CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[mkstewartesq]

This could discourage people who simply have fair use or parody defense from seeking registration. Is that legal, to threaten lawsuit without at least being clear on this point?

@muCephi - in addition to the response @oswriter gave, I'll add the following: who is threatening anyone with a lawsuit?

I'm seeing a common misconception among various people that the guidelines are various things that they are not. They are not a threat to sue if a filmmaker does not comply with them. They are not a threat to sue if a filmmaker affirmatively does anything that is prohibited by the guidelines. Finally, they are not even "rules" to which there is any stated consequence if they are broken.

They are, merely, exactly what they say they are: guidelines which, if a filmmaker follows all of them, he or she can consider himself or herself free from the threat of a lawsuit by the studio. However, there is no corresponding statement – express or implied – in the guidelines that there is automatically any punitive consequence to not following the guidelines. The Studio may object or it may not. The only clear consequence from not following any of the guidelines is that the studio has not affirmatively told you that they will not object to your production. That's it.

The guidelines simply provide a safe harbor if you follow all of them – but they do not in any way constitue a threat of - or grounds for - liability if you do not. It is strictly the choice of the filmmaker as to whether it wants to follow the stated conditions and avail itself of the safe harbor that is being offered.

M

 

[asurob]

I can't believe Axanar still has their Donor Store open. Seems like the attorney's would've told them to close it. I'm really beginning to question the quality of their representation.

That store has to be first on the hit list. It was bizarre to me when it was opened up and remains bizarre that they just keep selling things right in the face of the lawsuit.

 

[muCephi]

Not sure how continuing to sell unauthorized merchandise is going to make a jury more sympathetic to their cause?

Only thing I can imagine is that it is an obstacle to settlement and so keep it open.

But maybe, and I am thinking now this could be true, W&S may have found they have an albatross around their neck (look it up ). They may be pushing for settlement and just not getting anywhere. This does seem like the simpler explanation.

 

[muCephi]

@muCephi - in addition to the response @oswriter gave, i'll add the following: who is threatening anyone with a lawsuit?
The guidelines simply provide a safe harbor if you follow all of them – but they do not in any way constitue a threat of - or grounds for - liability if you do not. It is strictly the choice of the filmmaker as to whether it wants to follow the stated conditions and avail itself of the safe harbor that is being offered.
M

Thanks. I see the safe harbor idea a bit more clearly now. Fan film, we are not commenting on your right to register your own unique elements. You may have that right. We are just saying if you are willing to voluntarily forfeit those rights as well, that would be part of the cost of safe harbor.

 

[RedForman]

Funny thing:

Because I'm a stinker, I tweeted the link to Vic Mignogna's statement on the fan

Axanar didn't reply publicly, but did direct-message me to accuse Vic of being a serial womanizer/adulterer. As if that had anything to do the fact that CBS/Paramount's intellectual property rights should be respected. Classy, right?

This is funny coming from Alec. In any event, with public opinion squarely against him, he should be more worried about the legal side of things and how bad the financial penalties might be.

And now, according to Axanar Management, Prelude would've been terrible were it not for RMB. Gossett "Flaked" apparently. I'm not posting links, surely by now nobody needs them?

This ongoing routine of of slating people who speak out against Alec Peters is so predictable it doesn't exactly suggest the Axanar script would've been an original piece of work, the guy clearly lacks imagination.

RMB may be a good guy at the core (as told from Christian Gossett's perspective), but he's been nothing but spineless this whole time and now it's pretty evident Alec is playing him like a sock puppet.

 

[mkstewartesq]

Thanks. I see the safe harbor idea a bit more clearly now. Fan film, we are not commenting on your right to register your own unique elements. You may have that right. We are just saying if you are willing to voluntarily forfeit those rights as well, that would be part of the cost of safe harbor.

Excellent summary, @muCephi.
M

 

[Karzak]

Seen on Facebook:

 

[muCephi]

So I have a question. If the only violation is using a pro who has been involved in a licensee (as opposed to a direct contractor to the studio), what real grounds does the studio have for a lawsuit?

I understand that noncompetes can be signed with direct employees like actors, and *maybe some* licensees (like novel writers) have something similar. But especially for producers of dvds for example, wouldn't the noncompete with those people be wrt/ the licensee making off-license dvd copies, rather than their employees doing star trek creative content in a different context than their dvd business?

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

@dmac I'm pretty sure @jespah was saying that if CBS/P wanted to use a story idea from Potemkin that they would compensate those who created said story idea. Everyone pretty much knows that I don't pay anyone anything other than the twice-a-year pest control visit (for carpenter ants and scorpions) and an occasional electrician for some work that our volunteer Dan Thompson or I can't quite reach (i.e. on a ladder 15' above the sets).

