CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Earthrise]

It sure seems like nothing good has come of this. The legal situation (as we the public are being told) seems to boil down to a "he said/ she said" thing; Paramount says that Axanar is profiting off of them. Axanar denies this.

It's not "he said/she said" when there's data to back up one side's interpretation of the situation. In Axanar's own annual report Peter's admits to drawing at least a 38K salary for his work on Axanar and building out a studio intended not only for Star Trek fan films but also other science fiction films (presumably commercial projects), a science fiction film school, and an Axanar themed convention. All of these admissions point to either financial benefit, which was one of CBS/Paramount's concerns as noted in the original filing, or an intent to benefit financially based on a derivative work.

Furthermore, the motion to compel discovery clarifies CBS/Paramount's position--and damages Axanar's--based on what appear to be the results of an audit shared during discovery (Podcast 40, commentary starts about 13:30). CBS/Paramount state that

It is undisputed that Defendants raised money from Star Trek fans to make infringing films...Defendants’ documents show that they have spent tens of thousands of dollars, raised from Star Trek fans, on personal expenses and salaries, including car insurance and tires.

And that's just using available documentation, which avoids the twist of reasoning required to make the Donor Store/Station look legitimate by claiming it's an extension of the crowdfunding donation/perk system instead of a store. (Links go to Axamonitor where the original documents may be downloaded).

In short, Axanar is hoping that (global) you won't pay attention to the evidence against them, much of which comes through their own careless and hubristic admissions and actions, and instead accept unquestioningly what they say. It might feel good to fall in with Axanar and accept the narrative Peters is trying to sell, but reality just isn't supporting that interpretation at this time.

The new fan film rules seem to have been created in response to this, and while Paramount is within their rights to decide how it works, I for one think that -- while there are some perfectly fine regulations -- there's some pretty harsh stuff in there. If I was into fan filmmaking, I would not make a Star Trek film under this system. I recall that the website page where this was announced was flooded with negative feedback, so I think its safe to say that it was instigated at the cost of goodwill from the fanbase.

I suspect the new fan film rules have been under consideration for some time and were the result of the collective behavior of the larger fan film production groups. While Axanar pole-vaulted over the line between "fans playing" and "commercializing an IP you don't own", some of the other groups may have been getting too close to it for CBS/Paramount's comfort. Axanar just showed how some people will use everyone else for cover while they run with every inch they're given.

Fortunately, CBS/Paramount are unlikely to have hurt themselves with the fanbase as fan film fans do not equal the Star Trek fanbase. They are a minority of a minority.

The sad thing is, is that this all sprang from a fan film production, something that's supposed to celebrate the source material in question, be a way for fans to connect with the franchise sandbox, make it personal, and share something they love with other people in a way that has their personal touch. It's a tragedy, no matter which way you slice it.

It would be very sad if it sprang from a fan film production. Instead Axanar was a "fully-professional, independent Star Trek film." Therefore, I would say what is really sad is that Star Trek fan film fans were taken advantage of by a man who decided his next career would be as a Hollywood producer/studio owner and that the best way to go about that career change was to parasitize a popular franchise instead of paying his dues by creating original material.

 

[jespah]

I had never heard of fan films until I started with G & T. And I didn't check them out until maybe a month before Axanar, as I was starting to see James Cawley's posts in my Facebook feed, due to a number of mutual friends. I liked the verisimilitude of his sets although I do have to say there were sometimes things I couldn't see, like the slight shade of red for an alert light, that sort of thing. Excellent attention to detail, certainly.

Then Terry (from the show, not Terry McIntosh) put the link to the Axa 'annual report' into our show chat and I skimmed it over, saw the word salaries, and said, "He's gonna be sued." This was, I think, November of last year. And then he was.

But I'm only getting my intro into fan films through friends and FB connections. Lots and lots of Trek fans might have a concept of fan fiction, but they don't know anyone who has ever made a fan film, or even that people do that.

 

[Earthrise]

Would you like a backhoe for that hole you're digging, Peters?

From the Santa Clarita Valley Signal (H/T to the CBS/Paramount vs. Axanar Facebook page):

Industry Studios, formerly known as Ares Studios, has nearly completed work that will allow it to open its doors to film, television and still photography projects as the converted warehouse finishes the last stages of work to get it through the permitting process.

Estimates are that a little over a quarter of a million dollars has been spent refurbishing the building, according to Karen Bryden, president of SCV Locations in Santa Clarita, which is working with Industry Studios owner Alec Peters to get the Valencia facility through the permitting process.

