WARNING: All artists

[Cary L. Brown]

We have members who have drawn up plans of Trek ships and sold them (as either books or sheets) without a license... should they feel threatened by this stance?

Well, PPC could, theoretically, punish anyone who does anything like this. They'd be morons to do so, but they could.

As for your drawings, well... here's the trick. You cannot claim credit for the design, not charge for the design. But... you can charge for your own time and energy in translating that into some other form.

So this guy... note that he's doing PPC-owned designs, not just fan-designs. Given that, PPC could come down on him.

But if he's only charging for the time and effort to make the models, not for the models themself... it becomes a gray area.

Suppose one of you were to contract me, personally, to make you a personal model of the classic 1701. I'd itemize my bill... charge for labor, for tool usage, for material... but not for the design itself. And that would, ultimately, be entirely legal.

The trick would be that I'd have to prove that I was ONLY charging for those things, and only at an "acceptable rate" (and not rolling any profit up into that). Which is, really, pretty much impossible to do unless you've got a long history of doing that sort of thing FOR profit and can provide a baseline billing record.

Here's the deal. You, David, can sell paper, printed at Kinkos or wherever. But you can't sell the content on the paper... that has to be distributed freely. You can't charge, in this case, for your labor unless you've done it on-commission (which you haven't).

But there's no reason I can't pay you $25.00 for your expenses in copying, handling, and shipping copies of your work. And that's for any work you've done, including the prints you've been working on recently. You just can't charge me for the work itself.

Sort of "Fuzzy" but that's how it would work, legally. PPC would, if they were so inclined, have to prove that you're running a "for-profit business" rather than just having a hobby and sharing some of your hobby work with others, at their own expense rather than yours.

Make sense?

 

[Vance]

Not quite, Cary, because the end product is being offered, and selling 'paper' that happens to have the Star Fleet logo on it, for instance, is easily argued that the value is not from the 'paper', but the product of the Star Fleet logo. If PCC were to stop you, you're not going to be able to win that legally.

Remember, copyright, trademark, and patent laws are based on percieved value. Charging 'just for labor' sounds fair, except that everyone involved knows that it's the fruits of the labor of where the real value is. Again, we're back to infringment is not tied to a monetary transaction, but simply unauthorized reproduction.

That means that every single last thing Shaw said is technically illegal (in a civil sense), and there's no legal wiggle room around that. There's very very few of us that has secured written permission for anything we're doing as fans, and this road of 'we'll report anyone we don't like that's infringing IP' is really a stupid, mind-bogglingly stupid, approach to fandom.

Because, at the end of the day, Paramount could come in and say that the whole of TrekBBS, indeed, it's very existance, is a trademark violation (and easily proven so) and be shut down. Indeed, we do know that TrekBBS itself is a financial endeavour as well, and NOT below Paramount's radar. By the logic some have expressed here, do we now advocate it's destruction?

 

[Arkady]

When I was in the first grade my parents bought me a beautiful hand drawn (charcoal on canvas, about 36" by 24") framed portrait of Mr. Spock. But because that artist was selling his work you would take steps to shut him down?

In the 1970s and 1980s I went to a lot of conventions, and there were quite a few blue prints for sale (including some from Michael McMaster like the bridge blue prints)... none of which were authorized by Paramount. But because those artists were selling their work you would take steps to shut them down?

At the same conventions I saw beautiful hand made prop replicas... none of which were authorized by Paramount. But because those artists were selling their work you would take steps to shut them down?

Today we have people making replacement parts for existing kits, decals and even garage kits of ships none of the major model kit makers would touch... all selling their work and none of which were authorized by Paramount. Are you saying that you are going to take steps to shut them down?

If this forum is taking the stance that this type of derivative work is reason for trying to shut people down, then maybe I should voluntarily back off from my own derivative works. Because it seems that in this environment I could get an unwelcome knock on my door (or an unwelcome letter in the mail).

Trying to make infringing on someone's copyright as a business is cause for concern because you are engaging in illegal activities and then advertising it to the public at large, and thus you would carry that risk of someone sending a letter to paramount saying 'hey, this guy is running a website doing this and this and this and charging for it.' Whether Paramount decides what you are doing is actionable or not is entirely their call.

That does not mean one should go on a witch hunt and report all things infringing to Paramount because that would be a mountain of things coming through their legal department, commission art is likely not trackable and not going out to the public art large in any meaningful way, so that is probably alright in their view, tiny niche things they wouldn't care about - but it's the major stuff like bootlegging things and hawking them on your website, hawking your fanfilms on your website, and other stuff like that that starts to move out of the grey area because you are advertising these things to the public as the basis of your business.

It's all in degrees.

The tone of your post seems to want to paint me as the Benedict Arnold of trek artists, and I hope that is not your intention.

 

[Vance]

So, yes, Arkady, you believe that TrekBBS should be shut down then.

 

[Shaw]

The tone of your post seems to want to paint me as the Benedict Arnold of trek artists, and I hope that is not your intention.

The tone of my posts have less to say about you than what you've said about yourself. If you are worried about how you are being painted, consider how you were presented by the original artist... yourself.

Paramount has never been all that concerned with quality, which is why most of the best Trek stuff doesn't come from them (and their licensees). Similarly, the masses have never been all that concerned with quality, which is why licensed products of low quality sell so well. So for more than 40 years we've had people filling in the gaps (people who make quality stuff for people who want quality stuff). More to the point, Paramount won't even offer a license agreement to individuals, no matter how good the quality of workmanship... because they are too small to be bothered with.

