CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[CRM-114]

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 think that's one reason why Alec still has supporters. The lawsuit is an unwelcome reminder of what for some Trekkies is an unpleasant truth. Alec, in fighting the suit, offers a more pleasing if ultimately unreal alternative where Star Trek is still a playground where all those nasty "laws" and "copyrights" have magically gone away.

 

[Sgt_G]

Had they bothered to reach out, the defense team might have been able to straighten things out without having to bother the judge.

Oh, that's precious!! I listened to the G&T show, and @jespah talked about the court documents saying exactly that ... except it was the plaintiffs talking about the defense bothering the judge for things they could have received if they had just picked the phone and said "can we please have this?" Too funny!!!

 

[jespah]

Oh, that's precious!! I listened to the G&T show, and @jespah talked about the court documents saying exactly that ... except it was the plaintiffs talking about the defense bothering the judge for things they could have received if they had just picked the phone and said "can we please have this?" Too funny!!!

The declarations show a bunch of correspondence and I was able to build a timeline of events. A lot of this stuff was done in very short order - this September 29 Motion to Compel Discovery is all about conversations and emails from September 7, 8, 9, 12, and 15 IIRC. Definitely September, I might have a number or two wrong in there. But no matter what, the motion was brought less than a month after these conversations.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

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. ........ Nobody has 'ever' thought there was a third party. How could this be misconstrued?

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.

Then I stand corrected. I was incorrect. The Third Party thing was indeed said.

I apologize to the defendant for disputing his statement.

 

[dmac]

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.

Do Law firms own the intellectual property on new case law?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Do Law firms own the intellectual property on new case law?

I'm not sure if that was a serious question or not.
If it is... no one owns case law. The suggestion is that they would be making a reputation for themselves because they fought a case that created a new understanding of copyright, and that reputation would drive paying clients to their firm.
If it isn't... it was to dry for my humor.

 

[dmac]

I'm not sure if that was a serious question or not.
If it is... no one owns case law. The suggestion is that they would be making a reputation for themselves because they fought a case that created a new understanding of copyright, and that reputation would drive paying clients to their firm.
If it isn't... it was to dry for my humor.

Not even close to being serious.
Serious would have been suggesting the LFIM claiming he owns it and running around the courts holding his hand out for $20 bucks CASH every time it was sighted.

 

[muCephi]

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.

We make long form and series, you get short form one-offs; don't use the actual media clips we have published without our prior permission; and allow that we might have an issue over certain content issues that change the character of our concepts for the property.

They are trying to say "create your own original content, and don't compete with us". But they don't have the heart to just walk on this sliver of fans, so they found a way to make some space anyway. IMO, its all in how you perceive who has a *right* to be upset.

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).

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

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.

So the Red Cross, UN, Boy Scouts, American Psychiatric Association, and every other nonprofit on Earth should be permitted to commission and publish/film "for donations" Harry Potter II, Iron Man II, Rambo II, Terminator II, Ghostbusters II, and put it out before the studio that developed the property can get the second edition of their series out? No damage done? ... and perhaps they do it better and thus deserve to divert the audience cashflow to their better effort, just because they are not seeking a profit?

If this worked, every company would be nonprofit and they would all be poaching off each other. IMO, Axanar realized this, and tried to get in and out pretending to be a nonprofit before the nature of it became clear.

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.

Consider comic books. Many craftspeople contribute their unique abilities to the product. Their compensation is payment and perhaps credit. But they are not given sublicenses just because they worked on the project.

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

.

I see you have one of those newfangled crowbar-parsers.

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.

Easy. Spell it r-e-n-t on the inside, and d-o-n-a-t-i-o-n to fans.

 

[Sgt_G]

Serious would have been suggesting the LFIM claiming he owns it and running around the courts holding his hand out for $20 bucks CASH every time it was sighted.

I believe you meant "cited" as in "quoted as a valid source document" and not "sighted" as in "someone saw it in a book". I don't think even Alec Peters would be so bold as to charge money for reading something in a case-law book. Well, then again .....

