• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Hinman said:
Nothing against you, Tom, but it's not that I am a good guesser. :) That is what I was told, back in 2008. And it already was verified to me with the first version of this complaint, because a licensee could not be a party in a copyright infringement claim — at least not as the plaintiff. No more than Pocket Books or Creation Entertainment.
Click to expand...

Your right, that is very logical based the first complaint, but this is first time it was officially spelled out from an official source. Yeah we both get 'told' things from people on the inside, and of course, they are not things we can prove with a link and because we also the need to protect the sources we get this from. Well at least some questions have been answered and that is a good thing.

Just curious, what was you first thought when you read the amended claim and saw they quoted Alec from your interview?
 
Michael Hinman said:
Nothing against you, Tom, but it's not that I am a good guesser. :) That is what I was told, back in 2008. And it already was verified to me with the first version of this complaint, because a licensee could not be a party in a copyright infringement claim — at least not as the plaintiff. No more than Pocket Books or Creation Entertainment.
Click to expand...
No, an exclusive licensee can be a party, per 17 U.S. Code § 201 (d)(2) - an exclusive license as "transfer of copyright ownership" is defined in 17 U.S. Code § 101
 
Tom said:
Just curious, what was you first though when you read the amended claim and saw they quoted Alec from your interview?
Click to expand...

Well, considering the size of my ego, it made me very happy. :D

In all honesty, I believe I told both my managing editor and the writer (John Kirk) that the "violating IP" line would be the one that if it something from the story made it into the court case, it would be that.

To me, it's like trying to get out of a speeding ticket, but telling a cop you were speeding "just a little." That just admitted to speeding, and guess what, you're boned. :)
 
Thoughts:

1. Prelude was very good, even excellent, for a fan film. But in my opinion it doesn't hold a candle to a "professional" production.
2. I hope it doesn't happen, but I can see the remote possibiliity of James Cawley being named as a Doe defendant because of his involvement, however limited, in Peters' shenanigans.
3. I'm surprised that the industry professionals involved have not run away screaming from AP thus far. Anyone who hangs on at this point is in danger of sinking his own career.

After all is said and done, no fan film producer with half a brain will touch AP with a 10 foot pole.
 
Michael Hinman said:
Yeah, it's not responsible reporting, in my opinion.

If you take those things out of context, it appears petty. But presented with the whole, it makes a big difference.

One also could say "how can they copyright space adventure" or whatever that was specifically (I'm doing 100 things at once right now, and I'm too lazy to go back and look) is petty as well. But that's not why it's there ... it's to show that this is NOT a transformative work.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have been elbow-deep in that amended complaint, and the minutiae were added to:
  • Address the Motion to Dismiss's assertion that the cause of action wasn't based on anything sufficiently specific - and then blow that out of the water
  • Show a pattern of infringement occurring intentionally and over a long-term period (intent is not an element of this cause of action but this could go to damages)
  • Demonstrate infringements by potential Doe defendants, e. g. costumers, makeup artists, crafters, and the like. In the event that they are named, this information would help avert pushes for specificity by them and
  • Establish the look and feel of genuine Star Trek and assure its uniqueness gets into the record
 
urbandefault said:
After all is said and done, no fan film producer with half a brain will touch AP with a 10 foot pole.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for my fan film producer brethren, but this one with his only one quarter of a brain concurs with your assessment. My "10-foot pole guideline" has already been invoked--even before everything is said and done--regardless of the outcome.
 
Perhaps if AP looked up the origin of the expression "wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole", he'd finally grasp how much trouble his project is in from this lawsuit. Sorry to be morbid. Nothing else seems to be getting through to him. He could still come out of it I think without too much personal damage if he would just face the music and shut up, but the project is well and truly over.
 
GSchnitzer said:
I can't speak for my fan film producer brethren, but this one with his only one quarter of a brain concurs with your assessment. My "10-foot pole guideline" has already been invoked--even before everything is said and done--regardless of the outcome.
Click to expand...
That's good to hear, but I was pretty sure that's what you'd say. ;)

muCephi said:
Perhaps if AP looked up the origin of the expression "wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole", he'd finally grasp how much trouble his project is in from this lawsuit. Sorry to be morbid. Nothing else seems to be getting through to him. He could still come out of it I think without too much personal damage if he would just face the music and shut up, but the project is well and truly over.
Click to expand...

We're a long way out from a final result, but I think when it's all said and done AP will still be in denial for a long time, and possibly for the rest of his miserable life.

I'm afraid that he'll use his personal failure to poison the well for future fan films, and True Believers* might just follow him down that long road to hell.
 
Last edited:
Tom said:
Well the amended claim finally officially answers one question Myself, @Michael Hinman, and few others were debating about this past summer. If Paramount has Star Trek ownership rights or is just a license holder. Turns out they not a license holder and do have own the official film rights to Star Trek, While CBS owns the TV rights. Since the split in 2006 this has never been officially clarified until now.
Click to expand...
As you basing that on this?

18. CBS owns United States copyrights in the Star Trek Television Series​
and Paramount owns the United States copyrights in the Star Trek Motion Pictures.
Plaintiffs have duly registered copyrights in and to the Star Trek Television Series
and Star Trek Motion Pictures with the United States Copyright Office and have
complied with all applicable statutory registration and renewal requirements.​

Because to my eye that merely says who owns the U.S. copyrights to the existing works, not what the overall ownership of the I.P. is. Perhaps that is implied.
 
Karzak said:
Well, the Axanar mentality seems to have spread to the Exeter Facebook group as well.

After daring to post an opposing viewpoint on the entire matter there, one of their Axanar-faithful acolytes repeatedly engaged me on the matter, repeatedly only capable of responding to me with variations of the same response:

"No, it definitely wasn't that you had a valid point to make. For that to be true, you would have had to have made a valid point, and you did not."

...or some version of same. More idiocy from this fanboy genius: "Honestly, I never fail to be stunned at whata silly, stupid blunder this is on CBS/Paramount's part. At what point does going to war against your very best customers seem advisable?"


The same, echo chamber circle jerk. This is why I hate superfans.

Now, apparently, the admins there have taken to censoring opposing viewpoints, removing completely my comments and now relegating me to "admin approval pending" in order to comment, without any kind of explanation.

Which, I guess I understand, but at the same time, having supported the production of Exeter I'm astonished that they'd be in bed with the Axanar crowd. and this kind of power play to tamp down any kind of negative discussion about Axanar there has been quite disappointing to witness.

I'd be lying if I said this kind of one-sided approach hasn't tarnished my love of Exeter's two fan films, and it is easy enough to block the guy, but until today, I thought those guys were better than this. :(
Click to expand...

I am one of the admins over at the Exeter group. The member who started that thread deleted their post, which deleted the chain of messages that followed. We don't censor at the Exeter page, unless it is someone spamming, or being abusive to other members. People have the right to express themselves at our group page without fear of censorship.
 
Captain Atkin said:
I am one of the admins over at the Exeter group. The member who started that thread deleted their post, which deleted the chain of messages that followed. We don't censor at the Exeter page, unless it is someone spamming, or being abusive to other members. People have the right to express themselves at our group page without fear of censorship.
Click to expand...

It probably would be better to restrict any ability to delete posts to be under admin control. Allowing someone to seed a discussion, and then if the direction it goes is not to their liking, wipe the entire thread or response chain, is probably too much authority for a non-admin to have. For the cases where it is an erroneous initial post, the usual might be to ask an admin to clean it up. at least that is what I have seen various places.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top