Mark R. Gaebler

[BillJ]

I didn't know those details, but I have known for years that Peters misused donations in some capacity. I don't like him on a personal level and never have, but Paramount didn't go after him for doing that and they wouldn't've left him alone if he hadn't done that. The executives just didn't like the idea of a fan film with a million-dollar budget billing itself as unofficial but professionally made, as something not licensed but also head and shoulders above a typical fan film.

You can thank Alec Peters for the restrictions you are now complaining about.

Carpet, coffee and unfulfilled fan funding perks. Also, it has been nearly ten years and still no Axanar.

 

[cooleddie74]

If Peters were a porn director he'd have already been kicked out of the industry for being a tease for this long with no climax.

 

[fireproof78]

and then TOS will belong to us all.

No thanks.

I'm not trying to convince anyone since I've already seen how irrational people are about it. I simply stated the fact that fanworks have a legal right to exist and Axanar's no exception as it was nonprofit and

Prelude, maybe. All the activities after that, including attempting to profit off of property not theirs crossed the line.

There is no excuse for Axanar.

The OP's question has already been answered many times over, but he is delusional and refuses to accept the certain reality that his amateur story bible will never be used for official productions. He also can't spell simple words ("don't make lite," "cannon timeline"), so I'm sure he can't even write good fanfiction.

Rude.

 

[The Wormhole]

Alec Peters used Axanar fan donations to pay for a trip to a BDSM store,

Hey, those ain't cheap.

Or so I've heard.

 

[Firebird]

Carpet, coffee and unfulfilled fan funding perks.

And sushi. Can’t forget the sushi.

 

[Cryogenator]

No thanks.

You're opposed to works entering the public domain? You support perpetual copyright? Depictions of Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, John Carter, Huckleberry Finn, Romeo, Juliet, Achilles, Agamemnon, and Gilgamesh should all have to be licensed from an estate? Too bad for you. They're all free for anyone to interpret as they wish without restrictions or fees, and The Original Series will join them in another four decades. Then we will see unlicensed nonprofit and for-profit sequels, prequels, interquels, sidequels, and reinterpretations in the Original Series setting. Instead of being limited to what a single studio decides to make, we'll have a much broader range to choose from, and if you don't like one interpretation or other, you can simply ignore it.

Prelude, maybe. All the activities after that, including attempting to profit off of property not theirs crossed the line.

That's not entirely true, as a fanwork can be transformative, and transformative works which are unlicensed adaptations of other properties can potentially be commercialized in some circumstances, as explained by the Organization for Transformative Works:

Commercialized fanworks may still qualify as fair use — commerciality is only one of the factors that courts consider, and most fair use cases have been about commercial works — but noncommercial uses are particularly favored.

There is no excuse for Axanar.

Rather, there is no excuse for Alec Peters' misuse of funds. Axanar itself was fine and could have proceeded without him.

Rude.

Realistic.

You can thank Alec Peters for the restrictions you are now complaining about.

Again, I've never been a fan of his, but trying to restrict everyone else for the rest of Star Trek's time in copyright is unreasonable, especially the two fifteen-minute segments rule which prevents the creation of episode- or movie-length stories and ongoing narratives. Fortunately, this rule, like all of their rules, isn't legally binding and has been ignored many times since it was established.

 

[David cgc]

Again, I've never been a fan of his, but trying to restrict everyone else for the rest of Star Trek's time in copyright is unreasonable, especially the two fifteen-minute segments rule which prevents the creation of episode- or movie-length stories and ongoing narratives. Fortunately, this rule, like all of their rules, isn't legally binding and has been ignored many times since it was established.

That's pretty much the rub of it. Axanar was so much larger in scope that it invited a response, and once that happened, people were pretty much demanding some sort of guidelines for fan-films, along the lines of the ones that Star Wars franchise had established years earlier. And, as you point out, it's Fan-Films of the Caribbean, they're not rules, they're guidelines. They're a suggestion that if you follow every one of them, you won't be subject to legal action, but you can certainly take your chances and not follow all of them, and you'll be in exactly as much legal peril as you were before the guidelines even existed. I've jokingly speculated that it's probably possible to construct a fan-film that perfectly adheres to the letter of the guidelines but is still objectionable enough in some way to provoke legal action, and, yeah, the guidelines won't protect you in that case, either. They're a suggestion for how to keep things on a live-and-let-live level, but in practical terms, they don't really change the game from the pre-Axanar world. There was (and is) nothing stopping anyone from going back to the bad old days of the 1990s where fan-made websites were being shut down for having a Star Trek screencap or even just talking about Star Trek conceptually, or raids on people who were making $200 model kits of obscure background starships in their garage ten at a time. The fan-film guidelines are a net positive for giving fans more information on where the line is and what keeps them on the right side of it versus what puts them at risk.