I'm sure that CBS/P would have no interest in appropriating anyone's story ideas regardless of series. Their intent seems to be to prevent someone unscrupulous to claim ownership of an idea for an official production.

We've now revised our copyright statement (which was almost word-for-word that was handed down) for our next two productions, and post-production continues.

 

[urbandefault]

Claiming CBS and Paramount have "no understanding of the concept of Star Trek fandom" makes Star Trek fandom sound like a form of mental illness.

This is not a new concept.

 

[urbandefault]

I can't believe Axanar still has their Donor Store open. Seems like the attorney's would've told them to close it. I'm really beginning to question the quality of their representation.

Just now?

 

[urbandefault]

Only thing I can imagine is that it is an obstacle to settlement and so keep it open.

But maybe, and I am thinking now this could be true, W&S may have found they have an albatross around their neck (look it up ). They may be pushing for settlement and just not getting anywhere. This does seem like the simpler explanation.

Albatross?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Professor Zoom]

So I have a question. If the only violation is using a pro who has been involved in a licensee (as opposed to a direct contractor to the studio), what real grounds does the studio have for a lawsuit?

Copyright infringement. The fan films are STILL infringing on CBS/Paramount's copyright. CBS and Paramount are just saying: we won't hassle you if you follow these guidelines.

I understand that noncompetes can be signed with direct employees like actors, and *maybe some* licensees (like novel writers) have something similar. But especially for producers of dvds for example, wouldn't the noncompete with those people be wrt/ the licensee making off-license dvd copies, rather than their employees doing star trek creative content in a different context than their dvd business?

It's not about competing or not. Fan films aren't supposed to make any money anyway. I think the rule is in place 1. It fucks up Axanar good and plenty and 2. With a lot of older Star Trek actors showing up, there could be brand confusion.

 

[mkstewartesq]

So I have a question. If the only violation is using a pro who has been involved in a licensee (as opposed to a direct contractor to the studio), what real grounds does the studio have for a lawsuit?

@miCephi - sorry if I am missing something here, but just reading your statement – again, no violation of any of the rules gives the studio any "grounds for a lawsuit".

That's not how these rules work. The studio is starting from the proposition that any fan film is potentially infringing and therefore needs their permission to be made and shown. The rules are simply a set of terms that, if the filmmaker follows them, the studio won't object to what would be in infringing work. Since the studio is making the offer not to sue, they can condition that offer on any terms they want – for example, one of the terms could be "One of our rules is that everyone in the film must wear a funny hat."

But failure to follow them does not, in and of itself, give rise to any liability on anyone's part that wasn't already there by virtue of the work being infringing. For example, the studio still cannot bring any type of lawsuit where the allegation is "you broke rule number one and rule number three and you are liable to us for not complying with those rules". The allegation will always be " you created an infringing work," and the rules will only come into play if the filmmaker tries to claim that they were promised they wouldn't be sued. At that point the studio can simply say that the filmmaker did not meet the required terms to receive the benefit of the promise to not be sued. In effect, it's almost analogous to a contest – you don't have to enter the contest but, if you enter the contest and don't follow the rules set by the entity offering the contest, you don't get sued – you just don't get the chance to win.

M

 

[muCephi]

Copyright infringement. The fan films are STILL infringing on CBS/Paramount's copyright. CBS and Paramount are just saying: we won't hassle you if you follow these guidelines.



It's not about competing or not. Fan films aren't supposed to make any money anyway. I think the rule is in place 1. It fucks up Axanar good and plenty and 2. With a lot of older Star Trek actors showing up, there could be brand confusion.

What I am getting at is that employees of peripheral functions of achieving the Trek business really present no threat to Trek or have any way to influence Trek. The usual prohibition of this sort is that employees and contractors of a firm offering a contest can't participate in the contest. It would give the impression that someone on the inside might have rigged things. Technically, this ban might exclude every employee of Netflix, yes? It seems the net could be very very broad.

 

[Professor Zoom]

What I am getting at is that employees of peripheral functions of achieving the Trek business really present no threat to Trek or have any way to influence Trek. The usual prohibition of this sort is that employees and contractors of a firm offering a contest can't participate in the contest. It would give the impression that someone on the inside might have rigged things. Technically, this ban might exclude every employee of Netflix, yes? It seems the net could be very very broad.

