• 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.
Remember, the guidelines in and of themselves don't do anything. They just create a safe harbor where CBS/P says they won't sue you if you abide by them. You're free to blow off the guidelines, but then you run the risk of CBS/P suing you. And it should't be pointed out that doesn't mean you'd necessarily lose the lawsuit -- that would depend on exactly what you did. For example, if you did something outside the guidelines and CBS/P disliked it enough to sue you, but it was fair use, you'd win. Of course, good luck coming up with the $ to defend against the suit!
 
ThankYouGeneR said:
Correct me if I'm off base on this.... but with these guide lines in place and now Official... it gives me the idea that this litigation could immediately be dropped. I mean, I never thought the, what do you call it, the itemized requests for monetary re.. something was ever more than a bargaining chip. C/P needs this, I'm going to say 'out of control guy', but the litigation says Production, to be stopped. Siting the Independent Star Trek film IP infringement. Well, yeah.

But it was/(is?) much much bigger: All the money raised and continuing to be raised under ST IP auspices that did not go On That Damned Screen but instead to crowdfunding fees, wages, studio, perks, possible business streaming service, donor store, planned for business of film making... all that stuff we've been, well I've been, saying WTF??? about.

And these guidelines seem to have addressed every one of our (and suspected 'their') issues with this wtf money issue.

Right?

So, at this very minute, with the movie in question not yet made, that now can not be made under these guidelines, covers ever issue we've been pushing....... with the exception of How Do We Get Our Money Back for those wanting this to happen. Right?

So as of exactly right now couldn't C/P say: 'Okay, sir, we will drop our requests for (those requests for IP infringement money} and not push this to trial if you'd like.'



And since the litigation was never about the donors getting 'our' donations back, that's going to be our job.... however this has gone on long enough, with enough legal and lay people who understand just 'how' we can now begin to address getting our donations back that that information has possibly already begun being circulated.

And I suspect the people who donated in the thousands and per Mr. Gossett TEN THOUSAND??? are already on it.

Therefore, unless Ms. Ranahan still desires a trial to get an IP Achievement Award of some kind, and unless the defendant is up for a trail where he can't get that damned movie made anyway.....

This litigation could be over in everything but the paperwork... at any moment.

Couldn't it?
Click to expand...

Why should the lawsuit be dropped now? It was never (IMHO) about just making production on Axanar pause while CBS/Paramount put together some fan film guidelines. It was recognizing that Axanar had seriously infringed C/P's IP, making them stop doing so permanently, and making an example of them to discourage others from stepping so far over the line in the future.

If the lawsuit is dropped now, telling Peters et al to proceed under the new guidelines, it still leaves them in possession of their shiny new studio (under whatever name), paid for using C/P's IP. Why would C/P do that? I can't think of any reason they would gladly cede Axanar a free business-starter gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. That should be very high on their list of "things we want from Axanar".

Edit to add: No, I don't think there will be any serious, organized effort by donors to get their money back. Too much money and effort to coordinate such an undertaking, for very little return. So Alec keeps possession of $$$ unless the trial makes him hand it over to C/P as penalties. Realistically, that's the most that will happen.
 
Last edited:
If under guideline #9 a fan film cannot claim copyright on their work, and guideline #3 requiring proper written permissions to use someone else's 'non Star Trek' work protect, then how are fan films protected from each other?
Click to expand...
I am wondering whether Trek fan films being required to give up copyright means other fan films can go at them.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a bit confusion here. The guidelines state, “Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law.” This is somewhat misleading. Unlike trademark, copyright does not require any registration or formal act on the part of the creator. Copyright exists from the moment an original work is produced in fixed form. And while copyright can be assigned, it generally cannot be abandoned.

In terms of fan films that mix copyrighted and original elements, here is what the Copyright Office’s regulations state:

The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
Click to expand...

So even if a fan film includes existing copyrighted materially illegally appropriated rom CBS and Paramount, the original elements of said film would still automatically receive copyright protection. It doesn’t matter if the fan film producer fails to actually register their work with the Copyright Office.
 
QuantumMechanic said:
Remember, the guidelines in and of themselves don't do anything. They just create a safe harbor where CBS/P says they won't sue you if you abide by them. You're free to blow off the guidelines, but then you run the risk of CBS/P suing you. And it should't be pointed out that doesn't mean you'd necessarily lose the lawsuit -- that would depend on exactly what you did. For example, if you did something outside the guidelines and CBS/P disliked it enough to sue you, but it was fair use, you'd win. Of course, good luck coming up with the $ to defend against the suit!
Click to expand...

But CBS can effectively stifle any such production by making copyright claims on various video sharing services. You can make it, but the possibility exists no one would ever see it.
 
DrCorby said:
Edit to add: No, I don't think there will be any serious, organized effort by donors to get their money back. Too much money and effort to coordinate such an undertaking, for very little return. So Alec keeps possession of $$$ unless the trial makes him hand it over to C/P as penalties. Realistically, that's the most that will happen.
Click to expand...
I see your point.