Actually, after reading that article, I think you might want one of these.

 

[RedForman]

Would you like a backhoe for that hole you're digging, Peters?

From the Santa Clarita Valley Signal (H/T to the CBS/Paramount vs. Axanar Facebook page):



Actually, after reading that article, I think you might want one of these.

 

[Jedi_Master]

"has nearly completed work"

"president of SCV Locations in Santa Clarita, which is working with Industry Studios owner Alec Peters to get the Valencia facility through the permitting process."

So... it will open some time in 2019.

 

[WebLurker]

The only reasons that the guidelines seem harsh is because they are viewed against what has proceeded them, but I think if people were honest what came before were productions that were getting away with murder, and yes that includes those that have not been seen in the same light as Axanar, such as New Voyages, Continues, Farragut, Renegades and so on.

I do think that one of two or the guidelines are uncalled for (such as the prohibition on episodic series and the time length) but most are perfectly reasonable when you consider what the Star Trek property is. Too many fans, Axanar people or otherwise, have decided that Star Trek is public ownership art and they have a right to do with it whatever they choose. I find it astonishing that nearly a year after Axanar was sued, and after so much discussion, there are still so many fans who do not understand that Star Trek is a commercially owned entertainment product - and that it's that product they are a fan of.

I actually agree with you pretty much. The guidelines I don't like (found here) are points 1, 3, and sort-of7 (which are all related to storytelling, interestingly enough). Everything else is fair or something I could live with.

 

[Richard Baker]

Would you like a backhoe for that hole you're digging, Peters?

From the Santa Clarita Valley Signal (H/T to the CBS/Paramount vs. Axanar Facebook page):



Actually, after reading that article, I think you might want one of these.

The article say the rebuilding of the studio cost a quarter million dollars- I wonder where the other 3/4 Million went?

 

[suarezguy]

The only reasons that the guidelines seem harsh is because they are viewed against what has proceeded them, but I think if people were honest what came before were productions that were getting away with murder, and yes that includes those that have not been seen in the same light as Axanar, such as New Voyages, Continues, Farragut, Renegades and so on.

I do think that one of two or the guidelines are uncalled for (such as the prohibition on episodic series and the time length) but most are perfectly reasonable when you consider what the Star Trek property is. Too many fans, Axanar people or otherwise, have decided that Star Trek is public ownership art and they have a right to do with it whatever they choose. I find it astonishing that nearly a year after Axanar was sued, and after so much discussion, there are still so many fans who do not understand that Star Trek is a commercially owned entertainment product - and that it's that product they are a fan of.

Well if the fan filmmakers don't seek monetary profit from production I don't see why the corporate copyright holder should object (aside from being worried that fan productions will be more popular than the official product, which does seem pretty pathetic - if you can't make something better/more popular with so much more resources shame on you rather than a measly though maybe more talented fan).
I especially think that the writers and actors who once made the official products should be able to make their own nonprofit further works, especially with their own characters, as they in a significant sense created them even though they were actually working for a company.

 

[urbandefault]

Well if the fan filmmakers don't seek monetary profit from production I don't see why the corporate copyright holder should object (aside from being worried that fan productions will be more popular than the official product, which does seem pretty pathetic - if you can't make something better/more popular with so much more resources shame on you rather than a measly though maybe more talented fan).
I especially think that the writers and actors who once made the official products should be able to make their own nonprofit further works, especially with their own characters, as they in a significant sense created them even though they were actually working for a company.

It sounds like you don't understand how copyright works. That's hard to imagine after 1200+ pages just in this thread, but ok.

The owner of a property doesn't have to let anyone do anything with it, regardless whether it's for profit or not. And the actors didn't in any sense create their characters; they interpreted words on a page, often times the way a director instructed them to do it, put there by the creators of the work (often times hired by the owners of the property to do so).

Fan film producers don't have any rights here. They operate solely at the pleasure of the IP owners.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

Well if the fan filmmakers don't seek monetary profit from production I don't see why the corporate copyright holder should object (aside from being worried that fan productions will be more popular than the official product, which does seem pretty pathetic - if you can't make something better/more popular with so much more resources shame on you rather than a measly though maybe more talented fan).
I especially think that the writers and actors who once made the official products should be able to make their own nonprofit further works, especially with their own characters, as they in a significant sense created them even though they were actually working for a company.