You said...

"By the same token I would be more concerned about him making sales of Paramount official trek designs without their knowledge, because CBS and Paramount have been very gracious in letting fans play around in their sandbox with art, fan film productions and so forth. I'd consider a report to them about it if for no other reason than to neutralize a possible threat to the rest of the fans because one person is playing with fire and making a profit - just as I would if comeone from the fan film community was hawking DVDs on their website without permission and so forth."​

Of course if there was a profit to be made, Paramount would have been all over it from the start (that is why they are in business after all... to make a profit). But you seem to think that people getting by providing limited services for those few who want it should be... neutralized?

That attitude is of great concern... at least to me.

So that is how you've painted yourself to me. If I got that from you, that is all I am concerned with... others will believe what others want to, and I doubt I have any effect on that. But you've said you would do the reporting on other artists... and I didn't make you say that.

 

[Arkady]

So, yes, Arkady, you believe that TrekBBS should be shut down then.

*sigh*

Kindly point out where I even stated that TrekBBS is infringing on a copyright and therefore should be shut down?

 

[Arkady]

The tone of your post seems to want to paint me as the Benedict Arnold of trek artists, and I hope that is not your intention.

The tone of my posts have less to say about you than what you've said about yourself. If you are worried about how you are being painted, consider how you were presented by the original artist... yourself.

Paramount has never been all that concerned with quality, which is why most of the best Trek stuff doesn't come from them (and their licensees). Similarly, the masses have never been all that concerned with quality, which is why licensed products of low quality sell so well. So for more than 40 years we've had people filling in the gaps (people who make quality stuff for people who want quality stuff). More to the point, Paramount won't even offer a license agreement to individuals, no matter how good the quality of workmanship... because they are too small to be bothered with.

You said...

"By the same token I would be more concerned about him making sales of Paramount official trek designs without their knowledge, because CBS and Paramount have been very gracious in letting fans play around in their sandbox with art, fan film productions and so forth. I'd consider a report to them about it if for no other reason than to neutralize a possible threat to the rest of the fans because one person is playing with fire and making a profit - just as I would if comeone from the fan film community was hawking DVDs on their website without permission and so forth."
​

Of course if there was a profit to be made, Paramount would have been all over it from the start (that is why they are in business after all... to make a profit). But you seem to think that people getting by providing limited services for those few who want it should be... neutralized?

That attitude is of great concern... at least to me.

Once again, 99.9% of all this is too limited or on commissioned basis to worry Paramount anyway, it's the major stuff (that i pointed out) that is of concern to me, because Paramount has been very lenient with these things thus far, and it takes just one person to force their hand and put the legal dept. into crackdown mode. Take it as you will, since apparently I must be both a traitor and a witch hunter in your eyes.

Good thing I brought my asbestos underoos.

 

[Shaw]

Good thing I brought my asbestos underoos.

Not sure why you feel a need for those.

Once again, 99.9% of all this is too limited or on commissioned basis to worry Paramount anyway, it's the major stuff (that i pointed out) that is of concern to me...

But the issue still remains, you have said you'd consider a report to them... and apparently we are at the whims of what degrees you would consider report worthy.

So why not tell us who you are going to be reporting on and why. Right now I have no idea what would trigger you. I know some fan productions sell DVDs, so they are now in danger from you. This guy who is making these wood models as they are sold (so by commission really) also seems to have caught your eye. Who else?

Right now, I don't feel comfortable posting elsewhere until we have some assurances. And I really don't want to bring up anyone's name (who is alive and can be prosecuted) until I know what would send you into crackdown mode. Paramount has their own ability to find these things out without your help, so I'm less worried about them and more worried about how you decide who should be reported.

See, I know that large corporations (from personal experience with Microsoft) can be sent after people who don't deserve the trouble just by a random report. Even if no case goes to trial, legal expenses defending one's self against allegations can be quite painful. And it isn't like there is some form of reset button where everything is send back to the way it was if it wouldn't have been considered infringement before hand.

So what you've said so far is very serious for all of us because we don't know what will set you off.

Who are you going to be going after? Paramount might investigate that person, that person will have the expense of defending themselves... which they wouldn't get back even if Paramount decides in the end it wasn't worth their trouble. Now that we know that you are considering reporting people based on your personal standards (which may or may not be similar to Paramount's standard), I'd like to know what would set you off.


All I'm asking is that you clarify your statements... which are rather alarming.

 

[Ptrope]

It seems there's a lot of creative interpretation of people's words and 'tones' in this thread, and I don't see anything further constructive going on for about a page now, so this is getting put to bed.

Just to be clear, it is not this forum's stance to either provide legal advice or to make recommendations on how to deal with other fans who may violate copyright or trademark laws. Nor is it a TrekBBS stance to suggest that fans not pursue their creativity 'just in case it might be illegal' and we certainly don't condone nor wish to foster a community of informants. If this is what you love doing, and you are willing to accept responsibility for it, then knock yourself out. If you find your stuff being knocked off elsewhere, do what you feel is right - and remember that it may have unintended consequences, and maybe not just for you. We're all fans - we pretty much define ourselves as insinuating ourselves into the IP of whatever excites us. Not all fans respect their fellows' creations, which is an unfortunate fact of life, not just of fandom - but we should all respect our fellow members while we're on this board.

Thus endeth the lesson. CLANG!