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.
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?
Oh come now. You can't Shield yourself from appearing McCoy; they'll Book you for it anyway. They know who you are, Zepherus.
Did I play the Obscure References game right?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Why did my post get converted to anonymous?
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?
Slashdot has been randomly logging me out today.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Probably for the same reason I'm only allowed to comment on half the articles posted today (certain articles log me out when I read them) This site has gone to shit.
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. . . .
Only if you think Star Wars, Doctor Who, Farscape and Firefly are obscure.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
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.
It is so nice to hear others are having the same issue. I assumed it was on my end.
For me, it only seems to log me out when I go to reply to replies to my comments from: http://slashdot.org/~Coren22/c...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
if you don't defend your patents, you lose them. Ask Bayer about aspirin sometime. Or Xerox.
"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
Well, that's how copyright works. You don't have to justify why you treat derivative project A differently from derivative project B; unlike trademarks you aren't required to defend copyrights to maintain your monopoly on the material.
In fact I can think of one big advantage to not having a publicly announced policy as to why you are allowing project A: I'm thinking that a publicly announced policy might be construed as a kind of general license. You don't have to write that policy in away that anticipates all the ways that someone could harm your economic interests; if you think project B harms your bottom line in a way that project A does not, you can simply demand they stop and drop the legal hammer on them if they don't. Granted this leaves fan filmmakers in an uncertain situation, but that isn't Paramount's problem. Is that really more dickish than just going after everyone regardless of whether they hurt your interests?
In this case I think it's the combination of the people involved and the amount of money raised that has Paramount spooked. As long as a fan film is no better than amazingly good for an amateur production on a shoestring, that film is a net benefit to them; it amounts to free advertising for the franchise. But film pros with even a modest budget could potentially put out a product good enough to contest Paramount's control of what fans consider "canon".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Whoosh, I guess. I did get all his references and turned them back to things in the Star Trek canon.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
What do you mean by "Book"? And nothing comes out about Star Trek when searching for Zepherus apart from a Star Trek game which is kinda cheating. :p
if you don't defend your patents, you lose them. Ask Bayer about aspirin sometime. Or Xerox.
Bayer didn't lose it's rights to the "Aspirin" and "Heroin" brand names because of negligence; those rights were confiscated outright by the US government as "reparations" for Bayer's support of Germany during WW1 and WW2.
Sounds like a Ferengi saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at your prices, then they try to bargain, then you profit."
There's a book in the Star Trek 'verse called The Peacekeepers, and Zepherus B was a toxin that caused a series of mutations that resulted in Reavers.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/...
http://memory-gamma.wikia.com/... (incidentally they look a LOT like wraiths in Stargate Atlantis)
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Defend your trademark you mean. Aspirin was a trademark, but the drug would have been able to be produced genirically either way by now (as acetylsalicylic acid).
Meanwhile, Xerox is not a genericized trademark, though some think it is. Escalator, cellophane, kerosene, and others are generic trademarks.
Though the sentiment is correct, failure to protect trademark risks forfeit of the protection. Patents do not have that feature, a company is free to submarine a patent all day long (though waiting until it's very popular to start using it increases the likelihood that an army of people will find *something* to invalidate the patent, there's very little that's truly novel, at least not things that are independently invented over the timespan of a patent lifetime).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Well, that's how copyright works. You don't have to justify why you treat derivative project A differently from derivative project B; unlike trademarks you aren't required to defend copyrights to maintain your monopoly on the material.
And since the guy making the film is (allegedly) a lawyer, he's supposed to know that. He seems to be operating under the old "it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission" philosophy, which unfortunately rarely works with copyright issues.
I did this because you pissed me off.
I sincerely regret any inconvenience you may have caused me and stuff.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Maybe if the fanbois were to come up with something original ...
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
CBS is clearly in the right in this case (at least, I can't defend Axanar as fair use).
I can. 7 year copyright, plus 7 year extension makes the copyright of TOS quite expired. As such, a derivative work of TOS is legal use.
Learn to love Alaska
This has been going on for several days.
I have been getting logged out since Monday.
