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

New submitter monkeyman.kix quotes a report from Gizmodo: Even though it sounded like we may be getting close to ending the battle between the fan film Axanar and the studios that own Star Trek, the latest court action hints that it's just starting. Last month at a Star Trek fan event, J.J. Abrams indicated that they believed that CBS and Paramount's lawsuit against the fan film Axanar would be settled. At the time, he said that Star Trek Beyond director Justin Lin was "outraged by this as a longtime fan" and that they both realized "this was not an appropriate way to deal with the fans." Except that the legal proceedings haven't stopped yet. The parties were back in court today, with CBS and Paramount (the plaintiffs) taking center stage. The state of the case is this: Paramount and CBS sued Axanar Productions for copyright infringement in late 2015. The judge rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss the case, finding that the studios had sufficient cause and provided enough notice to the fan film to proceed. He also dismissed a separate brief, refusing to decide on whether Klingon as a language was copyrightable. The Hollywood Reporter writes: "Now, instead of asking for an extension, Paramount and CBS have filed their own answer to the counterclaim admitting public statements, saying such items speak for themselves, but otherwise acting as though the lawsuit is moving forward. The plaintiffs, for example, deny that the works in controversy represent a fair use of their copyrights. "

Comments

Re:boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck, it's true! I'm watching DS9 in another tab, right now.

Well then, no Beyond for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I threw my money at Axanar after seeing the first Beyond trailer. Then they dismissed the lawsuit and released a second trailer which seemed much less shitty, so I thought I'd give them a break and go watch it.

But if they want to sue the fan Star Trek productions then I guess I'll go back to not seeing Beyond. I was only going to see it on the fool's hope that it won't be utter shit like Into Darkness was, so I guess I won't be losing much.

Re:Well then, no Beyond for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a way to somehow give them less than no money. With only very rare exceptions, every big-budget shitpile of a movie still turns a profit after China gets ahold of it, and as long as that's true there's no reason for them to ever stop.

I guess torrenting it technically counts, but then you're still spending your bandwidth and electricity for only a negligible, hypothetical loss to them.

Re:Well then, no Beyond for me

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Movies like that are best seen on the big screen. It is too bad they don't recycle the earlier ones on short runs in theaters -- they couldn't possibly do as bad as some of this junk in only its third week.

Re:boycott star trek

[meerling]

Sure, don't watch Star Trek.
Let's see, what will the studio think?
Probably, hey, viewership of our syndicated reruns are down. Either we aren't advertising enough, or people are sick of it, or it's all Axanars fault.
In the first case, they'll advertise more. In the second, they'll pull out of more trek projects. In the last, they'll double down on screwing the Axanar folks.
And do you know why?
IT'S BECAUSE THEY JUST SEE A REDUCTION IN POPULARITY AND DON'T KNOW WHY!!!
That is, of course, if it ends up having a large enough effect to be even noticed by them in the first place.
Here's a choice that's a THOUSAND times better...
  Write them a POLITE letter indicating your displeasure at their actions, and that you support Axanar and would like to see a reasonable resolution.
Whatever you do, do NOT threaten them or even imply any kind of legal actions!

That's the mostly likely to get you positive results, especially if you can get people to do it. And by the way, just to be clear, by 'write them a letter', I'm referring to dead tree format delivered by the US Post Office. I know email is quick and easy, but half those old farts running the studios don't know how to open their own email and don't pay any attention to it in the first place. On the other hand, a physical representation of your views written out is something they find much harder to ignore. (If you really want to make them think about it, make it registered mail so you have proof of receipt.)

Just to reiterate, email campaigns are watered down and of little value. Not dealing with the product is invisible to the companies, and if any dip is noticed, they assume it's the market. Actual letters still get their attention. Avoid doing things like be an asshat or threatening them with lawyers because at best that will get you ignored, at worse they'll sick their lawyers on you, but either way you fail.

Remember, you have to TELL them how you feel because they are too stupid to understand it otherwise.
Thank you, and yes, you don't have to use a pen, you can print it out and sign it. (If your handwriting is as bad as mine, that might be preferable.)

