Star Trek/Axanar Lawsuit Isn't Going Away Just Yet (gizmodo.com) 97
New submitter monkeyman.kix quotes a report from Gizmodo: Even though it sounded like we may be getting close to ending the battle between the fan film Axanar and the studios that own Star Trek, the latest court action hints that it's just starting. Last month at a Star Trek fan event, J.J. Abrams indicated that they believed that CBS and Paramount's lawsuit against the fan film Axanar would be settled. At the time, he said that Star Trek Beyond director Justin Lin was "outraged by this as a longtime fan" and that they both realized "this was not an appropriate way to deal with the fans." Except that the legal proceedings haven't stopped yet. The parties were back in court today, with CBS and Paramount (the plaintiffs) taking center stage. The state of the case is this: Paramount and CBS sued Axanar Productions for copyright infringement in late 2015. The judge rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss the case, finding that the studios had sufficient cause and provided enough notice to the fan film to proceed. He also dismissed a separate brief, refusing to decide on whether Klingon as a language was copyrightable. The Hollywood Reporter writes: "Now, instead of asking for an extension, Paramount and CBS have filed their own answer to the counterclaim admitting public statements, saying such items speak for themselves, but otherwise acting as though the lawsuit is moving forward. The plaintiffs, for example, deny that the works in controversy represent a fair use of their copyrights. "
Re: (Score:2)
The best little soap opera that ever snagged a mans attention.
Got me in it's claws too.
Re:boycott star trek (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see, what will the studio think?
Probably, hey, viewership of our syndicated reruns are down. Either we aren't advertising enough, or people are sick of it, or it's all Axanars fault.
In the first case, they'll advertise more. In the second, they'll pull out of more trek projects. In the last, they'll double down on screwing the Axanar folks.
And do you know why?
IT'S BECAUSE THEY JUST SEE A REDUCTION IN POPULARITY AND DON'T KNOW WHY!!!
That is, of course, if it ends up having a large enough effect to be even noticed by them in the first place.
Here's a choice that's a THOUSAND times better...
Write them a POLITE letter indicating your displeasure at their actions, and that you support Axanar and would like to see a reasonable resolution.
Whatever you do, do NOT threaten them or even imply any kind of legal actions!
That's the mostly likely to get you positive results, especially if you can get people to do it. And by the way, just to be clear, by 'write them a letter', I'm referring to dead tree format delivered by the US Post Office. I know email is quick and easy, but half those old farts running the studios don't know how to open their own email and don't pay any attention to it in the first place. On the other hand, a physical representation of your views written out is something they find much harder to ignore. (If you really want to make them think about it, make it registered mail so you have proof of receipt.)
Just to reiterate, email campaigns are watered down and of little value. Not dealing with the product is invisible to the companies, and if any dip is noticed, they assume it's the market. Actual letters still get their attention. Avoid doing things like be an asshat or threatening them with lawyers because at best that will get you ignored, at worse they'll sick their lawyers on you, but either way you fail.
Remember, you have to TELL them how you feel because they are too stupid to understand it otherwise.
Thank you, and yes, you don't have to use a pen, you can print it out and sign it. (If your handwriting is as bad as mine, that might be preferable.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a very good and reasonable suggestion. And it will fail miserably, even if you could somehow get a lot of people to write a lot of letters.
First, if you think the people who make the decision to sue fan-produced materials actually give a shit about what you think, you are completely delusional. They surround themselves with people who are paid to make sure that the unwashed masses can't contact them. One of their assistants may mention to them "we got a bunch of letters ..........." and that is al
Re: (Score:1)
Interview with J.J. Abrams saying he never liked Star Trek. [cc.com]
Re: (Score:1)
This is the man that owns Star Trek: Sumner Redstone [wikipedia.org]. I know members of his extended family, and I haven't heard a single complimentary word about him or his immediate family. IMO, it's all about the money, and any artistic or cultural aspects of their holdings are nothing more than a means to increase the family fortune and power.
"Hurt our brand" (Score:2)
> "this may somehow hurt our profits or hurt our 'brand' (which will hurt our profits), therefore it must not be allowed".
You figure they don't want something to hurt the brand, and I think you're right. If they get a bunch of letters from fans (customers) telling them that the law suit is hurting their brand ...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't write them..... write to your congresspeople about abuses by media companies. Get some proposed lawful action going that will have a serious negative affect on the companies' bottom line in $$$$.