I also forgot about the high dollar attorneys fees C/P are racking up.. Those mounting fees might possibly be, in an understatement, substantial by this date. So, I will amend my previous scenario to include this addition: 'Okay, Sir, we will drop our requests for (those requests for IP infringement money}, not push this to trial, and drop this lawsuit, if you agree to pay our substantial attorney costs and court costs.'

And I'm thinking about the costs that actually can be cited for the high dollar hourly costs with high dollar attorneys brilliantly adept at billing every single minute of every telephone call, interviews, speaking about the case passing each other in the hallway, research, paralegal work on every thing they done down to using the copy machine, group meetings, emailings, memos, and myriad other avenues of billing that is charged by attorneys. These guys will not miss a second of time that can be billed.

I'm thinking this C/P attorneys' billing can already be approaching six figures if not there and past already.

So 'that' could hypothetically wipe out any dollars the defendant has on hand and can get hold of... without it being able to be perceived that the defendant didn't keep 'our' money. C/P took kept 'our' money. Which I could imagine would be... well, it just wouldn't sit well.

But if the lawyers' & court proceeding whatever costs took most or all of the money anyway C/P would not be spun as simply pocketing our money.

That 'could' address your good point and issue addressing leaving the defendant with nothing. Couldn't it?
 
Last edited:
muCephi said:
I know they don't *have* to, but still, they are adults articulating a position about what it is ok to do in the context of Trek. Having multiple standards is a bit strange.
Click to expand...

Seems like common sense to me. People will interpret the presence of guidelines to mean that the productions that work within the guidelines are now de facto approved by CBS/P. Which means that if anyone gets offended by something in a fan film, cranky people will aim their crank at CBS/P. Why would the latter want to have to clean up messes created by other people?

There's nothing I've seen in the guidelines to suggest that this is going to work the way that licenced properties work. The people doing the books and comics work closely with licencing people on what kinds of stories can be told. CBS/P don't want that kind of relationship with fan film producers, so instead of working case by case, they're creating more specific and sweeping guidelines so they don't have to judge each proposed fan film before and during production. Looked at from that perspective, there's still a lot of freedom for fan film producers.
 
CaptGrumpy said:
In case you haven't seen it yet, Renegades has released a statement about how they are proceeding.
Click to expand...
Verklempt. I love Mr. Russ so much. The man does nothing without putting his heart and soul into it. And I am so proud of his wonderful statement to his own fans during this crisis of change, his expression of love of Trek (thank you Mr. Tuvok), and his utmost respect for IP...

AND HIS BRILLIANT WORKAROUND to continue with his and his supporters' plans!!

Mr. Russ, if you ever read this please know I have agonized your position due to... this situation. And where I have always respected your ethics in the way you live and work... that same respect has just now soared exponentially as I read your statement.

You, Sir, are the Man!
Live long, Sir...... and PROSPER!!!
 
@muCephi and @oswriter - agreed - it is going to get ugly if a character, ship, planet, etc. is sort of a hybrid. My example in the blog is Dr. McKennah. The character, to be sure, is original, but she does not exist without the Trek IP. I know CBS/Paramount had already told STC and Michele Specht to not charge for autographs on images with her in uniform. So far as I am aware, STC as a group and Specht as an individual have complied with these requests. Don't know if such requests were made of people like Grant Imahara, Todd Haberkorn, Vic Mignonia (I've probably just mangled some surnames. Mea culpa).

Certainly some original content will be easier to parse out than other stuff, but this McKennah character may turn into a legal Gordian knot.

@ThankYouGeneR Why should CBS/Paramount drop the lawsuit? Seriously, these are overall guidelines and they cover not only Axanar but also Potemkin, New Voyages, etc. There was never any reason to make them a part of any settlement. Keeping them separate means they are not a concession and they are removed from the settlement equation.

I suspect the plaintiffs are looking to sew up two things in settlement:
  • The studio and
  • The mailing list of donors
Both of these are potentially huge and ongoing sources of revenue for the defense, and they are both a lot harder to oversee. That mailing list could be worth a million all by itself.

PS @DrCorby On TV, hmmm? Naomi Watts (if she would do TV) or Suzanne Somers. Voiced by Fran Drescher, of course. <3
 
Yup. That's a good point too. And if I somehow implied I thought the Guidelines were part of my hypothetical settlement scenario, nah, I definitely wasn't. I was attempting to say 'Well, with these Guidelines now in place... I can imagine this (my) scenario' and wondering about, and asking for, feedback in flaws of my proposed scenario.
 
Last edited:
muCephi said:
Of course.

And I am not asserting that they must be 'fair'.

But there is an observation to be made that the 'family friendy' guidelines are rooted not in some arbitrary ruling by the studios, but in the studios' internal guidelines that material in general public circulation should conform to some 'safe' boundaries. It is perhaps broadened in this case in an attempt to preempt edge cases, but it comes from somewhere. Part network, part FCC at least.