It is broad, yes. But, I don't think employees of Netflix would have to worry: they are rebroadcasting Star Trek. I think it's those that worked on CREATING content for Star Trek (writers, directors, actors, make up artists, the director of a DVD extra on a Star Trek DVD), they are the ones that are banned from working on a fan film. Those that were paid by CBS/Paramount or a licensee (Star trek novels, video games, etc), are the ones that really shouldn't be involved in fan films.

So, the person at a TV station rebroadcasting Mirror, Mirror can go and make a fan film.

 

[mkstewartesq]

It seems the net could be very very broad.

I don't disagree that it seems potentially broad. However:

1. Again, it's not a prohibition that can legally stop at any of these people from working on fan productions. It's just a term that, if the fan film uses any of these people on its productions, the fan film can't claim that it had a safe harbor against getting sued. But that doesn't mean that the studio is actually going to sue just because one of these people is working on the productions – and it might give the filmmakers extra incentive to make damn sure that they comply with all of the other rules assiduously.

2. I really doubt the studio cares in most cases whether its licensees or lower level employees work on these endeavors. They are only going to care when it either has a risk of creating a false sense of endorsement by the studio – such as when one of the bigger actors is involved – or where they can use it as a sword to go after certain others (Alec and RMB come to mind) who have previously been involved with Star Trek and are now just becoming colossal pains in the ass. And, for that last rationale alone, I am completely at peace with this rule.

M

 

[muCephi]

It is broad, yes. But, I don't think employees of Netflix would have to worry: they are rebroadcasting Star Trek. I think it's those that worked on CREATING content for Star Trek (writers, directors, actors, make up artists, the director of a DVD extra on a Star Trek DVD), they are the ones that are banned from working on a fan film. Those that were paid by CBS/Paramount or a licensee (Star trek novels, video games, etc), are the ones that really shouldn't be involved in fan films.

So, the person at a TV station rebroadcasting Mirror, Mirror can go and make a fan film.

I don't disagree that it seems potentially broad. However:

1. Again, it's not a prohibition that can legally stop at any of these people from working on fan productions. It's just a term that, if the fan film uses any of these people on its productions, the fan film can't claim that it had a safe harbor against getting sued. But that doesn't mean that the studio is actually going to sue just because one of these people is working on the productions – and it might give the filmmakers extra incentive to make damn sure that they comply with all of the other rules assiduously.

2. I really doubt the studio cares in most cases whether its licensees or lower level employees work on these endeavors. They are only going to care when it either has a risk of creating a false sense of endorsement by the studio – such as when one of the bigger actors is involved – or where they can use it as a sword to go after certain others (Alec and RMB come to mind) who have previously been involved with Star Trek and are now just becoming colossal pains in the ass. And, for that last rationale alone, I am completely at peace with this rule.

M

If it bans creatives that would make some sense but it may not be definable. The actual prohibition is on current and former employees of any contractor or licensee as well as studio employees. Netflix licenses Trek to show. Game makers license. Toy makers license. Etc. Perhaps the studios should clarify that certain industrial categories of licensees are not included.

As far as it not being a ban, I get that. But many people reading it could see in an uninformed fashion as a ban to the broadest possible interpretation. Clarity where this might not be the desired outcome could be helpful.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Clarity where this might not be the desired outcome could be helpful.

If I was a lawyer working for CBS, I would NOT want clarity. I would want it as broad as possible. This would protect my client. And CBS doesn't work for the fans. Why should they spend time working making things clearer? They have created a safe harbor (a great term), if you don't feel like you can work on it because of previous involvement in Star Trek in some way, maybe you shouldn't make a fan film.

There's always the possibility you made something "family friendly" that CBS decides ISN'T their version of family friendly.

You are playing with someone else's IP, there's going to be an element of rolling the dice.

If you want a truly truly safe harbor: go play in your own sandbox.

 

[muCephi]

If I was a lawyer working for CBS, I would NOT want clarity. I would want it as broad as possible. This would protect my client. And CBS doesn't work for the fans. Why should they spend time working making things clearer? They have created a safe harbor (a great term), if you don't feel like you can work on it because of previous involvement in Star Trek in some way, maybe you shouldn't make a fan film.

There's always the possibility you made something "family friendly" that CBS decides ISN'T their version of family friendly.

You are playing with someone else's IP, there's going to be an element of rolling the dice.

If you want a truly truly safe harbor: go play in your own sandbox.

Yes, they have the call.

It does seem like they are trying to create something which allows some space for fan films. So I think they will be reflecting on feedback even if they would not be likely to change anything right away.

It seems to me that the prohibition in this clause is very broad and it might end up being reinspected. In the meantime, just wondering if excluding all employees of all licensee firms is what they are aiming for. YMMV.