Re: (Score:1)
Distributors see money (Indiegogo campaign raised $566,023). Distributors see a way to take money. Distributors do that thing.
Of course, assuming they win a lawsuit, none of this money will go to anyone involved in the making of anything.
Distributors are dying. Let them die.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that, it's also managing to hurt them as a brand at this point--what is probably needed is a boycott with a petition and/or letter-writing campaign telling them that the utter hostility to the very same group that they normally could rely on having turn up for any Star Trek media they chose to make, regardless of quality, is alienating those once-sure ticket sales.
Honestly, if they really thought it might do better than their next Star Trek movie, they should have tried throwing money directly
Re: (Score:3)
These arguments have already been battled out months ago. There was an "I Stand with CBS/Paramount" movement on facebook, run from TrekBBS which was in perpetual flamewar with the pro-Axanar people. The biggest issue was the tone Axanar was taking with Paramount, which lead to all the long-term fan-film fans to worry about one rogue production bringing down the ban-hammer on everyone.
Axanar was explicitly marketing itself as more than just a fan film, but rather a professional-quality production. Which is
So big data failed (Score:2)
IT'S BECAUSE THEY JUST SEE A REDUCTION IN POPULARITY AND DON'T KNOW WHY!!!
So basically all that data that's being collected via Facebook, Twitter, Google trends, doubleclick/Google, location data, non-cash spending, etc etc etc can't tell anybody anything and we've still got knee jerk conclusions to everything? Good show.
Re: (Score:2)
I was sort of interested in going to see the new Star Trek film in theaters but wasn't 100% committed to it. Seeing this news, I think I will forget Star Trek and spend my money going to see the other films comming out that I really want to see instead like Independence Day 2, The BFG and Ghostbusters.
Never heard of Columbia Pictures suing anyone for making Ghostbusters fan content...
Re:boycott star trek (Score:4, Informative)
Well, to be fair, come July there will be no Ghostbusters fan left on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the various bits of news I've heard about it basically made me feel like the whole thing is very much pandering to the Tumblr crowd--I'd not have minded something like an all-female team, but the way they've been selling it makes it feel like they just want to be seen as Feminist, and the sort where that text would be in a pretty feminine script font with blinking and sparkles. I'd have actually been happier it if was the product of blind casting, and in some ways that might have been the best way to
Re: (Score:2)
"That isn't a boycott, these geeks are just ripping our movies now! We need tougher laws to protect the all important EIIII PEEEE!"
Well then, no Beyond for me (Score:3, Interesting)
I threw my money at Axanar after seeing the first Beyond trailer. Then they dismissed the lawsuit and released a second trailer which seemed much less shitty, so I thought I'd give them a break and go watch it.
But if they want to sue the fan Star Trek productions then I guess I'll go back to not seeing Beyond. I was only going to see it on the fool's hope that it won't be utter shit like Into Darkness was, so I guess I won't be losing much.
Re: (Score:1)
I wish there was a way to somehow give them less than no money. With only very rare exceptions, every big-budget shitpile of a movie still turns a profit after China gets ahold of it, and as long as that's true there's no reason for them to ever stop.
I guess torrenting it technically counts, but then you're still spending your bandwidth and electricity for only a negligible, hypothetical loss to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Movies like that are best seen on the big screen. It is too bad they don't recycle the earlier ones on short runs in theaters -- they couldn't possibly do as bad as some of this junk in only its third week.
I called it. (Score:2, Interesting)
I called it. [slashdot.org] What do you have to say now J.J. Abrams?
Re: (Score:1)
I always thought it was a bit unusual how parody films/videos are perfectly legal, but for some reason if you remove the humor aspect all of a sudden it is illegal.
Re: (Score:1)
They are legal. ( Parody Copyright_issues ) [wikipedia.org]
"Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 U.S.C. 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works". That commentary function provides some j
Re: (Score:3)
A parody does not have to be funny though. Some leaves a sour aftertaste.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair use would not includude a full movie with no financial responsibilities owed to the copyright holder.
And this isn't a parody for critical purposes, anyway (aside from the high level of slapping the reboot in the face.)
Re:Spit or swallow, Paramount? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's sad is the fans have passion and tell better stories and understand the source material better that the studio's hired hacks. Look what a farce the rebooted Star Trek has become. Every reboot really. Funny story: Once a puritan attorney-general decided to shut down the porno movie industry by prosecuting the actresses for prostitution and financers as pimps. He took a test case to court, but the judiciary bukakked all over his face with a finding that made clear the porno movie industry was legal.