The argument made by the staffer of the new show wrt/ going outside these bounds is that the show is on CBS all access and thus does not have to conform to the network standards of 'safe' boundaries.

Its an interesting phenomenon. Do they really still think that the online version of their network is a private 'adult' (paid for by a foolproof credit system guaranteeing adult supervision) club with respect to the public?

It won't be just adults watching Trek over the net. I wonder if they can really get away anymore with this distinction between radio waves on the one side, and coax channels/internet packets carrying a paid service on the other.

And if the distinction is meaningless these days, if the boundary isn't really 'family friendly' the way they laid it out, then how do they explain their stance? I know they don't *have* to, but still, they are adults articulating a position about what it is ok to do in the context of Trek. Having multiple standards is a bit strange.
Click to expand...

Multiple standards aren't strange. CBS and Paramount want to make whatever they make and because they own it, they can. They don't want fanfilms going in directions they aren't comfortable with without any control.

I feel like people believe there is an even playing field. That everything should be fair.

The reality is: fanfilms are at the kids table with permission from the grown ups. And because one kid got unruly, the adults responded.
 
muCephi said:
Question for Jespah wrt/ your analysis of the guidelines:

If under guideline #9 a fan film cannot claim copyright on their work, and guideline #3 requiring proper written permissions to use someone else's 'non Star Trek' work protect, then how are fan films protected from each other? My guess is, probably not at all. But the studio intent seems to be to exclude the 'official' material (that for which the guidelines exempt permission requirements).

And what is 'non Star Trek' in guideline 3? Is it professional content, or is it also amateur content? If someone makes a fan film out of someone else's fanfic, have they violated the studio guidelines themselves? Can the fanfic defend themselves if they didn't have the right to use the Star Trek universe to start with?


Just curious. The grand plan for empire building by superfans appears to be exhaustively dead, and may even end in a nova in court.
Click to expand...

Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law.
NOR: Used before the second or further of two or more alternatives.
The written script is basic in the creation of a production and the statement "Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works" stands on it's own, everything after the "nor" is additional information/conditions.
Without registration of the authors work anyone can latter claim ownership and demand a take down notice on streaming services (without any involvement of C/P)
Peters and his band of nonhaters would have a field day issuing copyright demands on You tube while the author can no longer hold the title to their own work.
Honestly this could evolve into a food fight.
 
ThankYouGeneR said:
I see your point.

I also forgot about the high dollar attorneys fees C/P are racking up.. Those mounting fees might possibly be, in an understatement, substantial by this date. So, I will amend my previous scenario to include this addition: 'Okay, Sir, we will drop our requests for (those requests for IP infringement money}, not push this to trial, and drop this lawsuit, if you agree to pay our substantial attorney costs and court costs.'

And I'm thinking about the costs that actually can be cited for the high dollar hourly costs with high dollar attorneys brilliantly adept at billing every single minute of every telephone call, interviews, speaking about the case passing each other in the hallway, research, paralegal work on every thing they done down to using the copy machine, group meetings, emailings, memos, and myriad other avenues of billing that is charged by attorneys. These guys will not miss a second of time that can be billed.

I'm thinking this C/P attorneys' billing can already be approaching six figures if not there and past already.

So 'that' could hypothetically wipe out any dollars the defendant has on hand and can get hold of... without it being able to be perceived that the defendant didn't keep 'our' money. C/P took kept 'our' money. Which I could imagine would be... well, it just wouldn't sit well.

But if the lawyers' & court proceeding whatever costs took most or all of the money anyway C/P would not be spun as simply pocketing our money.

That 'could' address your good point and issue addressing leaving the defendant with nothing. Couldn't it?
Click to expand...

Again, I never thought this was really about getting the money that Axanar was making, as far as C/P was concerned. Paying for legal representation is just part of doing business for C/P. The money that was at stake for them was fan films diminishing the profitability of their TV and film franchises -- whether by diverting fan funds or by making rotten product that makes fans less likely to support the official products.

(Understand, I'm not saying fan films are bad. Most of what I've seen has been enjoyable to some extent. I was even looking forward to seeing what Axanar might become, though not enough to give them money. But there are lots of people out there, not involved fans, who might stumble across a fan production and say, "This is terrible. Star Trek stinks!" and never want to see anything else labeled Star Trek. THAT is what C/P had to protect against.)

So C/P isn't going after Axanar to pay for something. Depriving Axanar of assets to continue infringing C/P's IP, both physical (the studio & equipment) and funds (piles of donor cash), is the goal. If it takes more money to accomplish that than they receive as an award or in settlement, so be it. Their goals are met, and, ultimately, they save themselves from greater losses. It's all strategic. That is why I think dropping the lawsuit without Peters giving up everything is very unlikely.

I understannd that many people just want all of this to just go away so we can get back to enjoying Star Trek. Unfortunately, C/P has some very important points that must be made. And until that happens, the lawsuit will continue.
 
Last edited:
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