(Could you tell that I can't remember what the name of the company that owns Star Trek is after the most recent set of entertainment mergers, and that I don't care to look it up?)

I do seem to remember that, after Prelude, Axanar had the opportunity to borrow one of the existing TOS fan-film sets, and if they'd simply done that and gotten their principle production done while the iron was hot rather than insisting on building their own sets (and, most importantly, attempting to turn those stages and sets into an ongoing profit-center), a lot of grief would've been avoided.

 

[fireproof78]

Again, I've never been a fan of his, but trying to restrict everyone else for the rest of Star Trek's time in copyright is unreasonable,

Then don't support abuse of copyright. That's what Peters did and Axanar cannot be separated from him now. We're ten years post.

other, you can simply ignore it.

So, just like I do.now with works I don't Iike.

Realistic.

Insulting someone's intelligence is rude.

You're opposed to works entering the public domain? Y

No, I said "no thanks" to owning TOS. Copyright law is not something I care about in terms of my life. But, Axanar abused it. So, it took sway something for me in fan films.

 

[Cryogenator]

That's pretty much the rub of it. Axanar was so much larger in scope that it invited a response,

My point is that there is actually a legal basis for the creation of fanworks whereas there is no legal basis for limiting crowdfunding. No Star Trek fan project had ever raised a million dollars before Axanar, and Paramount didn't like that, even before they knew about Peters' misuse of funds, which is the real issue. Axanar should have continued without Peters and once that happened, people were pretty much demanding some sort of guidelines for fan-films, along the lines of the ones that Star Wars franchise had established years earlier.

And, as you point out, it's Fan-Films of the Caribbean, they're not rules, they're guidelines.

Hahaha! Yes, indeed. I also thought of Barbossa in this discussion.

There was (and is) nothing stopping anyone from going back to the bad old days of the 1990s where fan-made websites were being shut down for having a Star Trek screencap or even just talking about Star Trek conceptually,

Wow. This is the first I've heard of this. A few stills definitely qualifies as fair use, and just talking about something is completely legal... and someone else here said CBS and Paramount have always been completely reasonable. Ha!

I do seem to remember that, after Prelude, Axanar had the opportunity to borrow one of the existing TOS fan-film sets, and if they'd simply done that and gotten their principle production done while the iron was hot rather than insisting on building their own sets (and, most importantly, attempting to turn those stages and sets into an ongoing profit-center), a lot of grief would've been avoided.

That's a fair point.

Insulting someone's intelligence is rude.

He posted on a fan forum demanding that Paramount read his story bible and that we support him in forcing them to read it, which is objectively delusional. He also can't spell simple words yet thinks he has written the very best possible future for Star Trek, which is also objectively delusional. He clearly exhibits delusions of grandeur and a naive understanding of the entertainment industry, and you know it.

Then don't support abuse of copyright.

There was no abuse of copyright. There was abuse of funds by one of its cocreators. As I said, Peters should've been forced out and made to repay what he stole and all of this should've been immediately and fully revealed to the public. Then the production should've proceeded without him. There were many talented people who did nothing wrong and wanted to make it happen, and many fans who wanted to see it, and as a nonprofit, noncompeting, transformative work, it met all the criteria for fair use.

Also, as I've explained above, The Original Series shouldn't even be in copyright anymore. Under the original Copyright Act of 1790, the whole series would've entered the public domain by 1997, or by 2011 under the 1831 revision. The 1909 revision, which was in force when TOS was made, would've seen it fully entering the public domain by 2025, with much of the series already public domain by now. The egregious 1976 and 1998 revisions pushed the date to 2045 and then 2065, far beyond the original intent of copyright terms.

