CBS, Paramount Settle Lawsuit Over 'Star Trek' Fan Film (hollywoodreporter.com) 146
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Hollywood Reporter: Stand down from battle stations. Star Trek rights holders CBS and Paramount have seen the logic of settling a copyright suit against Alec Peters, who solicited money on crowdfunding sites and hired professionals to make a YouTube short and a script of a planned feature film focused on a fictional event -- a Starfleet captain's victory in a war with the Klingon Empire -- referenced in the original 1960s Gene Roddenberry television series. Thanks to the settlement, CBS and Paramount won't be going to trial on Stardate 47634.44, known to most as Jan. 31, 2017. According to a joint statement, "Paramount Pictures Corporation, CBS Studios Inc., Axanar Productions, Inc. and Alec Peters are pleased to announce that the litigation regarding Axanar's film Prelude to Axanar and its proposed film Axanar has been resolved. Axanar and Mr. Peters acknowledge that both films were not approved by Paramount or CBS, and that both works crossed boundaries acceptable to CBS and Paramount relating to copyright law." Peters' Axanar video and script, which feature such arguably copyrighted elements as Vulcan ears, the Klingon language and an obscure character from a 1969 episode, sparked a lawsuit in December 2015. The litigation then proceeded at warp speed with the case almost making it to trial in just 13 months, an amazingly brisk pace by typical standards. When Axanar comes out, it will look different. "Axanar and Mr. Peters have agreed to make substantial changes to Axanar to resolve this litigation, and have also assured the copyright holders that any future Star Trek fan films produced by Axanar or Mr. Peters will be in accordance with the 'Guidelines for Fan Films' distributed by CBS and Paramount in June 2016," states the parties' joint announcement of a settlement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alec Peters has ruined Star Trek fan films for everyone due to his greed. And I was enjoying Star Trek Continues which can no longer continue thanks to him.
Re: (Score:1)
Alec Peters is a greedier bastard than Gene Roddenberry. That's quite an achievement.
Re: (Score:1)
That's what disappoints me most. I'm reasonably convinced that Peters was trying to profit from Star Trek, which isn't OK. But other productions like Star Trek Continues aren't profiting and actually increase interest in Star Trek. I don't think that anyone would see Star Trek Continues on Youtube and then decide they didn't want to watch TOS. If anything, it's free advertising for TOS and would increase interest in that series. If CBS and Paramount had simply said you can't profit from Star Trek, or even t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You could well be right that he was trying to profit from Star Trek, but I'm not convinced it's not okay.
Apparently he was accused of copying the "concept and feel" from decades old episodes, including "Vulcan ears, the Klingon language and an obscure character from a 1969 episode". The world's richest man founded his empire on copying the contemporary "look and feel" of the Mac from Apple (who copied it from Xerox).
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't just copy the look and feel.
He took entire designs wholesale; Klingon ships, at least one Federation ship, etc.; he took the exact names of the fictional nations involved; he even used actual Star Trek screen-used costumes. But most damningly, he took at least one whole character for use in Axanar.
Interestingly, the character I'm referring to isn't from TOS, but rather from Enterprise, which is much more recent.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going by the article, and in particular what seemed to me a key passage: "the judge found under an objective analysis that the YouTube video, dubbed Prelude to Axanar, was too congruent to Star Trek, leaving a jury to decide whether a reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar." Perhaps there were other charges too, but still, the Apple v.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect? It's a Trek fan film. The TOS ones take everything lock stock and barrel including unfilmed scripts and original actors. Of course a fan film is going to reuse major elements from the franchise.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but by the same token, movie studios let people see their movies in exchange for a cut of ticket prices. If showing for a fee imparts a license to copy, then both Apple and movie goers receive this.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but by the same token, movie studios let people see their movies in exchange for a cut of ticket prices. If showing for a fee imparts a license to copy, then both Apple and movie goers receive this.
