Slashdot Mirror
Paramount and CBS File Lawsuit Against Crowdfunded, Indie Star Trek Movie (hollywoodreporter.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Back in August, an Indiegogo campaign raised $566,023 to produce Axanar, a Star Trek movie in development by an independent group of fans, who also happen to be film professionals. Now, unfortunately but predictably, Paramount and CBS have filed a lawsuit in California federal court claiming their intellectual property is being infringed upon. They are "demanding an injunction as well as damages for direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement." The guy running the crowdfunded film is a lawyer, and he said, "We've certainly been prepared for this and we certainly will defend this lawsuit. There are a lot of issues surrounding a fan film. These fan films have been around for 30 years, and others have raised a lot of money." He said CBS/Paramount weren't willing to provide guidelines on what types of fan productions would be tolerated (unlike Lucasfilm with Star Wars), because they worry about setting precedent.
Scoff at them until you see a specific number of zeroes in the amount of money raised.
It seems like Paramount and CBS are trying to show their Force. They better get a Doctor, a Peacekeeper or something, otherwise those Reavers will do some damage.
No Problem: this movie can just not reference any characters, ships, aliens, planets, or tech that are in the StarTrek franchise. But will be instantly recognizable as being part of a similar universe by references to "first officer", "telemetry data", etc.
StarTrek was just a ripoff of WW2 ops anyway. Did they sue GalaxyQuest?
Star Trek Axanar looked very promising. I was looking forward to it more than the JJ-verse sequel.
CBS is clearly in the right in this case (at least, I can't defend Axanar as fair use). But this is one of those instances (like certain types of device hacking) where I want to see obviously talented people given the opportunity to do more (possibly by being brought on for any new Star Trek show).
And thanks to those same companies lobbying efforts they're still able to enforce copyright on something, which by all rights, should have entered the Public Domain 21 years ago.
So much for the continued progress of the arts and science, Axanar looked like an interesting project - it was the first "real" Trek I'd seen in years and I was looking forward to the feature.
Been wondering if we couldn't use corporate law against them in this case, by pushing for ever longer terms they're missing out on profits - corporations are mandated to maximize profits. Paramount, by lobbying to extend the term lengths, is missing out on that sweet sweet Star Wars money (which should also be in the public domain) and thereby depriving their shareholders of a potential revenue steam.
I'm not a lawyer but I'd have to wonder if these guys could get some Paramount shares and counter sue?
Paramount and CBS are just worried that a bunch of amateurs working weekends with iPhones will make a better, more original, movie than J.J. - perhaps with even more saucer-section rising from the clouds/mist/ocean shots! ( That last one was an awesome shot to be sure but, seriously, do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to hide a starship on the bottom of the ocean? Or so I think I heard someone ask. )
Khaaaaan!
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's would be much smarter to Support the film and provide help from CBS's experience in producing films and take a cut of the sales, its also free advertising and you might even pick up some new talent.
Not only would you get paid, for doing little to nothing with no investment but you would also have no risk and all the reward.. If the movie is great than you can claim it was because of your support, if it's terrible no big deal it's an indie film...
And it would boost sales for the next "official" star trek movie.. its Win, win ,win.
But do it this way and you're looking at a fanbase boycott and if the movie is great/(or even semi ok) (because other countries can make movies too) Simply make it someplace where US IP laws mean nothing, the rest of the world (and the US because they will watch it too laws be damned) it will shame CBS for decades and will create a huge amount of fan made Star trek movies to be invested in.
Who at CBS and Paramount is trying so avidly to destroy the Star Trek canon? After all, they released rights to J J Abrams and crew for their completely disruptive "reboot" of the franchise (complete with lens flares). And now that the creators of that canon have decided to try and continue the tradition of Gene Roddenberry, they decide to file suit. Clearly, Dr. Watson the game is a foot.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
CNS/Paramount, you are:
- Not promoting the Progress of the Arts [yes, I know the original meaning of Arts is different]
- Not respecting limited times [in any realistic sense]
All property is (theoretically) safe from the government and others (4th Amendment), so why was this clause included in the Constitution? Because intellectual "property" is not really property. So the drafters had to address the concept separately. They did so with the goal to promote progress - implicitly to maximize progress for society as a whole. So there is a balance between reward for creators, and a resulting reward for society. A copyright or patent for a year is little incentive for new inventions, and a forever patent or copyright provides no return for society in return for that protection.