 

[fireproof78]

He posted on a fan forum demanding that Paramount read his story bible and that we support him in forcing them to read it, which is objectively delusional. He also can't spell simple words yet thinks he has written the very best possible future for Star Trek, which is also objectively delusional. He clearly exhibits delusions of grandeur and a naive understanding of the entertainment industry, and you know it.

No, I don't. Repeating insults doesn't make them true.

There was no abuse of copyright. The

Oh, yes, there was. Maybe not by prelude but by those in charge. That's problematic and casts a dark shadow on the whole production.

Also, as I've explained above, The Original Series shouldn't even be in copyright anymore. Un

But it is now. Change the law if that is your position.

The law still applies to the behaviors of Peters.

 

[Cryogenator]

No, I don't. Repeating insults doesn't make them true.

You don't think someone who comes on a fan forum to insist that Paramount read his amazing story bible which is the perfect continuation of Star Trek and which solves all continuity issues is deeply delusional? You don't think not being able to spell simple words is an indication that the quality of his writing is poor? Well, then, I apologize for giving you too much credit.

But it is now. Change the law if that is your position.

I don't have many millions of dollars to sink into a massive lobbying campaign to strongarm the government into doing what I want.

 

[fireproof78]

You don't think someone who comes on a fan forum to insist that Paramount read his amazing story bible which is the perfect continuation of Star Trek and which solves all continuity issues is deeply delusional? Y

Deeply? No.

How many fans think they're works are the best ever? Or thought Prelude to Axanar was the best ever? If that's delusional then we all are to some degree.

Regardless, insulting someone is bad form.

I don't have many millions of dollars to sink into a massive lobbying campaign to strongarm the government into doing what I want.

Then I guess it isn't that important.

 

[urbandefault]

You're opposed to works entering the public domain? You support perpetual copyright? Depictions of Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, John Carter, Huckleberry Finn, Romeo, Juliet, Achilles, Agamemnon, and Gilgamesh should all have to be licensed from an estate? Too bad for you. They're all free for anyone to interpret as they wish without restrictions or fees, and The Original Series will join them in another four decades. Then we will see unlicensed nonprofit and for-profit sequels, prequels, interquels, sidequels, and reinterpretations in the Original Series setting. Instead of being limited to what a single studio decides to make, we'll have a much broader range to choose from, and if you don't like one interpretation or other, you can simply ignore it.

As long as Paramount (or whoever) enforce the trademarks, there will be limits on what can be produced, even public domain Trek.

 

[Cryogenator]

As long as Paramount (or whoever) enforce the trademarks, there will be limits on what can be produced, even public domain Trek.

There will be absolutely no limits whatsoever on creating new stories using the established characters, stories, and settings. Trademark protection applies mostly only to merchandising and possibly to some logos and fonts. Stories cannot be limited by trademark protection as long as they're clearly advertised as unofficial (ostensibly, although in practice, even that really isn't necessary, as seen in the case of Enola Holmes, for instance).

Corporations and estates have routinely attempted to scam their way into perpetual copyright through illegal application of trademark protection, and they have been routinely prevented from doing so, as Reason's Timothy Lee recently explained:

In its legal battle with Netflix, the Doyle estate unsuccessfully tried to use trademark law to effectively obtain perpetual control over Sherlock Holmes books and movies. In addition to its copyright claims, the estate argued that Netflix had infringed the estate's trademarks by giving the public the false impression that Enola Holmes was endorsed by the Doyle estate.​

You could imagine Disney using a similar tactic to try to maintain perpetual control over Pooh: arguing that an unauthorized Pooh cartoon infringed Disney's trademarks and misled consumers into believing the cartoon was produced by Disney.​

But the courts have consistently rejected this gambit.​

In 1949, Twentieth Century Fox produced a television program based on Crusade in Europe, a book about World War II by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Failure to renew the copyright caused the television program to fall into the public domain in 1977. A small video distributor called Dastar obtained copies of the program in 1995, removed the original credits, and sold the video as its own. Twentieth Century Fox sued, arguing that Dastar had violated trademark law by removing the original credits, thereby deceiving the public about the show's origins.​

The Supreme Court ruled against Twentieth Century Fox in 2003. Allowing trademark law to be used in this way would create "a species of perpetual patent and copyright," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. And that's not allowed under the Constitution, which requires that copyrights and patents be granted only "for limited times."​