In both cases, it's not license to copy but certainly allows you to take the idea and express it in a new and different fashion. Copyright protects the expression, not the underlying concept or idea. There are plenty of "Zombies / Aliens / Animals attack shows and movies but each is a different expression of the idea, and the expression is protected. For example, I can watch Transformers and decide to create a movie about aliens who are on earth disguised as common household appliances and reveal themselve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You completely missed my first point, that he was charged with copying the "concept and feel", which, you seem to agree, it shouldn't be possible to charge him with. Are you seriously suggesting that all he did was "make a duplicate" of a Star Trek story, not make a new story? Really? Doesn't copyright law allow transformative works as well as satire? (Well, apparently it doesn't today. Maybe yesterday or tomorrow, depending on who does it, and how much cash they have.)
Satire certainly. If by transformative you mean derivative and I think the answer to that is no, and that's exactly what the movie was - a derivative work using props and replicas of items from the original, which violates the original's copyright.
I'm not convinced about that either. As far as I can see, it's given us a shit operating system and a bunch of shit low-brow entertainment in exchange for draconian enforcement of bunch of restrictions that no-one really seems to understand.
It's also given us OSS, because without copyrights the GPL would not be enforceable. Copyrights let creators decide how their works can be used, and I'd wager much of what is produced wouldn't be absent copyrights. As I've said, the fundamental principle is sound
Re: (Score:2)
See Copyright & Copywrong: What are Derivative and Transformative Works? [foundrylawgroup.com]
You need to do a bit of research. (Score:5, Interesting)
Star Trek Continues also violates those same guidelines (high-quality props/sets/uniforms instead of toy-store quality items, professional acting/directing/scriptwriting, episode length and continuity, etc.) and so could well be sued. However, Trek Continues is creating this content in an explicitly not-for-profit context. Trek Continues therefore is holding high hopes that CBS will choose not to exercise their legal rights against them.
Since CBS/Paramount and the Star Trek franchise are not demonstrably hurt by the Trek Continues production (and suing them might well result in such damage), the people associated with Trek Continues have said publicly that they intend to create the full eleven episode run which they originally set out to publish - intended to fill the gap between the episode Turnabout Intruder and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. They've also pointed out that just because CBS/Paramount can sue them doesn't mean they will sue them. They've said that they have sufficient funding and resources to complete and publish the remaining four episodes. While there's a lot if if coming off this, I share their hopes. CBS/Paramount would do vastly more to harm their interests by suing than they might gain from injunctive relief in this case. But - yes, Alec Peters tried to stick his fingers in the cookie jar, so to speak, and risked ruining a lot of great fan fiction for all of us.
Re: (Score:1)
The thing is those guidelines did not exist until Alec Peters tried to profit from Axanar. Star Trek Continues used to be in the clear simply because they are non-profit.
You need to do a bit more research. (Score:2)
Re: You need to do a bit more research. (Score:4)
Re: You need to do a bit more research. (Score:2)
Exactly. The guidelines are permissive exceptions to copyright law that CBS/Paramount wrote in order to specifically allow fan films within certain boundaries. If the guidelines hadn't been published, then all ST fan fiction would be subject to taketown notices.
Re: (Score:2)
...and that too was ignored by EVERY other fan film project out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even the lawyers are sure which bits were and were not in violation of copyright law. They wouldn't have known until after decisions had been rendered at court. Are Vulcan ears copyrightable? Or are they a derivative work from older elf-ears? The world will never know.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek Continues also violates those same guidelines (high-quality props/sets/uniforms instead of toy-store quality items, professional acting/directing/scriptwriting
Have you seen Star Trek Continues? Cheesy plots, lousy acting, terrible effects and you can't tell me their props, uniforms and sets don't look like toys.
It's like a low-budget 1960s vision of space travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen Star Trek ToS? Cheesy plots, lousy acting, terrible effects and you can't tell me their props, uniforms and sets don't look like toys.
It's like a low-budget 1960s vision of space travel.
Whoooosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? I haven't heard anything about Star Trek continues not being able to um.... continue, and there is nothing on their Web Site or Twitter feed that indicates that. Are you aware of something that I'm not?