Where is the optimum? I believe it is 14 years.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I already like what I saw more than the actual Star Trek crap J.J. Abrams created. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon and making their fans happy, they prefer to protect their mindless, action packed, no real story drivel.
I hope they can delay and push off the court BS until Axanar is completed and released. I am really looking forward to it, unlike the new POS Star Trek Beyond... something rather movie that is coming out. Maybe if CBS or paramount released a Star Trek that people actually wanted to watch then the fans wouldn't have to make a movie by themselves.
I've known about (and been eagerly awaiting) Axanar for some time now, but not seen it mentioned on any big web venues such as Slashdot. Now, just that many more people have been made aware of this really great project. Ars Technica even linked their trailer (Prelude to Axanar, ).
:)
It is too bad that the Paramount/CBS fiends have chosen to pick on them, but with a lawyer at the helm, perhaps they will navigate this and win
The fan-filmed "Prelude to Axanar" is what all those Paramount-filmed Star Trek movies should have been.
You're right. The problem is the congress write laws that favor big business who write them big fat checks, and the supreme court sides with big business by saying "well, even if it's 10,000,000 years, that's still a fixed period... GUFFAW! CHORTLE CHORTLE" even though the founders clearly would call that out for the bullshit it is. Who to blame?
The voters who keep re-electing the democrats and republican parties back to Congress! If you vote for either of those parties, you have no right to complain.
There is literally hundreds of hours of fan films and webisodes. Why go after this one in particular?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek. His family is well provided for. Fuck CBS. They're a pack of leeches hanging on. The copyrights and trademarks should have expired long ago. It's only shyster lawyers and crooked congressmen who keep them alive.
I can think of 566,023 reasons. I wonder if their true motive is a cut of any profits.
This one is big money, and CBS is starting a Trek series. When you push boundaries, eventually you hit a wall.
Because the fan movie makers are making a lot of money off the Star Trek trademark and marketing. Making money of someone else's intellectual assets is a crime.
A wall is a boundary...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
End of JJ Trek..
Under the original copyright terms the founders instituted in 1790, TOS would have been out of copyright since 1996 (20 years ago). Under the 1831 extension, it would have been out of copyright since 2010 (6 years ago). It wasn't until the 20th Century that the term got extended so far past the founder's intent that a 47 year old work is still under copyright. And even then, it would have been out of copyright only 8 years from now. It wasn't until 1976 (within my memory) that the current march toward virtual perpetuity really started.
Next question: Would a world where people can make and sell Trek TOS fanfic (both crappy and masterful) really be that bad? Are we, the public, better off this way? We only get new material once a decade or so, and it is almost completely immune to the natural market forces that rule media in general.
Then sue for fucking trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
TRANSLATION: "Someone is making money and it's not us!"
Yeah, yeah....I know, they own the rights, etc etc etc. What good are the rights if you don't do anything with them?
Why not let the dedicated fans have some fun? It's keeping the franchise alive, what's so horrible about that?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
In many places in the US, spitting on the sidewalk, and disturbing the peace as defined arbitrarily by an asshole cop, are crimes. In Thailand, insulting the King's dog is a crime.
The term "intellectual asset" is an absurdity. It leads to "I thought of X, no one else can use X, even thinking of it completely independently, without clearing it with me".
Just go extinct like the dinosaur that you are.
That actually goes for the entire MAFIAA machine. Seriously, fuck you all.
And thanks to those same companies lobbying efforts they're still able to enforce copyright on something, which by all rights, should have entered the Public Domain 21 years ago.
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, works were protected for 28 years, with the option to renew for 28 years. Duration of Copyright There is no way that Star Trek: TOS enters the public domain before 2027 even under the rules in force over 100 years ago.
This ignores, of course, all licensed and copyrighted derivatives based on the original series in all media.
Been wondering if we couldn't use corporate law against them in this case, by pushing for ever longer terms they're missing out on profits - corporations are mandated to maximize profits. Paramount, by lobbying to extend the term lengths, is missing out on that sweet sweet Star Wars money (which should also be in the public domain) and thereby depriving their shareholders of a potential revenue steam.