But they do seek to profit. That's the problem. They don't own Star Trek, and yet have said numerous times that this was a professional, independent Star Trek movie (check their Indiegogo page). They don't have the right, only C/P have the right to make pro films. Also, they are using an IP that they don't own to start a business. Not cool, not legal, not theirs.
Profiting in this case doesn't have to be monetary, but gaining benefit. And, BTW, AP used donor funds to pay himself a salary, and personal expenses to promote the movie (going to cons, etc). That's profiting as well.

 

[suarezguy]

It sounds like you don't understand how copyright works. That's hard to imagine after 1200+ pages just in this thread, but ok.

The owner of a property doesn't have to let anyone do anything with it, regardless whether it's for profit or not.

Yeah, the owner doesn't have to. Whether it should and whether others should object if it doesn't are different questions.

And the actors didn't in any sense create their characters; they interpreted words on a page, often times the way a director instructed them to do it, put there by the creators of the work

Obviously the writers and directors are influential to the portrayal, for television the writers usually the most so, but the actors are also influential, certainly miscasting and bad acting can hurt the characters and a whole show while good acting choices can elevate so-so material into a lot more and influence how popular a product becomes.

But they do seek to profit. That's the problem. They don't own Star Trek, and yet have said numerous times that this was a professional, independent Star Trek movie (check their Indiegogo page). They don't have the right, only C/P have the right to make pro films. Also, they are using an IP that they don't own to start a business. Not cool, not legal, not theirs.
Profiting in this case doesn't have to be monetary, but gaining benefit.

The Axanar tactics do seem abusive, far too connected to financial/monetary profit, but I don't think trying to gain any benefit, like attention (as the maker of Batman: Dead End deliberately did) is or should be objectionable.

 

[RedForman]

Obviously the writers and directors are influential to the portrayal, for television the writers usually the most so, but the actors are also influential, certainly miscasting and bad acting can hurt the characters and a whole show while good acting choices can elevate so-so material into a lot more and influence how popular a product becomes.


The Axanar tactics do seem abusive, far too connected to financial/monetary profit, but I don't think trying to gain any benefit, like attention (as the maker of Batman: Dead End deliberately did) is or should be objectionable.

Where Axanar is concerned, Alec's complete lack of acting ability as well as his general ineptitude and abrasiveness that drove away those with actual talent (Tony Todd + Christian Gossett and his Prelude crew) is damning enough. If he wanted actual, legitimate attention too, he wouldn't have acted like and continued to act the way he has either. He's dug his own grave and he has no one but himself to blame.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

The Axanar tactics do seem abusive, far too connected to financial/monetary profit, but I don't think trying to gain any benefit, like attention (as the maker of Batman: Dead End deliberately did) is or should be objectionable.

Then, I can rent your house out without your permission? That would be OK?
That's essentially what they are trying to do; use someone else's property to profit themselves.

 

[Jody Wheeler]

The Axanar tactics do seem abusive, far too connected to financial/monetary profit, but I don't think trying to gain any benefit, like attention (as the maker of Batman: Dead End deliberately did) is or should be objectionable.

Okay, but the law says that that the owner of can object, whether you think they should or not. I might not think you should object to me bringing friends over and swimming in your pool whenever I want. Yet the law says the pool is your property, and you can object or not object as you see fit. I don't get a say in it. Same principle at work here.

 

[Noname Given]

Would you like a backhoe for that hole you're digging, Peters?

From the Santa Clarita Valley Signal (H/T to the CBS/Paramount vs. Axanar Facebook page):

Industry Studios, formerly known as Ares Studios, has nearly completed work that will allow it to open its doors to film, television and still photography projects as the converted warehouse finishes the last stages of work to get it through the permitting process.

Estimates are that a little over a quarter of a million dollars has been spent refurbishing the building, according to Karen Bryden, president of SCV Locations in Santa Clarita, which is working with Industry Studios owner Alec Peters to get the Valencia facility through the permitting process.

Actually, after reading that article, I think you might want one of these.

Boy - the "Lawyer By Training" Mr. Alec Peters sure loves to sabotage any chance Erin Ranahan has of saying - "No, we swear you honor - this was all for a Fan Film - no financial benefit to my Client overall - and my Client DIDN'T build a for profit studio, it's JUST A WAREHOUSE."

At the rate Mr. Peters is going - W&S should just concede - set a hearing to determine damages; and see what (if any) positive PR they can spin from agreeing to defend a clear cut grifter.

 

[Sgt_G]

Yeah, but she won't because her goal is not to defend her current client but rather to set new case-law to either make a name for herself and/or use to defend future PAYING clients.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I especially think that the writers and actors who once made the official products should be able to make their own nonprofit further works, especially with their own characters, as they in a significant sense created them even though they were actually working for a company.