Re: (Score:2)
really hope they get to Continue this series, they have finally got a good cast and settled into roles, Vic does a pretty good kirk, and the new Spock and Mccoy are passable, story lines are solid, and it has the "feel" of TOS, if they cant go on, we will be left with all the shitty green screen clones that look rubbish...
Re: (Score:2)
I read them, but according to an update at the Continues indiegogo site, CBS is reviewing everything on a case by case basis and has not suggested that Continues stop what it's doing as of yet: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/star-trek-continues#/updates [indiegogo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't do anything that anyone else hasn't done.
Re: (Score:2)
If the writers are any good it will get a more Blake's 7 type treatment where it is up to the viewer to understand that it is a different view on the same "Federation" as in Star Trek, but with totally different names and iconography.
If they can't do that, then it was going to be weak anyways. They still get to make a movie, they still get to tell whatever parts of the story were original. Rather than being downgraded, this should actually improve the art; else they shouldn't have been doing it anyways.
This
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look into Renegades, Tim Russ' project, which basically did that very thing.
They needed to do something because Renegades was rather boring. It had a lot of promise but was too disjointed to be any good, and certainly didn't interest me is supporting the sequel(s). They, IMHO, traded too much on "Hey, this is a new type of ST" and didn't put enough time into making it an interesting story.
What I don't understand is why professionals think Paramount will ignore their work even when it uses their copyrighted material? Make a pilot, even crowd fund it, pitch it and hope it sells; or t
Re: (Score:2)
where it is up to the viewer to understand that it is a different view on the same "Federation" as in Star Trek
Blake's 7's Federation had nothing in common with Trek's Federation except one word in their name. Terran Federation != United Federation of Planets.
Won't Be Star Trek (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If it continues, it'll be rewritten and we'll end up with fewer of the cool actors that were in prelude.... We'll eventually see what was done to Andromeda to make it non-Star Trek
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, and it's admittedly *my* problem... Once I know it's a veiled copy, every lame name change, every alteration so that "it doesn't upset the lawyers" will snap me out of what I'm watching and make me roll my eyes. Much like Andromeda. I have no idea how much of the Kevin Sorbo "takeover" of Andromeda made it look cheesier than normal Star Trek, or if it was simply the "Action Pack" production company's fault... But I tried hard... But in the end Andromeda was border-line unwatchable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Won't Be Star Trek (Score:5, Insightful)
There was one where the Enterprise was parked underwater just to hide from a pre-industrial civilization - can you believe that? Another where a belt buckle made all of Star Fleet obsolete.
I even saw one where the Enterprise was being built in the middle of a field on Earth's surface, and a single drop of red paint was enough to implode Vulcan.
Re: (Score:2)
There was one where the Enterprise was parked underwater just to hide from a pre-industrial civilization - can you believe that?
It makes sense, they probably didn't have sonar back in the 80s. Right?
Read the guidelines, they're reasonable (Score:2)
> The only thing I can read from this is that in order to meet CBS/Viacom/Paramount requirements, it can't retain any of the Star Trek elements we'd like to see
Read the actual guidelines rather than reading between the lines of the Slashdot summary. IF you want to use all the Star Trek trademarks and copyright stuff, you're not allowed to dob the following, unless you ask permission first:
Sell tickets
Have a long-running TV show with many episodes
Buy knock-off costumes (you can make them or buy licens
Re: In the interest of infringing further: (Score:2)
Really? I've heard the last few Trek outings were absolute shit. I've been too busy to see many movies, but after Paramount's shenanigans began I couldn't see making time to give them any of my money. The fans made Trek - if they want to shit on the fans, then the fans can u make Trek. Except that most of them are p'tak.
Re: (Score:2)
The last three JJ Abrams Star Trek movies (I think one of them may have been mis-labeled as a Star Wars movie) were beyond awful.
Re: (Score:2)
The last three JJ Abrams Star Trek movies (I think one of them may have been mis-labeled as a Star Wars movie) were beyond awful.
Personally, I rather enjoyed the reboot movies... Much better than any of the Enterprise episodes...