Is Hotel Royale Public Domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I write this in the hope that it will someday be read by Human eyes. I can only surmise at this point, but apparently our exploratory shuttle was contaminated by an alien life form which infected and killed all personnel except myself. I awakened to find myself here in the Royale Hotel, precisely as described in the novel I found in my room. And for the last thirty-eight years I have survived here. I have come to understand that the alien contaminators created this place for me out of some sense of guilt, presuming that the novel we had on board the shuttle about the Hotel Royale was in fact a guide to our preferred lifestyle and social habits. Obviously, they thought this was the world from which I came. I hold no malice toward my benefactors. They could not possibly know the hell they have put me through... for it was such a badly written book, filled with endless cliché and shallow characters... that I shall welcome death when it comes."

        - Riker, reading Col. Richey's sole diary entry

I called it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I called it. What do you have to say now J.J. Abrams?

Re:I called it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also to note, anyone curious to see J.J. Abrams saying he never liked Star Trek, see this interview with Jon Stewart.

Re:I called it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know who this J.J. Abrams fucker is, but he should be strung up by his balls." -- J.J. Abrams

Re:boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a very good and reasonable suggestion. And it will fail miserably, even if you could somehow get a lot of people to write a lot of letters.

First, if you think the people who make the decision to sue fan-produced materials actually give a shit about what you think, you are completely delusional. They surround themselves with people who are paid to make sure that the unwashed masses can't contact them. One of their assistants may mention to them "we got a bunch of letters ..........." and that is all they'll ever hear of it.

Second, and most important of all, good old-fashioned greed. When they see fan-produced material, their *ONLY* thought is "this may somehow hurt our profits or hurt our 'brand' (which will hurt our profits), therefore it must not be allowed". Period.

JJ Abrahms and Justin Lin may be big Start Trek fans, the people who run CBS and Paramount are not.

Re:boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Interview with J.J. Abrams saying he never liked Star Trek.

Re:Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it was a bit unusual how parody films/videos are perfectly legal, but for some reason if you remove the humor aspect all of a sudden it is illegal.

It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

The copyright only restricts redistribution of derivative works, not just works with some common elements like pointy ears and character references, and even setting references. So for this lawsuit to proceed, plaintiffs would have to identify which exact work is Axanar derived work of, that is adaptation(for example, a movie based on a novel) or translation or some other similar transformation. Naming Star Trek in general is insufficient because it's not a work but a group of works. Fair use is a moot point here, because there is no claim in the first place against which fair use defense would be needed. Given that judge has let the case proceed does it mean he's using some other definition of copyright? Why it wasn't enshrined in law? People can't be expected to comply with unwritten laws which they don't even know to exist.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[Richard_at_work]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Naming Star Trek in general is insufficient because it's not a work but a group of works.

That doesn't sound convincing to me. For a number of years during the 70s and 80s, Star Trek was not a 'group of works' except in the sense of a television series being a 'group of episodes'. If in 1984 someone had written a book titled "star trek" that was completely unaffiliated with the Gene Roddenberry associated artwork, I'm pretty sure that's as clear cut a case of unfair use as it gets. AFAICT. Though you might have me more convinced with "star wars" because the pluralized word war mixed with some other common word does seem pretty thinly original.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[Whibla]

(Disclaimer: IANAL)

Section 106 of the US Copyright Act states (italic emphasis mine):

"Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works

Subject to sections 107 through 122*, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) ...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
(3) ..."

So, while you and I may believe that CBS and Paramount are being complete douches, and, ultimately, hurting their own brand, they do seem to have legal standing. Of course, the courts will be the ones that get to decide that in the end, regardless of our opinions (and, if this case goes all the way, almost certainly in opposition to our opinions).

To be honest, I actually agree with the principle of this section, but, like the rest of copyright law, it has essentially been 'broken' by the various copyright extension acts over the years. This particular example is a perfect case in point: Star Trek hit our screens for the first time in September 1966, almost exactly 50 years ago; Gene Roddenberry passed away, about 25 years ago, in 1991 (RIP); The 1710 act [enshrining copyright as law] established the principles of authors' ownership of copyright and a fixed term of protection of copyrighted works (fourteen years, and renewable for fourteen more if the author was alive upon expiration).