Maybe we need a porno parody version of Star Trek with good stories and awesome porn, wouldn't that be every nerds wet wet wet dream? I mean porn has a problem with good stories and sci fi has a problem with good porn so, rule 34.
It would be funny if Paramount tried to fuck this fan over in court and ended up legitimizing fan films.
Fans are the cow that can be eternally milked for cash. A porno version of the prime directive would be the ultimate way to tell paramount to get fucked. Get para mounted.
It's not how copyright supposed to work (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Kim Jong-un is as far as I know still alive.
But the attack from CBS and Paramount is just stupid. It does not bring value to the franchise, it just adds a bad taste of bitterness to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Its your interpretation of copyright law which is flawed, not the Judges. This is a fairly slam dunk case of a derivative work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeating the word "exact" and expecting the law to be fatally stuck on minor word definitions is a standard laymans mistake. The law is only hung up on definitions of technical legal words; the vast majority of the words involved are plain English words, and the court doesn't get narrowly pedantic over them. Any of the related Star Trek works are suitable to cite as the original. There isn't any narrow requirement of naming that you seem to imply. "I know a man-trap when I see one" is the sort of legal sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Section 106 of the US Copyright Act states (italic emphasis mine):
"Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works
Subject to sections 107 through 122*, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... ..."
(1)
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
(3)
So, while you and I may believe that CBS and Paramount are being complete douches, and, ultimately, hurting their own brand, they do seem to have legal standing. Of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Using the "same setting" qualifies as a derivative work [wikipedia.org]. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Extended/expanded a bit" = uses the same settings, characters or other inventions of the original work, but in a substantially new way that it counts as a new work. This movie is clearly a dramatization, fictionalization, or motion picture, as described in the very first sentence quoting the copyright act from my link. It's plain as day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now you're just being obtuse. Such historical novels didn't invent the history in which they're told. If one novel invented something which wasn't actually historical, like Sherlock Holmes, and the other novel included it, then the latter might indeed be a derivative work (depending on the extent of inclusion).
Which is all beside the point, because Star Trek is clearly an invented universe, and as such, any work taken pla
Re: (Score:2)
A historical setting isnt a creative work, while a fictional setting is - Star Trek is a fictional setting, and basing anything on the works that created that setting would be a derivative work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the setting is well known and recognizable, it has more protection than if it is just the same setting in a random work. It is the same concept as where a famous character like Sherlock Holmes can get protection as a character not just as part of an individual work. Star Trek is about as recognizable a setting as you can get. It is not realistic to expect the setting to be seen as original, as non-derivative. But that said, they only have to prove that it is the same setting as one of the episodes. That
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That 'etc' as you summarise it includes a whole host of stuff. Current US copyright law defines derivative works as follows:
"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other m
Re: (Score:2)
That's what STAR TREK fan film means (Score:2)
The movie is explicitly a STAR TREK fan film. Not a "low budget sci-fi flik". If it's a STAR TREK film, that's called a derivative work. Same characters (both individuals and groups like Klingons and Star Fleet), extending the Star Trek plot lines forward or backward in time, etc.
You ask "which Star Trek work". Several, actually, each an separate violation of copyright law. Their use of Kilngons is derived from each and every time Star Trek used Klingons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Words, names, and short phrases may not be copyrightable, but a portion of a work can still be copyrighted. Character copyright is fairly well established, although it makes me smile when you insist so fervently that the courts follow you. You're cute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
btw, although single words cannot be copyrighted, paramount owns the trademark for Klingon, too [uspto.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming copyright here is misuse.
Why? You didn't answer the question of the previous post. I'll put it here again for you:
Copyright law is written to be intentionally vague, and covers "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." Why do you think that creating a character wouldn't fit in the category of an "original work of authorship?"
Re: (Score:2)
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Examples provided here guide me to conclude that only transformations are covered, and not works made from scratch. As long as those examples remain as they are there's no convincing me that completely new works reusing some characters and setting elements are derivative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations and IP (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt that corporations are going to go for a reasonable good-will arrangement when it comes to IP.
Re: (Score:3)
Not until they are facing losing said IP.
No corporation has ever given anything except at gunpoint.
Counterexamples (Score:2)
Not until they are facing losing said IP.
No corporation has ever given anything except at gunpoint.