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate to admit it, you're probably right. The movies have been wildly successful by every margin that Hollywood cares about (money & blow jobs) and they did this by removing everything that made Star Trek what it was. Most of these elements required the audience to think and that's the last thing you and the masses want to do, even if you and they are capable. So what we ended up with was three Star Wars films with the names changed to avoid copyright issues. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy
Re: (Score:3)
I totally agree. As a lifelong Star Trek fan I have to point out that William Shatner sincerely advised the obsessed people you talk about to "get a life" long ago. Perhaps anybody with an excessive attachment that they could "abandon" should finally now take his advice to heart?
My advice, choose what is on the screens you look at, and never ever ever make what somebody else put on a screen into part of your personal identity.
Star Trek's financial value of course won't change, but if twelve people stop buyi
Let's face it (Score:2)
Axenar looked significantly better than anything Paramount/CBS has come up with in the past 20 years. They had to kill it.
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'm with you... But you seem to know more than I've heard/read. I got banned from their facebook page when I asked about the production studio and equipment that was paid for with the Axanar crowd-funding money. Was there something else, as well?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Informative)
How about paying himself a salary?
The instant you do that, it's not a hobby anymore. It's a commercial enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just, no.
Firstly, what I said above stands; even non-profits can be commercial enterprises.
Secondly, Alec has claimed to be a non-profit. AFAIK, the filing was never actually started, let alone completed.
Re: (Score:2)
Bunch of bullshit. CBS/Paramount can't smell an opportunity when it is shoved up their nose. They didn't have to kill it. They could have embraced it and turned into something legit and made boat loads of money. But CBS/Paramount hasn't treated the ST property right since day one when they practically stole it from Lucille Ball and immediately canceled the show. It has made money despite them only b/c the original idea was so good and true believers have sacrificed to keep it going. But Gene is dead, and Pa
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight. My buddy had me and another friend over to watch ST: Renegades... and we sat through it because, hey, Chekov, and all... Or whatever, it's Star Trek.... Then I said, "Well, that's cool, but check THIS out." (Played Axanar) They were both amazed how good it was in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Film (Score:2)
To save some web searching, here is the movie on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] , and the web site for the production company: http://www.axanarproductions.c... [axanarproductions.com]
How is CBS and Paramount harmed by fan fiction? (Score:3, Interesting)
The law may be on the side of CBS and Paramount, but I'd like to know how they're harmed by the production of fan fiction. There's a case to be made that use of trademarks may be a problem, but the companies chose not to pursue that issue. They focused on copyright. How did this harm them?
Fan fiction doesn't reduce fan interest in the franchise and the works created by CBS and Paramount. Instead, it increases interest, by keeping fans interested in between series and movies and perhaps winning over new fans who might encounter the videos on Youtube. Thefan works are non-canon, and there's no reason why it would reduce the desire of fans for films that are considered canon. For example, Star Trek Continues makes use of most of the TOS characters played by different actors. I don't see any logical reason that Star Trek Continues would reduce interest in TOS, though. If anything, encountering that on Youtube might make viewers want to watch TOS and increase revenue for CBS and Paramount.
How could there be any damages to CBS and Paramount? Those donations are to cover the cost of production, not for the creators to pocket the money. That money was never going to CBS and Paramount anyway, who don't solicit donations to pay for the cost of their films. Instead, the studios set a budget, invest that money, and get paid though advertising and at the box office (for movies).
How were CBS and Paramount possibly harmed? And if they're not harmed, how could they collect any damages at all?
Re:How is CBS and Paramount harmed by fan fiction? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, apparently, the damages *could* be something like, "Hey, we can crowd-fund this cool Axanar thing, or we could go buy the Star Trek Beyond DVD..."
As for the donations to cover production... It seems the sticking point was they used the money to pay for tangible equipment and a studio that could be considered profit. I'm not sure if that's accurate 100% or if there was something else.