I think we can all do the maths. Something has gone seriously wrong!

*Of sections 107-122, only section 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair use has any potential bearing on the case that I can see, and even that strikes me as grasping at straws:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

A potential loophole exists because the highlighted term "including such use" is not exclusive, i.e. other uses may exist. If a judge (or jury) find that the Axanar film falls into one on these unspecified categories then sections (3) and (4) would strike me as relevant to the case ... again though, IANAL, just a relatively informed and dismayed bystander to yet another 'abuse' of copyright by a large corporation.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[naasking]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[naasking]

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

"Extended/expanded a bit" = uses the same settings, characters or other inventions of the original work, but in a substantially new way that it counts as a new work. This movie is clearly a dramatization, fictionalization, or motion picture, as described in the very first sentence quoting the copyright act from my link. It's plain as day.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[naasking]

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

Now you're just being obtuse. Such historical novels didn't invent the history in which they're told. If one novel invented something which wasn't actually historical, like Sherlock Holmes, and the other novel included it, then the latter might indeed be a derivative work (depending on the extent of inclusion).

Which is all beside the point, because Star Trek is clearly an invented universe, and as such, any work taken place in that universe is derivative. Even creating a documentary about Star Trek would get into trouble if it weren't covered by fair use provisions of copyright law.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[Whibla]

That 'etc' as you summarise it includes a whole host of stuff. Current US copyright law defines derivative works as follows:

"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,which, as a whole,represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'"

Clearly Axanar's movie is 'based upon one or more preexisting works' [first sentence] thus making it a derivative work. Even if that is not enough to convince you, their film, while clearly being an original work in and of itself, consists of an elaboration of existing works thus making it a derivative work [second sentence].

Please don't get me wrong, I am wholly on Axanar's side here, for what that's worth, but following the letter of the law, as I read it, they are potentially 'infringing' CBS and Paramounts' copyrights on Star Trek.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[Richard_at_work]

A historical setting isnt a creative work, while a fictional setting is - Star Trek is a fictional setting, and basing anything on the works that created that setting would be a derivative work.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[AK Marc]

Are you unfamiliar with a concept called "books"?

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

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

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[Aighearach]

Repeating the word "exact" and expecting the law to be fatally stuck on minor word definitions is a standard laymans mistake. The law is only hung up on definitions of technical legal words; the vast majority of the words involved are plain English words, and the court doesn't get narrowly pedantic over them. Any of the related Star Trek works are suitable to cite as the original. There isn't any narrow requirement of naming that you seem to imply. "I know a man-trap when I see one" is the sort of legal standard that any judge applies here; if it is a derivative depends mostly on perception, it isn't a procedural type of issue. And the burden is on the copyright owner to demonstrate that it is a derivative, which is a positive requirement for them; they have to show that it is derivative. That doesn't mean the defense has to agree, or gets to argue some pedantic blah-blah; they're not the ones proving it, so all they can do is argue with what the copyright holder proposes as their proof that it is derivative. And so they'll be able to prove that easily based on a wide variety of things of their choice. You're worried about "which exact" episode, but they can actually name as many as they want and they don't have any expectation to limit their argument to 1 episode, or a particular episode. They have the copyright to each of their episodes, and if you carefully craft a derivative to draw elements from the whole series with only a few elements from each episode, that doesn't help you to refute their arguments that you created a derivative work.