Think about all the open source that is released by good-willed corporations. Even IP is given away Tesla's "All our patent are belong to you". [1]
There are corporations who believe in the commons. Even Apple, who legislates on design patents contributes to open source.
That said, the gist of what you said is true, and the only fix is to demolish the "corporations are people" legal construct (mostly because it's bullshit - corporations live forever and have no morals by default - it's simply legally con
Re: (Score:2)
If corporations are people, then why can't you kill them with a bullet?
This is a problem with CORPORATE identity (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike authors, corporations live forever. They don't give a flying crap in the accounting department how many old fans get pissed off, because fans die. Revenue streams are forever. All they have to do is sit on a trademark (brand name) or copyright (of which Star Trek is both) until things die down. They'll give placebos to the fans a little, but honestly Axanar isn't well-known enough yet to hurt them over the long haul.
They'll just outlive any displeasure.
My biggest argument against all of this is that Axanar is a completely new story in a fictional universe that they bought the IP rights to. It's a social idea hook. It's LONG past the original 35 year copyright span.
The point of that original span was to be the lifetime of the exclusive ownership of a body of work for a reasonable time as defined by the following criteria:
1.) The lifetime of an author to enjoy the rights to his labor without theft.
2.) A reasonable compromise between cultural saturation and ownership. Over that amount of time it is unreasonable for any owner to expect any popular work to remain under their sole control due to the nature of human society.
Star Trek is now a cultural meme. It is a consistent fictional universe with a life of it's own. Attempting to extend ownership of an idea in perpetuity is a lucrative corporate wet dream, but it flies in the face of the way human society works. We evolve based on our shared dreams, desires and cultural ideas. Parents have now introduced TWO GENERATIONS to Star Trek without marketing based on an old ideal created by a now-dead author. Most graduates from high school have watched NONE, NOT ONE of the series of STTOS, STTNG, DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise has only been watched by a few. Ask them.
IP isn't just about the works anymore, it's about language and meme... owning the memories and cultural identities of huge segments of the population... for profit.
Nothing good comes from this.
If this holds up, then William Gibson should have a right to sue Microsoft for trademark infringement, as well as the Wachowskis. After all, their cultural memes came from Neuromancer.
Paramount/CBS can KISS MY ASS! (Score:1)
Axanar petition (Score:2)
Devil's advocate. I'm sorry.... Educate me? (Score:3)
I really want to understand...
The way most people (including me) seems to understand the fan-film 'arrangement' for Trek and Wars.....
If they can do a fan-film and pay the vendors to provide costumes, props, and caterers, etc... It's allegedly fine, as the producers are not technically making a profit from using Star Trek properties. (The same appears to be true with Lucasfilm/Star Wars, but apparently it's laid out more specifically in writing?)
It even seems like it's even better (safer, legally) for the producers/creators if there's a LOSS on the whole endeavor.
A friend of mine is a guild-member script writer who knows more than me about these things.... What I was told was that a new production studio had been built with some of the indiefundmekickstarter money that was raised.
So... A real, tangible, standing structure... asset. That will be used to create other things in the future. Yes, including more Trek stuff, probably... But a substantial, real thing that could easily be converted to cash?
I really want to understand why/if this is right or wrong, factually, and if it's something that makes a difference to people that have the "It's OK, as long as they don't make profit" mindset?
I asked this question, and was basically banned from their facebook page for asking. (I think they turned off permission for me to post in the comments)
Disclaimer: I LOVE Prelude to Axanar. I honestly think it should have been licensed, shown in theaters as an add-on "short" to some other Paramount property as a one-time thing, offered on iTunes for $5, and shown with ST Beyond in the theaters.
A couple of Trekkie friends of mine got together a little while back, and we all watched Star Trek: Rebels as the "main event" that night. I said that was ok... but check THIS out! Axanar won the night, hands-down.
I think I'm going to hate Beyond, and would gladly trade the new movie franchise for Axanar-like material on a one-for-one basis, regardless of length.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically it boils down to licensing.
"Fan films" and other fan-items are generally produced for free and given away, with no profit motive at all - they were created by fans who wanted to play in the universe. These are generally done as hobby projects and no expectation of cash is given, other than maybe a few bucks
The intent is totally evil ... (Score:1)
It's pretty clear that fan-films are okay as long as they are crap. Once you raise enough $$$ to produce something good CBS/Paramount will rob you ...