Re:How is CBS and Paramount harmed by fan fiction? (Score:5, Informative)
They are very harmed if they wanted to make a mediocre movie about that part of the story, and there is already some higher-quality "fan" movie that uses their copyrighted material that they would have to compete with.
It isn't hard to find a way that it harms them. I agree that fan fiction usually helps, but that isn't a guarantee, it isn't a law of the Universe that fan fiction can only help the company who owns the copyrights.
It is a weak argument. There is no proof one way or the other what the effect will be, and will vary on a case-by-case basis. To even do the analysis you'd have to know what stories CBS/Paramount plan to tell in the future, and that will always be confidential, so you can't even do an analysis of it directly steps on their toes.
Also, fans complain when new canon material contradicts popular fan material, and fans complain that if they didn't shut something down it is as if they had approved it for canon. It isn't obvious that encouraging or even passively allowing it doesn't change canon in the minds of viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
Just call it a parody highlighting the lack of plot and poor writing of Star Trek Beyond using contrast. Parody is largely protected from copyright and Paramount CBS can go suck eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just call it a parody highlighting the lack of plot and poor writing of Star Trek Beyond using contrast. Parody is largely protected from copyright and Paramount CBS can go suck eggs.
Hey that's an awesome idea, create a parody Star Trek movie short (29 min, 59 seconds) where the plot is that the "C.B.S. Enterprise" (Copyright Barristers' Ship), under captain T'Sapf enters the timeline from an alternate universe and sues the Federation for infringing 'their' IP rights (i.e. their continued existence) as per their "Paramount Directive". And as per Grand Council's order, are allowed to end their existence. Our hero (TBD) and his crew are to enter the alternate universe, navigate to their H
Re: (Score:2)
I would crowd fund it ;-)
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/... [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Had Alec Peters kept it non-profit, there's a really good chance CBS/Paramount would've ignored him. Hell, they may even quietly have been grateful to him for pumping more life into the Star Trek franchise. Star Trek Continues is a fine example of such a not-for-profit venture. For the record, JJ Abrams made some interesting
Selling tickets at a profit isn't typical "fan fic (Score:2)
The guidelines they set out are sufficient that another company isn't allowed to have Star Trek TV show.
In this particular case, actually the guy WAS pocketing the money, which was the biggest issue. You can still make fan fiction if you want, you just can't sell tickets to a professionally-produced full-length feature film starring well-known actors b without getting permission first.
Can still ask permission, or fair use (Score:2)
It is perhaps worth noting that the guidelines are an additional grant of license by Paramount / CBS. People who want to do something outside of those guidelines can still ask permission, and I suspect it would be granted if it were in the same spirit as what the guidelines envision.
Of course, people can also still make Fair Use works, and "not for profit" gets you halfway to fair use.
> Star Trek Continues also violates the guidelines, but I have a hard time seeing how their copyright infringement is ha
Some odd things in their guidelines (Score:2)
Some odd things in their guidelines
"Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any harmful or illegal activity.
Data has said "shit" in startrek before.
There has been some nudity in a couple of episodes, bum shots.
The entire crew of the enterprise got intoxicated on drugs in more than one occasion.
Some startrek drinks contain alcohol.
I'm sure there have been characters on the holodeck smoking tobacco before.
And.. if you can't show any "harmful
Re: (Score:1)
Try quoting the whole thing:
"If the fan production uses commercially-available Star Trek uniforms, accessories, toys and props, these items must be official merchandise and not bootleg items or imitations of such commercially available products."
This isn't about "fan made props". It's about buying "bootleg" imitations of official products.
The purpose is so fan films don't give publicity to people selling bootleg merch - or, probably more specifically in line with the intent, so that fan films cannot be cre
Re: (Score:2)
Shit isn't considered universally profane, it is only profane in certain contexts. Obviously they would allow uses of "shit" that are similar to how Data used it in the story.
Obviously, "partial nudity" of the same equivalent rating-level as has been featured in Star Trek would be acceptable. "Nudity" and "partial nudity" are not actually the same thing, and those "bum" shots are probably not even shots of naked actors. You would have to understand the American English meaning of these words, and American s
Re: (Score:2)
After that silhouette of Uhura I have to agree with the ban on nudity.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you can use Magog ears instead. Who owns the rights to Andromeda?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I understand that you can copyright a story. But fucking Vulcan ears?