My advice is to read all the court rulings in a copyright case some time. And I don't mean blog posts about it; I mean all the things written by the Judge. For a whole case. Then later when half of those things that the judge wrote get thrown out by the appeals court, read what that court actually wrote. You'll find that the legal principles are strict and narrow, but the parties don't get to use narrow gotcha type of arguments about the meanings of the words. All the words with narrow meanings have narrow meanings because of the way the judges use those words, not because of how the parties desire to use them.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[Aighearach]

If the setting is well known and recognizable, it has more protection than if it is just the same setting in a random work. It is the same concept as where a famous character like Sherlock Holmes can get protection as a character not just as part of an individual work. Star Trek is about as recognizable a setting as you can get. It is not realistic to expect the setting to be seen as original, as non-derivative. But that said, they only have to prove that it is the same setting as one of the episodes. That is a low bar, not a high bar, when the value of the derivative to the fans is based on it being in the same setting. The argument you're trying to make would require you to convince the court that it isn't even a Star Trek "fan film," that it is in a generic or original sci-fi setting. If that were true, and they were being falsely accused of similarity, then it would be a different case. But it isn't.

Re:It's not how copyright supposed to work

[loonycyborg]

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

Re:boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you expecting us to boycott? All the good shows have long ended and all the newer movies are s#%t so they're not worth watching anyhow. So what exactly are you proposing we boycott?

Corporations and IP

[Black Parrot]

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

Re:Corporations and IP

[Opportunist]

Not until they are facing losing said IP.

No corporation has ever given anything except at gunpoint.

Copyright works...

[Anonymous Coward]

However lobbyists pay for it to work.

That has essentially been true since time immemorial (It used to be kings/the court deciding it arbitrarily, but now it is lobbyists in whatever faux 'democratic process' the oligarchy presents to the people too stupid to understand it.) The major difference between the past and today is the ease with which it can be copied, and the collective make-believe that it is worth what they claim it is while also being worth a lifetime (or longer) period of monopolization, even upon transfer to an immortal entity (a corporation.)

On the bright side, between Kim Jong-un's death, and Putin's recent claim that the US is the only superpower in the world, maybe we're ramping up to see WW3 with either the US cast as Nazi Germany, or the trifecta of North Korea, China, and Russia cast as the Neo-Axis powers. Maybe this placid sickness we have fallen into will be shaken off with a return to a physical conflict people can't avert their eyes from (unlike middle east/african situations most of which have been averted from the 'first worlds' public eye.)

Re:Copyright works...

[Z00L00K]

Kim Jong-un is as far as I know still alive.

But the attack from CBS and Paramount is just stupid. It does not bring value to the franchise, it just adds a bad taste of bitterness to it.

Standing On Shoulders - Young Sherlock Holmes

[Anonymous Coward]

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=44634

"The Truth About Star Trek and Sherlock Holmes

A pervasive urban legend says that Star Trek: TNG wrongly believed that Sherlock Holmes was already in the public domain when the show made its second-season episode, "Elementary, My Dear Data." And then, once Paramount/Viacom realized its mistake, the story goes, the show reached a settlement with the Conan Doyle estate and paid handsomely to reuse Holmes villain Professor Moriarty in a followup episode." ....

"After three years, it turned out that the perceived taboo in doing more Sherlock Holmes stories... had all been a mistake! "Apparently the Arthur Conan Doyle estate was irritated with Paramount because of the movie Young Sherlock Holmes and they said no, more, ever," [Jeri]Taylor said. "Well, as in many walks of life it was never say never again; to my amazement they were willing to give us the characters for a very reasonable licensing fee.." "

Re:boycott star trek

[jonwil]

I was sort of interested in going to see the new Star Trek film in theaters but wasn't 100% committed to it. Seeing this news, I think I will forget Star Trek and spend my money going to see the other films comming out that I really want to see instead like Independence Day 2, The BFG and Ghostbusters.

Never heard of Columbia Pictures suing anyone for making Ghostbusters fan content...

Re:boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

God, it must be 10+ years since I've watched any of the TV shows. Do they still air them?

Oh wait, now I remember. BBCA has been airing 8 hours of TNG a day ever since they gave up on being british, haven't they?

Re:boycott star trek

[Opportunist]

"That isn't a boycott, these geeks are just ripping our movies now! We need tougher laws to protect the all important EIIII PEEEE!"

Re:boycott star trek

[Opportunist]

Well, to be fair, come July there will be no Ghostbusters fan left on the planet.