The problem is intermittent. Sometimes I will be logged in, sometimes I won't. It makes me suspect a load balancer issue on their federation servers.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I get logged out randomly when refreshing, replying, or otherwise using the site. I, also, thought it was just me.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
This one is big money, and CBS is starting a Trek series. When you push boundaries, eventually you hit a wall.
Only if you think Star Wars, Doctor Who, Farscape and Firefly are obscure.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Whoosh, I guess. I did get all his references and turned them back to things in the Star Trek canon.
In case anyone doesn't know the Farscape, "obscure" and "I have no idea what you're talking about" references...
In the 200th episode of Stargate SG-1, Vala (played by Claudia Black, who also played Aeryn Sun in Farscape) keeps coming up with story lines obviously ripped-off from other TV shows. Martin Lloyd says, "Here's some advice: if you're gonna rip something off, pick something a bit more obscure." Vala then imagines/describes a scene with SG-1 characters as Farscape characters:
After the cutaway, Martin Lloyd says, "I have no idea what you're talking about." Vala, clenches her fist and says, "Yes!"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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.
It's partially broken on my desktop, but completely fucked on Chrome on my Android devices.On my phone, it just keeps redirecting me to the mobile site (which, so far as I can tell, is that shitty v2 interface that no one uses).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use. But I could definitely see some trademark issues.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Those in charge only care about profits. They don't care about Trek lore, Trek culture, continuity, logic, or anything else except as it relates to profits.
Apparently they see the JJA angle as more profitable.
Table-ized A.I.
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...
CBS and Paramount can still argue that they have broadcast rights and that Axanar's use of copyrighted concepts from later shows (including Ambassador Soval from Enterprise, which ended in 2005 and most certainly is still under copyright) violates these rights. IANAL, but the TOS-only argument is a weak one.
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".
Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use.
How in the world could you consider this fair use?
The three top items on "opposing fair use" are
*Commercial activity
*Profiting from the use
*Entertainment
https://copyright.columbia.edu...
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ov...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It is of Paramount importance to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
"One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different." - T.S. Eliot
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Try deleting cookies associated with slashdot.org and all its subdomains to see if that clears it up.
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!
You're thinking of the five stages of acquisition: infatuation, justification, appropriation, obsession, resale.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
When lame brainers can not think up original material they resort to theft.
We're talking about CBS here, not Disney.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
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
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.
A wall is a boundary...
But not all boundaries are walls...
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Except he was working with CBS and had it sanctioned and went so far as to ask for specific guidelines so as to being their good graces. CBS is just pissed that this is generating waaaaay more buzz and good press in the community than their big budget movie, and this is going to backfire on CBS in a big way, either in the courtroom or the court of public opinion. This has been going on far too long and raised far too much money for them to step in a million dollars later.
Call me skeptical but this sounds more like a lawyer who is going to intentionally cause some disruption, get sued, and then use the donations to pay for legal fees (providing an income) and maybe get them some fame (providing an income) even if they don't actually win their case.
"Oh, hi! I was doing this thing and I knew damned well that doing this was going to get me sued. If each of you help donate then we can fight this miscarriage of justice! We can thwart this hydra known as Paramount and the IP-cartels. All I need now, I just happen to be a lawyer, is some money to help keep this project afloat. You can send money by PayPal, BitCoin, Check, Money Order, or wire it directly to this account! Thank you for helping to keep this project alive and, keep in mind, if you donate this much money - we'll even try to ship a product and you'll get some bonus material if you help by donating even more money to our legal defense team!"
Yeah, I'm cynical, skeptical, jaded, disillusioned, disenfranchised, disgusted, pragmatic, and grouchy. However, it's rather convenient to have a lawyer on-board and one who mentions that they anticipated the lawsuit ahead of time. Perhaps there's some altruism, some shred of dignity, some actual intent to create...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Heh... I'm (I admit) not that familiar with the series but I've seen a few episodes and parts of many other episodes. I thought that, quite specifically, you could trust them. I was under the impression that you could always count on them to uphold their end of the bargain but that their end of the bargain wasn't always what you thought you were agreeing to.