The key to reviving a long-dormant genre, character or series, is distance and a healthy disrespect for your sources.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of late the fan-created content (Star Trek Continues, for instance) has been more watchable than the high-budget pseudo-Trek crap that J.J. Abrams has been shoveling at us, so CBS and Paramount can go fuck themselves so far as I'm concerned.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
They can't make profit and they're well aware of that. Their true motive is not being shown up by a high quality, professional production that distracts from JJ Trek. Regardless of legal merit, I think the fan base needs to put some pressure on Paramount/CBS. Based upon what I've seen of the Axanar prelude short, to shut this one down would be criminal. There will be a costly backlash. I'm certain of it.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
If they shut this one down any hope they had of teasing me onto their pay-per-view online BS series will evaporate. JJ Trek was an insult to the fans. This lawsuit will provoke hate.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I think this boils down to wanting to force people to watch the new Star Trek show that is in development. In simple terms they don't want the competition and this just their way of shutting down that competition.
If you can't put together a good story, get the fuck out of the way. You would do a lot better if you used the lawsuit money as a contribution to the fan film. All it does is build a bigger fanbase from star trek.
But you gotta own something that isn't yours in the first place - it's they fans who own star trek.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Any derivative work (copying) that competes commercially with the original is unlikely to be fair use under US law.
Primary categories that -can- be fair use include:
Criticism and comment -- quoting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
News reporting -- summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for clarification of the author's observations.
Nonprofit educational uses --photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.
Parody -- a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way.
The four tests used by the courts are:
the purpose and character of the use (is the new work of a different type than the old. Dramatic movie -> review is okay, dramatic movie -> dramatic movie probably isn't)
the nature of the copyrighted work (it's okay to copy pure facts, not okay to copy pure art, with lots of gray in between)
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken (copying the most important characters and plot points is less likely to be allowed than borrowing unimportant parts)
I posted the above before including the fourth test, competition with the original. Does the new work effect the market for the original work or derivative works by the author?
A professionally produced "Star Trek" film certainly COULD compete with Paramount's 2016 Star Trek Film, "Star Trek Beyond". In fact, if it's available on Amazon, consider someone tells their spouse or parents they want the Star Trek DVD for Christmas. It's entirely possible the gift-giver (who isn't a Star Trek fan) would buy the wrong one, buying the unauthorized movie rather than Paramount's official Star Trek.
Note that fair use is a "defense". That means if you choose to copy someone else's work, it's up to the person copying to prove the facts of fair use. The original copyright holder doesn't have to prove harm, the person copying has to show there was no harm.
That 20 minutes worth of, essentially, a tease for a production that hadn't even been started yet, is better than the entirety of the last two J.J. Abrams 'Star Trek-themed' movies put together. So far as I'm concerned, it's settled: CBS and Paramount are suing because they see that this independent company, funded by fans, is going to produce a feature-length film that, for a fraction of the budget, will be better than what they've been producing with a major budget. Color them massively butthurt. Of course their lawsuit may backfire on them by producing the Streisand Effect; before today I hadn't even heard of 'Axanar', and now I'm all over it. How many other people will now have their attention drawn to it? I can only hope.
If you haven't watched Prelude to Axanar, go watch it, you won't be disappointed.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
A wall is a boundary...
But not all boundaries are walls...
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
What could possibly go wrong?
The only backlash will be on the Axanar folks if they don't cave in. And yes, it will be costly. As for the fanbase, the success of the reboots mean they have no leverage whatsoever.
If they were basing their claim of the amount of DAMAGES on lost revenue, they'd need to prove the damages. But they probably would use statutory damages instead.
What we're talking about here is separate from damages. Fair use is something called an "affirmative defense". In other words, it is a valid excuse. An affirmative defense is to be proved by the one claiming it. They admit they did the thing (copying), but say it's excusable because ...
To give an example from criminal law, consider a simple speeding ticket. The speeder claims that they were rushing an injured friend to the hospital. They admit that they were speeding. That's all that the prosecution has to prove. If you want to use the "rushing to the hospital" excuse, you have to produce evidence that you were rushing to the hospital. The prosecution does not have to disprove every possible excuse for every speeding ticket. The issue only arises after the one claiming the excuse presents evidence of the excuse.