This is a problem with CORPORATE identity

[SkyLeach]

Unlike authors, corporations live forever. They don't give a flying crap in the accounting department how many old fans get pissed off, because fans die. Revenue streams are forever. All they have to do is sit on a trademark (brand name) or copyright (of which Star Trek is both) until things die down. They'll give placebos to the fans a little, but honestly Axanar isn't well-known enough yet to hurt them over the long haul.

They'll just outlive any displeasure.

My biggest argument against all of this is that Axanar is a completely new story in a fictional universe that they bought the IP rights to. It's a social idea hook. It's LONG past the original 35 year copyright span.

The point of that original span was to be the lifetime of the exclusive ownership of a body of work for a reasonable time as defined by the following criteria:
1.) The lifetime of an author to enjoy the rights to his labor without theft.
2.) A reasonable compromise between cultural saturation and ownership. Over that amount of time it is unreasonable for any owner to expect any popular work to remain under their sole control due to the nature of human society.

Star Trek is now a cultural meme. It is a consistent fictional universe with a life of it's own. Attempting to extend ownership of an idea in perpetuity is a lucrative corporate wet dream, but it flies in the face of the way human society works. We evolve based on our shared dreams, desires and cultural ideas. Parents have now introduced TWO GENERATIONS to Star Trek without marketing based on an old ideal created by a now-dead author. Most graduates from high school have watched NONE, NOT ONE of the series of STTOS, STTNG, DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise has only been watched by a few. Ask them.

IP isn't just about the works anymore, it's about language and meme... owning the memories and cultural identities of huge segments of the population... for profit.

Nothing good comes from this.

If this holds up, then William Gibson should have a right to sue Microsoft for trademark infringement, as well as the Wachowskis. After all, their cultural memes came from Neuromancer.

Want some TREK TRASH?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go!

In July 2012, Lien (Kes) was arrested for an alleged domestic assault.[15] In April 2015, Lien was arrested and charged with evading arrest, resisting arrest, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault in relation to a speeding offense.[16] In September 2015, Lien was arrested for two counts of misdemeanor exposure in relation to an argument with a neighbor.[17][18] In February 2016, Lien paid restitution for a police cruiser damaged in the April 2015 incident, and the state agreed to a six month deferral of the 2015 charges so she can continue to receive mental health treatment.[19] In March 2016, Lien was charged with DUI.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

JJ Abrahms and Justin Lin may be big Start Trek fans, the people who run CBS and Paramount are not.

This is the man that owns Star Trek: Sumner Redstone. I know members of his extended family, and I haven't heard a single complimentary word about him or his immediate family. IMO, it's all about the money, and any artistic or cultural aspects of their holdings are nothing more than a means to increase the family fortune and power.

Re: Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they deemed legal or have tje studios simply not sued? And are the parodies distributed by a different company? Did they procure the righs?

Re: Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are legal. ( Parody Copyright_issues )

"Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 U.S.C. 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works". That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her."

Watched prelude to axanar, was very dry

[Anonymous Coward]

And the actors were never in the same room as each other, interacting with each other.... It was interesting, but not so much entertaining to me. I'm glad it receives such a huge following and support though, clearly it is very important and beloved, so congrats to those who worked on it and appreciate it.

Re: Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Z00L00K]

A parody does not have to be funny though. Some leaves a sour aftertaste.

"Hurt our brand"

[raymorris]

> "this may somehow hurt our profits or hurt our 'brand' (which will hurt our profits), therefore it must not be allowed".

You figure they don't want something to hurt the brand, and I think you're right. If they get a bunch of letters from fans (customers) telling them that the law suit is hurting their brand ...

Re:"Hurt our brand"

[mysidia]

Don't write them..... write to your congresspeople about abuses by media companies. Get some proposed lawful action going that will have a serious negative affect on the companies' bottom line in $$$$.

Re:"Hurt our brand"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't write them..... write to your congresspeople about abuses by media companies.
Get some proposed lawful action going that will have a serious negative affect on the companies' bottom line in $$$$.