The same goes for famous characters like Pooh. If publishing a new Pooh book infringes Disney's trademark, the practical result would be little different than extending Disney's Pooh copyright in perpetuity.​

So, Disney's trademarks won't prevent people from creating new Pooh works. But they'll have to be careful. "You need to advertise the hell out of the fact that this is based on the original" Winnie-the-Pooh book, Litman says. "You're allowed to truthfully advertise what you're doing, but you want to avoid anyone thinking that this is a Disney product."​

 

[urbandefault]

There will be absolutely no limits whatsoever on creating new stories using the established characters, stories, and settings. Trademark protection applies mostly only to merchandising and possibly to some logos and fonts. Stories cannot be limited by trademark protection as long as they're clearly advertised as unofficial (ostensibly, although in practice, even that really isn't necessary, as seen in the case of Enola Holmes, for instance).

Corporations and estates have routinely attempted to scam their way into perpetual copyright through illegal application of trademark protection, and they have been routinely prevented from doing so, as Reason's Timothy Lee recently explained:

In its legal battle with Netflix, the Doyle estate unsuccessfully tried to use trademark law to effectively obtain perpetual control over Sherlock Holmes books and movies. In addition to its copyright claims, the estate argued that Netflix had infringed the estate's trademarks by giving the public the false impression that Enola Holmes was endorsed by the Doyle estate.​

You could imagine Disney using a similar tactic to try to maintain perpetual control over Pooh: arguing that an unauthorized Pooh cartoon infringed Disney's trademarks and misled consumers into believing the cartoon was produced by Disney.​

But the courts have consistently rejected this gambit.​

In 1949, Twentieth Century Fox produced a television program based on Crusade in Europe, a book about World War II by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Failure to renew the copyright caused the television program to fall into the public domain in 1977. A small video distributor called Dastar obtained copies of the program in 1995, removed the original credits, and sold the video as its own. Twentieth Century Fox sued, arguing that Dastar had violated trademark law by removing the original credits, thereby deceiving the public about the show's origins.​

The Supreme Court ruled against Twentieth Century Fox in 2003. Allowing trademark law to be used in this way would create "a species of perpetual patent and copyright," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. And that's not allowed under the Constitution, which requires that copyrights and patents be granted only "for limited times."​

The same goes for famous characters like Pooh. If publishing a new Pooh book infringes Disney's trademark, the practical result would be little different than extending Disney's Pooh copyright in perpetuity.​

So, Disney's trademarks won't prevent people from creating new Pooh works. But they'll have to be careful. "You need to advertise the hell out of the fact that this is based on the original" Winnie-the-Pooh book, Litman says. "You're allowed to truthfully advertise what you're doing, but you want to avoid anyone thinking that this is a Disney product."​

I guess we'll see.

Well, maybe you'll see; I'm already a senior citizen.

And I really don't care either way.

 

[fireproof78]

I guess we'll see.

Well, maybe you'll see; I'm already a senior citizen.

And I really don't care either way.

Same. This is creating a fight over something that doesn't impact our day to day one way or the other.

 

[BillJ]

You don't think someone who comes on a fan forum to insist that Paramount read his amazing story bible which is the perfect continuation of Star Trek and which solves all continuity issues is deeply delusional?

Fan is short for fanatic, which we all are to one degree or another. Or else, we wouldn’t be arguing fanfics and trademarks on a Trek message board.

If this project makes him happy, where does it harm anyone else?

Though I’m as guilty as anyone, we probably shouldn’t be relitigating Axanar in this thread.

 

[Cryogenator]

Well, maybe you'll see; I'm already a senior citizen.

I easily could, yes, as I'd be 69 when "The Man Trap" and the other 1966 episodes enter the public domain on January 1, 2062, and 72 when "Turnabout Intruder" and the rest of the 1969 episodes join them on January 1, 2065.

I expect there may be a few centenarians and supercentenarians alive then who saw the original broadcasts as children.

 

[Steve Roby]

There was no abuse of copyright.

Cryogenator, have you read this?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3251437-Trek-Ruling.html

Judge Klausner disagreed with your take on Axanar as fair use.

 

[Cryogenator]

Judge Klausner disagreed with your take on Axanar as fair use.

Yes, I know. Like the outrageous copyright term extensions of 1976 and 1998, his ruling was inappropriate.