CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
From Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for Star Trek (March 1964): "Action - Adventure - Science Fiction"AudioGene said:
Is it confirmed that it's in the movie, or just the teaser? And the same song ("Sabotage") is in the 2009 film, so you may be seven years late with this observation.AudioGene said:
It's not "nefarious" when you are the legal copyright holder. Raising money off of someone else's property is nefarious. Using that money to do something other than delivering what was promised is nefarious.AudioGene said:
They were only going to make one film.AudioGene said:
Prelude to Axanar - posted August 14, 2014 = 2,211,873 viewsAudioGene said:
Star Trek Beyond - posted December 14, 2015 = 14,904,814 views
I don't see a threat there.
Axanar hasn't completed a set or casting yet. Paramount has a movie filmed and is on course to release it in 2 months.AudioGene said:
That's how business works and CBS and Paramount are in show business.AudioGene said:
Neil
That's the thing. Words have meaning and you're requesting criticism, which means the audience is going to react to your word choices.
Despite Alec Peter's claims, Axanar is not a "non-profit" and has made money based upon Star Trek IP, which they cannot profit from. Even if the crowd funding isn't the issue, the sales of coffee, models, discussions with David Galanter writing tie in novels would be.
Also, AP constantly claims that it isn't a fan film, save for when it is expedient. The claim was that Axanar was a "professional grade" film, not "just a fan film." The facts don't support Axanar's claims.
Also, regardless of the opinion on Abrams Trek, the fact that they made money is not "anti-Trek" because GR tried to make money off of Star Trek for years.
Despite Alec Peter's claims, Axanar is not a "non-profit" and has made money based upon Star Trek IP, which they cannot profit from. Even if the crowd funding isn't the issue, the sales of coffee, models, discussions with David Galanter writing tie in novels would be.
Also, AP constantly claims that it isn't a fan film, save for when it is expedient. The claim was that Axanar was a "professional grade" film, not "just a fan film." The facts don't support Axanar's claims.
Also, regardless of the opinion on Abrams Trek, the fact that they made money is not "anti-Trek" because GR tried to make money off of Star Trek for years.
You mean St. Gene wasn't dispensing "Roddenberry's Vision" out of the goodness of his heart?!?
"Magic Carpet Ride" is a Star Trek hymn!
Says the guy who's whigning in a blog about a 10 year old reboot?
Language is important. Plus, it is better to be precise than to blame your audience for paying attention to what you typed.
Just to take our minds off an appalling write up by @AudioGene, the DPRK appears to not like Star Trek
https://twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/731904782781272065
https://twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/731904782781272065
A
Amaris
Guest
If the other contributors at Audioholics.com are like this, there's no way I'd ever take any kind of advice, or listen to reviews from that site. I couldn't trust that the information wouldn't be absurdly slanted and factually in error, based off of what I've read by @AudioGene, along with his responses.
DPRK News Service said:
Oh, wait. Are they talking about George Takei or John Cho? Because Cho isn't, you know, Japanese. Should we tell them?
Why mention it at all if you have a footnote saying that your point is entirely wrong and they're not a non profit and never have been?
This "they're not making a profit" thing is ludicrous anyway. You and your mates getting together and spending your money on sets, costumes, equipment, etc to make a fan film = non profit. Very non profit. Loss making, in fact. Using a crowd funding site to generate over a million dollars and using that to buy sets, costumes, equipment, carpet, etc. is making a profit - you end up with stuff you didn't have before bought with someone else's money. Your net worth, if you like, has risen considerably. All raised from exploiting somebody else's intellectual property.
"They don't make a profit"? Bullshit.
Don't forget taking a salary. That is directly profiting from the IP. Only CBS/P can hire people to make Star Trek.
Not only do you end up with stuff you didn't have before that was bought with someone else's money, in Axanar's case you end up with a (presumably) fully-functioning studio that can then be either rented out to other filmmakers or used for non-fan film (i.e. commercial) purposes.
Those crowdfunding campaigns were startup capital for a commercial venture.
That's not "non-profit."
@AudioGene: are you seeing now the factual errors you made? As asked, we've pointed them out repeatedly at your request. It's just that most of us here see what AP has been doing, and don't like it. The small portion of Star Trek fandom that stands by AP will likely start to disperse when they see that he's used them to start a for profit business venture, now rebranded Valkyrie Studios.
I'm sorry that you don't see anything wrong with that, but when you look at the statements, that AP presents then it's a reasonable conclusion. And he doesn't have the right or legal standing to do this.
I'm sorry that you don't see anything wrong with that, but when you look at the statements, that AP presents then it's a reasonable conclusion. And he doesn't have the right or legal standing to do this.
Agreed and in hindsight, I'm glad it came up here before it went public and our audience may have taken the words the wrong way. Thank you.
I hope that isn't the case. However you can rest assured if it is proven in the court of law to be, we will do a followup article. We are not fanboys of Axanar or Alec Peters and we will call him out if warranted once the dust settles.
We are sticklers for people/companies that abuse copyright IP and trademarks, etc as you can see in the following examples:
https://www.audioholics.com/news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
https://www.audioholics.com/news/monster-cable-mini-golf
Well I would like to see one shred of evidence of the 501(c) being applied for other than AP saying so. It takes about a year to do this and they have not even started the paperwork to do it so why even mention it in your article; particularly when they have stated by their own comments and actions that they ARE for profit. It's totally misleading to publish that.
I really detest this elitist, holier than thou, attitude. I mean it's not like OldTrek wasn't made to appease the masses, or "dumbed down", or ever recycled plots. At worst NuTrek is guilty of the same sins as the rest of the Franchise, no better or worse than all of it. It's the reason I could never really get into projects like Axanar which are based on this sort of "we know better because we're staying true to the Vision (TM)", in spite of the fact that all evidence indicates that they were making a pretty straight forward shoot'em up film. It's not a bad thing to be that, but it's kind of hard for me to really get into with everything that's been said about it by the people making it.
Understood and I added the final statement to the article for people to share their views in our forum when it goes live:
Do you think CBS/Paramount are being unreasonable with their lawsuit against Axanar Productions, or do you think Axanar Productions is taking advantage of copyright for their own personal gains? Please share your views in our related forum thread below.
- Status