Just because you don't like what they're doing, doesn't make it "abuse".

They have every right to protect their intellectual property. And you have every right to boycott their product if you don't like it.

Whether this lawsuit was a good idea or not is a separate issue, but Congress doesn't have the right to force them to give away their product (not that that would stop Congress from abusing their authority).

Re:"Hurt our brand"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you want people to write their elected representatives over a *&%^! fan film?

Re:"Hurt our brand"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because that has always worked so well in the past. Oh wait it hasn't, lobbyist, corruption, out of touch congresspeople, congresspeople who have been there far too many terms. Just because we write out congresspeople doesn't mean they will do anything about it. In the end they will do what they want. Then this is will you make a comment, "well then they won't get elected next term", but then we'll just end up with another official who does what they want who won't get re-elected.

The political landscape needs to change. Congresspeople shouldn't be making decisions for themselves, congressspeople should be our puppets. The way I would like it to work is, the people should send them issues to their congressperson, those issues are presented to the district, the people vote on which issues are most important to them. Then the congressperson should then bring those issues to congress. If a issue is brought to the congressperson from congress, that issue should be presented to their district, the people present their thoughts on the issue at hand, the people then give feedback on the issue to the congressperson, at that point possible choices/solutions are presented, the people give feedback on those choices/solutions, they are then tweaked to the feedback and presented to the district for a vote on which choice/solution is supported. After that the congressperson has a clear view of how the majority in their district feel on the subject matter so they can then take that data back to congress. Some may say that process will take forever to get anything done, but frankly it takes congress long enough to do anything as it is.

Re:"Hurt our brand"

[Cinnamon Beige]

It's not just that, it's also managing to hurt them as a brand at this point--what is probably needed is a boycott with a petition and/or letter-writing campaign telling them that the utter hostility to the very same group that they normally could rely on having turn up for any Star Trek media they chose to make, regardless of quality, is alienating those once-sure ticket sales.

Honestly, if they really thought it might do better than their next Star Trek movie, they should have tried throwing money directly at the problem: bought into Axanar, and done it in a way that they get a payout no matter which movie does well. The risks to them with doing something like getting the theatrical release rights or the like for Axanar would have low because actually making the movie had been covered by the crowdfunding, at least before they decided that they were going to make that money be spent on lawyers too. It'd have made it easier for them to court future promising crowdfunded projects and/or tell some pitches that they will get $$$ from them if they can successfully get off the ground via crowdfunding.

Now? I seriously doubt anybody would be willing to make such deals with them, ever.

Re:"Hurt our brand"

[peawormsworth]

Distributors see money (Indiegogo campaign raised $566,023). Distributors see a way to take money. Distributors do that thing.

Of course, assuming they win a lawsuit, none of this money will go to anyone involved in the making of anything.

Distributors are dying. Let them die.

That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[raymorris]

The movie is explicitly a STAR TREK fan film. Not a "low budget sci-fi flik". If it's a STAR TREK film, that's called a derivative work. Same characters (both individuals and groups like Klingons and Star Fleet), extending the Star Trek plot lines forward or backward in time, etc.

You ask "which Star Trek work". Several, actually, each an separate violation of copyright law. Their use of Kilngons is derived from each and every time Star Trek used Klingons.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[loonycyborg]

Individual elements like that are explicitly not subject to copyright. Only complete works are subject to copyright. And as far as law is concerned there is only an issue if there is "is derivative work of" relation between two complete works, such as movies or novels. Axanar is single work, a movie, thus it much be in "is derivative work of" relation with some other work such as another movie or novel or whatever. Otherwise wording of law doesn't apply.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[phantomfive]

I don't know why you think that. Characters can be copyrighted, for explanation see here or here

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[loonycyborg]

For example this: http://copyright.gov/circs/cir... . I insist that any decision by court restricting the use of a character alone, irrespective of work, and in all works changes the meaning of copyright as defined in law, and thus the law must be updated for those decisions to make sense.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[phantomfive]