 

[dmac]

I believe you meant "cited"

You can be my editor any time, I do a ton of those.

 

[muCephi]

Not even close to being serious.
Serious would have been suggesting the LFIM claiming he owns it and running around the courts holding his hand out for $20 bucks CASH every time it was sighted.

His dignity?

 

[dmac]

His dignity?

Isn't he's a lord or something?

 

[WebLurker]

We make long form and series, you get short form one-offs; don't use the actual media clips we have published without our prior permission; and allow that we might have an issue over certain content issues that change the character of our concepts for the property.

They are trying to say "create your own original content, and don't compete with us". But they don't have the heart to just walk on this sliver of fans, so they found a way to make some space anyway. IMO, its all in how you perceive who has a *right* to be upset.

I guess I don't see how the majority of full-length fan films (Axanar aside) and regular fan series were hurting Paramount/CBS. On top of that, most people who work on Star Trek fan films are doing it because they want to be involved with the franchise in some way, so making their own thing is kind of off-topic, so to speak, for them.

I guess for me, as a person who gravitates to storytelling and writing, putting restrictions on what kind of stories are allowed is something I don't like. I mean, as a gut reaction (fair or not) to the rules, I was thinking: "If I made a fan film, it's none your darn business how long the movie is or if I write sequels to it." (I'll also concede that its the part of it I have the most trouble understanding. Most of the other rules seem to be in place to make sure that no one profits off the project -- which is fair -- and that its clear that this's a fan film -- also fair. The story restrictions have no obvious effect on any of these points. I can't see why Paramount/CBS would suffer without them.)

 

[Ion]

I guess for me, as a person who gravitates to storytelling and writing, putting restrictions on what kind of stories are allowed is something I don't like.

The comment resonates, but there's a continuum of fairness. Gotta look at it from the other side of the coin.

If you write something that goes viral (let's call it the Harry Potter effect), and then someone else comes along and starts writing related stories using your characters and settings, that also goes viral -- and they make gobs of money from it and completely ignore you as the creator (financially and otherwise)... How are you going to feel?

The core problem is that you can't predict whether something is going to be hideously popular before other people see it. You might write something that you think is stupid, but that the rest of the world thinks is the greatest thing ever. And in this day and age, once it's out there, it can't be stopped. And you can't predict how whoever appropriated your characters and settings is going to handle things.

Now imagine this happening with something that takes the characters you painstakingly created and paints them in a light that is entirely opposed to your beliefs; then things get truly ugly.

In legal terms, the answer is already defined: you created it, you own it. Period. The exceptions are narrow enough that they may as well not exist for the purposes of this discussion.

In moral/ethical terms, opinions vary (had a debate on this with someone much earlier in this thread if you want to see a very vehement alternate viewpoint). I don't see a good solution. When have you copied too much? There's obviously a line there -- but who defines it, and where is it?

I don't know what the solution to the conundrum is, and I don't know a better answer than the current legal one. If I'm remembering correctly, my last debate on this topic started because I mentioned that I wouldn't mind seeing an adjustment in the definition of "fair use". But I'm not nearly smart enough to figure out an equitable solution that protects the original author.

(on an unrelated note, I really wish the post editor wouldn't keep adding incorrect and useless size tags. I always forget to switch to text mode, and end up having to go back and remove them all...)

 

[Smoked Salmon]

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).

Because it isn't just about money. Let's say they turned a blind eye to the ones that don't make a profit. How much should such projects be allowed to raise? How long before the project becomes indistinguishable from professionally made works? Once it reaches that stage, profit making or not it has the power to influence the market and undermine what the rights holder wants to do.

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.

Sorry, but with respect I think this is nonsense. Those actors, when working on Trek, were employees who were contracted to perform, and that includes what they brought to the roles to help "create" their characters. They were compensated financially for those efforts by the rights holders, compensation accepted as part of that working relationship. That no more gives them the rights to their characters than, say, a software developer the rights to software he is hired by Microsoft to create.