No, no, no, no.

The actors and writers were work for hire, in other words, they do no OWN any of the characters they have written or performed. The characters are NOT their property. They are the property of the person or entity that hired them. The actors and writers were paid a LOT of money in exchange for giving up their copyright (not that actors get any sort of copyright for interpreting words.)

You say the actors "created" the characters? What about costume? Make up? Do you think Spock would still have connected if the ears looked shitty? What about the directors who directed the actors?

CBS/Paramount assumed a lot of financial risk putting up cash for a movie and a TV show. The actors and the writers are putting anything on the line. They are being paid to be there. Why should CBS/Paramount give away THEIR investment?

It seems easy to say: oh, it's a corporation, fuck them, they make a lot of money, what's the problem of someone doing a "fun" fan film. Because when you loosen up copyright it effects EVERYONE who has intellectual property, the corporations and the little person.

This isn't a David vs. Goliath story, as much as Axanar would like you to believe. It's someone you had over once who thinks they can come over ANY time they want, play with your stuff, whether you are there or not. They are thieves.

 

[RedForman]

Might LFIM be leaking confidential info to his new favorite sock-puppet (Jonathan Lane - note the middle paragraph) ??

 

[carlosp]

Well, no, that was not what was said. 'A Third Party' was not said or implied.

There is zero issue that the defendant owns Both Companies. None. Nadda. No question at all. The defendant owns both companies. There Is No Third Party. Nobody thinks there's a third party. Nobody has 'ever' thought there was a third party. How could this be misconstrued?

What was said was that the defendant, who unquestionably owns both companies, took a mailing list of people gathered from Star Trek fans donating to his not for any kind of fiscal benefit anywhere ever Company. To make The Best Star Trek Movie Ever Made, using the Plaintiffs' IP to advertise to 'get' these donors and their donations 'to make' the The Best Star Trek Movie Ever Made with the Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property and therefore should never generate fiscal benefit for the defendant anywhere ever for any reason in any way. ........................................................ And used that list to then 'advertise' the coming sale to generate revenue for defendant's 'other' Entirely For Profit Company that is housed in a facility leased and redone entirely with Star Trek fans' donations to make that movie.

A list the defendant would not have had without the use of the Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property, that the defendant then used to advertise (generate revenue) for himself with his second entirely for profit company.

No Third Party. Nobody ever said anything about a Third Party.



As far as that $35,000 goes? If it goes anywhere, it goes to CBS and Paramount. I mean that's a really big donation. How much money was made in that sale anyway? That must have made a whole lot of money for the defendant for him to just give away $35,000. And how much of that was generated by using the Plaintiffs' IP to get that donor's mailing list?

BTW, $35,000? That is almost exactly the year's salary the producer decided to pay himself for working on this production. So, how come the defendant needs a salary if the same amount is in-turn donated straight back to the production from his second entirely for profit second company that used the Plaintiffs' IP to generate a mailing list to advertise the entirely for profit company's sale?

Huh. Can this $35,000 donation be allowed to be used as a tax deduction for the defendant's entirely for profit company? And then... 'is' the defendant's entirely for profit second company paying 'any' rent in the building offices redone and leased using Star Trek fans' donations by using the Plaintiff's IP to get those donations and then use their IP to actually make the movie. That therefore must never ever in any way derive fiscal benefit for the defendant?

Paying rent or not paying rent the defendant is deriving benefit from housing his entirely for profit company in a building that uses Star Trek fans' donations generated by using the Plaintiffs' IP.

I actually called it a third party because Propworx is a legally separate entity from Axanar Productions and Peters himself – a third party. His being the CEO of both companies doesn't change that. Steve Jobs was simultaneously CEO of both Apple and Pixar, two legally separate companies. Ask yourself why CBS/Paramount are suing both Alec Peters and Axanar Productions – because they are legally separate parties both accused as infringers.

And his claiming that it came from Axanar's Constant Contact account is beside the point. The emails were not sent from an Axanar email address; they were sent from a propworx.com address. The fact that he didn't physically transfer the mailing list from one entity to the other is irrelevant when he himself, with access to the information systems of both parties, was the actual method of conveyance.

And don't get me started on the $35,000 "donation." Last week it was $20,000 — what he claimed were the entire profits from the auctions. How did it magically grow by $15,000? Not to mention how the transfer of a large sum of money from one for-profit corporation to another can be construed as a donation.

 

[Ion]

The article say the rebuilding of the studio cost a quarter million dollars- I wonder where the other 3/4 Million went?

Sushi.

Lots of sushi.