Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies The Courts Businesses Space Entertainment News Science Technology

Star Trek/Axanar Lawsuit Isn't Going Away Just Yet (gizmodo.com) 97

Posted by BeauHD from the let's-settle-this dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Trek/Axanar Lawsuit Isn't Going Away Just Yet More

Star Trek/Axanar Lawsuit Isn't Going Away Just Yet

Comments Filter:

  • Well then, no Beyond for me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18, 2016 @04:11AM (#52342119)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I called it. [slashdot.org] What do you have to say now J.J. Abrams?

  • The copyright only restricts redistribution of derivative works, not just works with some common elements like pointy ears and character references, and even setting references. So for this lawsuit to proceed, plaintiffs would have to identify which exact work is Axanar derived work of, that is adaptation(for example, a movie based on a novel) or translation or some other similar transformation. Naming Star Trek in general is insufficient because it's not a work but a group of works. Fair use is a moot poin

    • Its your interpretation of copyright law which is flawed, not the Judges. This is a fairly slam dunk case of a derivative work.

      • According to definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] please tell me of which exact work is Axanar derivative?

        • 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:3)

      by Whibla ( 210729 )

      (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

      • It's merely set in the same setting. Copyright law explicitly defines only adaptations, translations etc as derivative works. Works with plots set in the same settings are not derivative works.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by naasking ( 94116 )

          Using the "same setting" qualifies as a derivative work [wikipedia.org]. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

          • After reading exact piece of text you're linked to. It tells me that it must be same work transformed to other medium, or somehow extended or expanded a bit. But Axanar is totally different work. For example, it can't be considered dramatization because it's not based on existing novel under copyright of plaintiffs.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by naasking ( 94116 )

              After reading exact piece of text you're linked to. It tells me that it must be same work transformed to other medium, or somehow extended or expanded a bit.

              "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.

              • It's plain as day that they never intended to cover stories with same characters, overall setting elements etc. Otherwise two historical novels of same period would be derivative works of each other. I understand that authors might want to manage integrity of their setting but copyright isn't the right tool to enforce it.

                • Re: (Score:3)

                  by naasking ( 94116 )

                  Otherwise two historical novels of same period would be derivative works of each other.

                  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

                • 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.

                  • Setting itself isn't copyrightable, and the assertion that any work in same setting is automatically derivative is blatantly wrong.There's simply no reason to believe that.

            • 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

              • For some reason that wasn't much of issue in time of Sherlock Holmes, that's why all this stuff exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Copyright on individual characters is relatively new invention, and it needs to be fed through legislative branch before it'll become proper law, rather than some judge's fantasy.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Whibla ( 210729 )

          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

          • By itself "based" means little, the following examples("translation" etc) are there to define what "based" actually means. And examples there clearly suggest being based means something that transforms the original work in some way, and not original works reusing some elements from other works. So Axanar court case and many others like it suggest that judges were using different definition of "derivative work" than original law implied, and they either should stop doing that or copyright law should be updat

    • 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.

      • Individual elements like that are explicitly not subject to copyright. Only complete works are subject to copyright. And as far as law is concerned there is only an issue if there is "is derivative work of" relation between two complete works, such as movies or novels. Axanar is single work, a movie, thus it much be in "is derivative work of" relation with some other work such as another movie or novel or whatever. Otherwise wording of law doesn't apply.
        • I don't know why you think that. Characters can be copyrighted, for explanation see here [nolo.com] or here [ivanhoffman.com]
          • For example this: http://copyright.gov/circs/cir... [copyright.gov] . I insist that any decision by court restricting the use of a character alone, irrespective of work, and in all works changes the meaning of copyright as defined in law, and thus the law must be updated for those decisions to make sense.
            • Oh, you're either deliberately misunderstanding copyright law, or your just haven't researched it very well.
              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.
              • Well, it totally doesn't convince me. Character copyright just plain doesn't follow from the law as written, and people can't be expected to follow unwritten laws that is conveyed mostly via hearsay and can be changed by new interpretation at any new court case. Since it doesn't follow from the law the judge basically usurped role performed by legislative branch. Of course judges are expected to draft own interpretation, but this is going too far IMO. A change of such a magnitude should be vetted by society
                • 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?" Authorship is not limited to the written word here.

                  btw, although single words cannot be copyrighted, paramount owns the trademark for Klingon, too [uspto.gov].
                  • Actually, trademark claims is what they should be pressing instead. Claiming copyright here is misuse. All this bogus legal situation exists only because people keep confusing trademark, patents and copyrights.

                    • 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?"

                    • This quote from law:

                      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.

                    • You mean anything which "as a whole represents an original work of authorship" but "based upon one or more preexisting works" is not covered? Are you really going to say that a movie using Klingons isn't based on Star Trek evn in part? haha
                    • "Based on" can mean many different things depending on the context, and examples given clarify what it means in this particular case. And not a single of them covers mere reuse of some lore elements, such as Klingons. In fact it implies a lot more stringent requirements on a work being considered derivative of other work. Thus Axanar could be only considered derivative work if, say, it was a remake of StarTrek The Motion Picture, or a movie combining several subplots taken away from various episodes of the

  • Somehow I doubt that corporations are going to go for a reasonable good-will arrangement when it comes to IP.

    • Not until they are facing losing said IP.

      No corporation has ever given anything except at gunpoint.

      • 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

  • This is a problem with CORPORATE identity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SkyLeach ( 188871 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @06:56AM (#52342413) Homepage

    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.

  • 'Not an appropriate way to deal with the fans' is about as gross an understatement of the situation as can be, so far as I'm concerned. I was already as unimpressed by the current crop of 'Star Trek-flavored' movies they've been putting out, but then there's this bullshit? Screw them. At this rate, I wouldn't even be bothered to pirate their damned movies, or their shitty web-only series. Even the producer and the director want Paramount and CBS to stop this nonsense and allow Axanar to be produced. Are the

  • Devil's advocate. I'm sorry.... Educate me? (Score:3)

    by irving47 ( 73147 ) on Saturday June 18, 2016 @02:37PM (#52343837) Homepage

    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)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      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?

      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

  • 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 ...

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close