Btw this is a good way to surprise the prosecution and get a not-guilty verdict in traffic and misdemeanor cases. The prosecution doesn't arrive prepared to disprove every possible defense, so if you have reasonable evidence of any legal defense you can win.
For some time it wasn't 100% clear which type of defense fair use was, or if it was perhaps an element of the tort. It was clearly ruled to be an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Thanks for the compliment. I might have been more clear had I said fair use is a "valid excuse" for copying - raised only after you've already admitted to copying. The person copying admits they did copy, so then it's on them to provide evidence of a good excuse. The legal term for a good excuse that you have to prove is "affirmative defense ".
I added a bit more info here.
http://m.slashdot.org/thread/5...
Since you notice who posts what, note I post only on my tiny phone, with auto-complete, auto-correct, etc. Half of my typos and incorrect words are courtesy of my phone. It may look like English isn't my native language, but that's just my choice of device.
One thing missing from the new and fan made star trek movies is the fascination, and the mysticism which Gene Roddenberry used to give. Nowadays is all about "lets kill the ugly aliens that are trying to destroy us" rather than, lets see what is out there, and all the great examples of technologies that we have been able to make reality today (like audio-video conferencing) and others we are working on like the replicators (getting close with 3D printers). “For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain. If people need religion, ignore them and maybe they will ignore you, and you can go on with your life. It wasn't until I was beginning to do Star Trek that the subject of religion arose. What brought it up was that people were saying that I would have a chaplain on board the Enterprise. I replied, "No, we don't.” Gene Roddenberry
It's hard for me to tell what drove CBS/Paramount over the edge with this production. Tim Russ (Lt. Tuvok on Voyager) has made 2 crowd funded Star Trek movies that he and his company didn't get sued over. In fact, they recently (barely) raised enough money on a Kickstarter campaign to do 2 more episodes of Star Trek Renegades. Russ said that he had a meeting with CBS/Paramount and offered to produce Renegades for them as an online series. They turned him down but told him he could keep doing the series as long as he didn't turn a profit from it. It may be that Axanar has simply raised too much money and that has attracted the ire of CBS/Paramount. Depending on the source Axanar has raised between half a million and one million dollars and for comparison, Renegades took until one day before the campaign ended on Kickstarter to raise the $350,000 needed for 2 more episodes. It may be that CBS/Paramount suspects that someone is pocketing money from Axanar given its higher costs than Renegades (Axanar is budgeted at $250,000 per episode).
You make a fair point regarding substitution.
>> Primary categories that -can- be fair use include
> Your list is bogus.
Let's have a look at the statute. It's half a page, not too hard to read. Quoting 17 U.S. Code  107:
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research
That list looks familiar. You may not like the list, but it's the list that Congress put in the law. The list isn't comprehensive, but it is law - statutory federal law.
> No it's not. Fair use is an exception to copyright.
Unanimous SCOTUS opinion in Campbell vs Acuff-Rose "fair use is an affirmative defense".
That bears repeating, the unanimous opinion of the nine justices is "fair use is an affirmative defense".
You'll note also that both sides, in their original pleadings in the case, referred to "the affirmative defense of fair use". This had already been decided by SCOTUS in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1992).
In case there was any question, Chief Justice Rehnquist asked defendants attorney during oral argument if defendant wished to argue that point:
Chief Justice Rehnquist: Is fair use an affirmative defense?
Mr. Rogow: It is.
I think you'll find that I don't shoot my mouth off without knowing what I'm talking about. When I say "the law is ...", I'm probably quoting either the statute or SCOTUS.
I don't see how this is a derivative work at all.This is the same copyright interpretation stretch that allows NFL / NBA / etc to prevent people from talking about games. It is not derivative. No one is copying the old scripts or stealing their models. It's a new story. It is original content based on the universe.
Remember when copyrights used to expire, and the public domain existed? Good times.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
And yet, while you can create several million different copyrighted characters or stories, inevitably, the unimaginative copycat crowd chooses to steal other people's intellectual assets instead of creating their own? Why? Because they can't create original artistic stuff worth anything, so they have to steal.
If this suit continues I will refuse to watch any Paramount or CBS media offerings. Damn money grubbers!