I thought they never, ever, did anything like go against the contract or agreement. The general idea was that you were to do that whole Caveat Emptor thing, make sure all the Ts were crossed and the Is dotted, make sure you had spelled out, specifically, the expectations and made sure that you also upheld your end of the bargain.
Basically, I was under the impression that you could always trust them to try to screw you over.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's a shame, but probably true. Time to stick a fork in the whole franchise. There is no congruent way to continue the TNG, DS9, Voyager timeline.
The world has voted with their box office dollars and they prefer a reboot over original character development.
They can go for the "whole enchilada", and argue they don't even need the fair use defense, because their usage is claimed to be non-infringing and not a derivative work, despite the references to the original series by name, and possible use of some imagery or descriptions that reminds people of the original (Without actually copying plot, scenarios, or characters).
Or they could argue they fall under 1st amendment Fair Use protection by using so little of the work; if their amount used falls below some threshold, then they are likely to be allowed, even if they have some commercial activity, and their primary purpose is entertainment.
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.
I think you'll find the Rules of Acquisition are helpful in painting a picture. The first one is: "Once you have their money, you never give it back."
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
It seems they're spooked alright so they made wrong claim. They have no standing whatsoever to claim copyright infringement, because a fan film isn't a derivative work of Paramount "owned" work. Notion of "derivative work" is reserved for translations, rearrangements, adaptations and other such works, and not original films merely using some characters from StarTrek lore. I'd say they can easily claim trademark infringement though.
Meanwhile, Xerox is not a genericized trademark, though some think it is.
It may be generic, the issue simply hasn't arisen, so far as I know.
The key to whether or not a trademark is generic is exactly what people think it is. If enough people think that XEROX is synonymous with photocopier, rather than being a specific brand of photocopier, it's generic, regardless of whether the Xerox company failed to try to protect its mark.
XEROX, KLEENEX, and BAND-AID are probably generic, but have simply never been challenged.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
That defense works if they're making something like Galaxy Quest.
If they are calling the film Star Trek, though, they've already shot down the defense that it's not Star Trek.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You, sir, shall have your Geek Card revoked immediately.
Table-ized A.I.
They should spend their money on making good movies rather than wasting it on lawsuits.
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.
Sometimes I suspect that what the industry needs to consider doing is using fanworks as a scouting tool...and doing things like offering a very promising fan movie the opportunity to drop the 'fan' part.
Odds are, it'd be beneficial to everybody, as long as it works as 'buying into' as opposed to 'hijacking,' and you could likely make it so an official license for the project has you having the option of buying into the project as part of the conditions. Long term, my ass is covered by the license and it's cheap goodwill and good publicity. If I give the license generally for the absolute minimum legally required to make it valid...I also ensure people will probably be on my side if/when I do send somebody a C&D order instead.
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.
The only rules of fan films is that they gotta really really SUCK. Clearly a "fan film" made by film professionals runs the risk of actually being.. heaven forbid.. GOOD. ..ever. (I liked it though!)
The majors already got a taste of what could be released with the "of gods and men" creation.. although they clearly felt it was pretty much not likely to threaten anyone. er
This one is crossing the line.. in their opinion, anyways. What I don't get, though, is just how stupid are they? Really? They could have protected their IP and saved themselves a whole bunch of grief, *and* set a good precedent by *partnering* with these folks, instead of fighting them.
I guess they just decided to take a page from the music biz instead.. why create when you can destroy? Sheesh...
Oddly, some of those rules do make sense in the real world. I'd hate to live by them but that's probably because I don't actually have to worry about making a living.
Thanks for the link. 'Twas an interesting read. I'm not much for television but I've seen a few of those shows. I do like certain videos but not television, if that makes sense. I love documentaries - to the point where it's probably an obsession. I just don't like commercials, intros, credits, and the likes. I don't really need a bunch of effects or anything but sometimes those come in handy. Sometimes I watch regular movies but not very often.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You do realize this is Slashdot.
Table-ized A.I.
If this suit continues I will refuse to watch any Paramount or CBS media offerings. Damn money grubbers!