What I don't get is how people know these particular pointed ear props are Vulcan and not Elven. Maybe Nintendo should be talking to them for impersonating Link...
Re: (Score:2)
Link's not an elf; he's a Hylian. The Zelda universe has its own counterpart to wood elves, called Kokiri. Link in Ocarina of Time was raised by Kokiri.
But at least CBS and Paramount have decided to embrace fan creativity by publishing guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable fan work. Nintendo doesn't at all.
Stardate 47xxx (Score:1)
Stardate 47634.44 would be in the middle of Star Trek: The Next Generation 7th season. But no Picard? Fake!
Re: (Score:1)
Vulcan ears copyrightable elements? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Police boxes.
You can stop funding the people that harm you. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my view, having followed this from the beginning, Paramount's most likely motivation was to protect the consumers.
Couple of interesting points:
1. They never sued Renegades, even though they had highly recognizable names in it. And that's a completed movie, not an "in production" movie.
2. They never sued Horizon, another completed movie, and one that was leaps and bounds more watchable than Renegades IMO, especially given the minimal budget.
There is a lot of speculation that Peters has not put the 1.4
ST Continues (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read my comment above. It still lives, at least for the time being...
Broken Copyright (Score:2)
(Liberal snow flakes please just move to read the next comment and keep your mod phasers set to stun). This whole thing just highlights what is fundamentally wrong with copyright. This is a cut and dried example of how the ridiculously long copyright laws supported by both establishment parties are stifling and robbing our culture and are only for the enrichment of a few. This is the system that Barak Hussain Obama defended and did not fix for the last 8 years. We will have to see what the next administ
Re: (Score:2)
This is the system that Barak Hussain Obama defended and did not fix for the last 8 years. We will have to see what the next administration brings.
Likewise President Bush for eight years. Neither of them did anything about it because neither of them could. U.S. copyright policy is in the hands of the legislative branch. The US Patent and Trademark Office is part of the Department of Commerce, but the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress. Blame the Republican senators and the Democratic senators. Better yet, blame the incumbent publishers that provide campaign contributions, super PAC contributions, and in-kind donations of coverage on t [pineight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a president who is a leader (not a spoiled child) they are typically the leader of their party, and they set much of the legislative agenda. Bush inherited a recession (dot com bubble) from Clinton and then had 9-11. His hands were full. Beyond that, Bush was a conservative, and copyright is good for businesses, thus he was not going to shorten it. Obama, on the other hand, purported to be for the people, aka. a populist, but contrary to his rhetoric, he did jack shit on out of control paten
One problem... (Score:1)
I get all your comments that it violated copyright. And I agree that he was selling model kits and taking a salary.
It was a bad scene.
The problem is that Axenar was one of the best star trek treatments I've seen since Wrath of Khan.
It felt RIGHT.
It sent shivers up and down my spine.
In a different world, CBS and Paramount would have have had Peters and the original crew make it as a real film as their employees in a regular setting.
And that would have also probably ruined it. Too big a budget ruins so man
Typical studio assholes! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fanfics are fine since they represent a minimal investment of y
Commander's Diary, Startime 4637A.Q (Score:4, Funny)
My Valcun first officer tells me we're running the risk of Klangon attack, but I never listen to that pointy-nosed pink-blooded twerp.
Re: (Score:2)
My Valcun first officer tells me we're running the risk of Klangon attack, but I never listen to that pointy-nosed pink-blooded twerp.
Ironically you should mention this.
The series Andromeda was based on unused material from Gene Roddenberry, much of which was from Star Trek so its no surprise that a lot of it was very similar (I.E. Commonwealth == Federation and Nietzschiens == Klingons). However it was picked up by another production company so someone ran a find/replace through it just enough to avoid Paramount's lawyers.
Paramount Movies has no honor! (Score:1)