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.
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.
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.
"Science Officer Sock gleamed down the to surface of vacation planet Rizoff to investigate a disturbance between Klunkons and Anfloorians. Sock will take DNA samples from site of disturbance to analyze back in the science lab of the Fudderation ship, Boobyprize. However, fluffy creatures knows as 'Bebbles' have taken over the science lab. Sock asked Captain Kreck for additional resources to remove the Bebbles, but only Lieutenant Ohnono was available..."
Table-ized A.I.
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.
And that was parody.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
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
And it must be named "Star Track"
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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. . . .
Fuck me, they cast LaBeouf?
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
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.
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
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!
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.
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."
I think the latest 'official' Star Trek installments are parody as well.
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