any stronger for having violated copyright law and been on the receiving end of a major lawsuit. He can claim victory all he wants, but no billionaire investor or Hollywood mogul will buy it.
When is he DONE? When did he START? How many dudes in their 50s without a record of success is going to be hired by a major player in the movie industry? He can probably do some indy stuff that he or friends or others finance, but this isn't John Davis or Jerry Bruckheimer right? I mean other than someone who personally knows Rob Burnett or is a BIG Trek fan, who in Hollywood would even take his call? Is he a member of the producers guild? Has anyone ever paid him to produce a movie other than himself? What does he even KNOW about movie production? From all I have seen he decided to call himself a movie producer but I can't just decide to label myself an engineer and start building a bridge across a river.
"Hi, my name is Jay. I am an engineer and I want to build you a bridge. My experience? Well, I got people to donate to a bridge I was going to build. What happened with that? Well, I was sued because someone didn't like that I was going to build a bridge on their land. But really, the bridge they built on their land was ugly and MINE was going to be great. What? No, we didn't get to build it because they sued us for trespassing, which is dumb because they let someone else build a bridge and didn't sue them. But, whatever. They're haters. Still, we did set up some sweet engineering offices and--
Hello?
Hello?
I think we got disconnected."
Last edited:
We talked about this for over 2 hours last night, oy. And what Carlos said is pretty much what we realized, e. g. RMB may or may not have representation by now but it's not necessarily Winston & Strawn, and it probably is not.
We will definitely talk about this on Sunday but that was the crux of it, that there is ongoing litigation and Mr. Burnett may or may not be represented by counsel.
It gives me a headache just thinking about this stuff.
Yes. He is done making films of any kind. He will go back to selling props, something he seems to actually know how to do.
- Status