 

[Harvey]

Not even close to being serious.
Serious would have been suggesting the LFIM claiming he owns it and running around the courts holding his hand out for $20 bucks CASH every time it was sighted.

@Indysolo -- I believe somebody did indeed, ahem, say Cash.

 

[Harvey]

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.

In addition to the many points raised above, many of the performers in fan films reprising roles they performed in official productions were not acting for free -- they received a fee. Indeed, if there wasn't any money in it, one imagines that the professional actors would cease involvement pretty quickly, and fan films would (rightly so, I think) return to being the work of amateurs.

 

[Karzak]

I guess I don't see how the majority of full-length fan films (Axanar aside) and regular fan series were hurting Paramount/CBS. On top of that, most people who work on Star Trek fan films are doing it because they want to be involved with the franchise in some way, so making their own thing is kind of off-topic, so to speak, for them.

I guess for me, as a person who gravitates to storytelling and writing, putting restrictions on what kind of stories are allowed is something I don't like. I mean, as a gut reaction (fair or not) to the rules, I was thinking: "If I made a fan film, it's none your darn business how long the movie is or if I write sequels to it." (I'll also concede that its the part of it I have the most trouble understanding. Most of the other rules seem to be in place to make sure that no one profits off the project -- which is fair -- and that its clear that this's a fan film -- also fair. The story restrictions have no obvious effect on any of these points. I can't see why Paramount/CBS would suffer without them.)

It's also not about suffering. It's just as much about the fact that CBS and Paramount own Star Trek; we do not. It's not our place to determine or dictate what constitutes "fair" guidelines, and it's not our place to declare what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

Make no mistake - this is all just as much a move by CBS/Paramount to make 1000% clear to anyone and everyone who might come along - they are the proprietors and owners of the Star Trek franchise and they will defend that ownership.

Also: the whole thing about putting restrictions on what kinds of stories are allowed being a negative is nonsense. Any writer who is honest with themselves about their talent, their ability and their craft knows that some of the best work comes from problem solving and working within limitations you sometimes can't control. Likewise, a blank page, free reign approach has its place, but it's also just as dangerously able to allow amateurs to produce dreck. Obviously this isn't a catch-all assessment, but one still worth pointing out. To wit, great stories are not written, they are rewritten, and a little editing never hurt anyone.

Alec and Rob like to boast about how professional they are, how this is a legit Hollywood production. Neither of them would last a week in an actual Hollywood writer's room because neither of them are capable of taking the kind of criticism, notes, and direction they'd receive from a showrunner or upper level EP. They want to BE the showrunners and upper level EPs without actually putting in the time to learn the craft. There's a reason that leaked Axanar script isn't fit to line a birdcage, let alone be shot. Alec Peters is not a good writer. He took a two day seminar and assumed he'd learned everything he needed to in order to tell a captivating, nuanced space opera story that would fit in to the mold of his beloved Star Trek franchise. Yet again and again and again and again we have seen him react poorly to any kind of criticism or suggestions to do otherwise than what they want. Even Christian Gossett, who has more talent, class and experience it seems in his pinky than Peters or Burnett do, understood this.

In TV, writers rooms don't work the way Peters and Burnett do; it's hard fucking work. It's the process by which your boss decides what the final tone and content will be, and sometimes your ultimately being overruled by someone higher up on the food chain than you, and then going back to the drawing board and editing down whatever you have according to what has been decided upon. Even after that your boss may still wind up rewriting you. And then you do it all over again for your studio. And then again for your network. It's grueling and often times the story that winds up on screen is markedly different from the one you start out with but that's the nature of the beast. Half the battle is problem solving and no first draft is ever perfect, not in Hollywood, and not in your fan film.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Isn't he's a lord or something?

I thought he was God.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Do Law firms own the intellectual property on new case law?

Case law is decided by the courts. It is public property since it literally has the effect of binding law (subject to being overturned at a higher level). You cannot "own" law.

Furthermore, the role of the representative is to advance an argument. Not create the law.