Oh, you're either deliberately misunderstanding copyright law, or your just haven't researched it very well.
Words, names, and short phrases may not be copyrightable, but a portion of a work can still be copyrighted. Character copyright is fairly well established, although it makes me smile when you insist so fervently that the courts follow you. You're cute.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[loonycyborg]

Well, it totally doesn't convince me. Character copyright just plain doesn't follow from the law as written, and people can't be expected to follow unwritten laws that is conveyed mostly via hearsay and can be changed by new interpretation at any new court case. Since it doesn't follow from the law the judge basically usurped role performed by legislative branch. Of course judges are expected to draft own interpretation, but this is going too far IMO. A change of such a magnitude should be vetted by society at large.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[phantomfive]

Copyright law is written to be intentionally vague, and covers "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." Why do you think that creating a character wouldn't fit in the category of an "original work of authorship?" Authorship is not limited to the written word here.

btw, although single words cannot be copyrighted, paramount owns the trademark for Klingon, too.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[loonycyborg]

Actually, trademark claims is what they should be pressing instead. Claiming copyright here is misuse. All this bogus legal situation exists only because people keep confusing trademark, patents and copyrights.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[phantomfive]

Claiming copyright here is misuse.

Why? You didn't answer the question of the previous post. I'll put it here again for you:

Copyright law is written to be intentionally vague, and covers "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." Why do you think that creating a character wouldn't fit in the category of an "original work of authorship?"

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[loonycyborg]

This quote from law:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Examples provided here guide me to conclude that only transformations are covered, and not works made from scratch. As long as those examples remain as they are there's no convincing me that completely new works reusing some characters and setting elements are derivative.

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[phantomfive]

You mean anything which "as a whole represents an original work of authorship" but "based upon one or more preexisting works" is not covered? Are you really going to say that a movie using Klingons isn't based on Star Trek evn in part? haha

Re:That's what STAR TREK fan film means

[loonycyborg]

"Based on" can mean many different things depending on the context, and examples given clarify what it means in this particular case. And not a single of them covers mere reuse of some lore elements, such as Klingons. In fact it implies a lot more stringent requirements on a work being considered derivative of other work. Thus Axanar could be only considered derivative work if, say, it was a remake of StarTrek The Motion Picture, or a movie combining several subplots taken away from various episodes of the series. But then it should be specified which exact motion pictures or episodes were ripped off. If it just reuses some lore elements from the setting for a completely original story then it's not derivative work according to definition in the law.

Re: Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Fair use would not includude a full movie with no financial responsibilities owed to the copyright holder.

And this isn't a parody for critical purposes, anyway (aside from the high level of slapping the reboot in the face.)

Re:Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[MrKaos]

What's sad is the fans have passion and tell better stories and understand the source material better that the studio's hired hacks. Look what a farce the rebooted Star Trek has become. Every reboot really. Funny story: Once a puritan attorney-general decided to shut down the porno movie industry by prosecuting the actresses for prostitution and financers as pimps. He took a test case to court, but the judiciary bukakked all over his face with a finding that made clear the porno movie industry was legal.

Maybe we need a porno parody version of Star Trek with good stories and awesome porn, wouldn't that be every nerds wet wet wet dream? I mean porn has a problem with good stories and sci fi has a problem with good porn so, rule 34.

It would be funny if Paramount tried to fuck this fan over in court and ended up legitimizing fan films.

Fans are the cow that can be eternally milked for cash. A porno version of the prime directive would be the ultimate way to tell paramount to get fucked. Get para mounted.

Paramount/CBS can KISS MY ASS!

[kheldan]

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

Axanar petition

[kheldan]

https://www.change.org/p/cbs-s...

Re:Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Anonymous Coward]

we need a porno parody version of Star Trek with good stories and awesome porn

It's been done (except for the "good stories and awesome port" part).

Re: boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

I pirate them

Counterexamples

[rsborg]

Not until they are facing losing said IP.

No corporation has ever given anything except at gunpoint.

Think about all the open source that is released by good-willed corporations. Even IP is given away Tesla's "All our patent are belong to you". [1]
There are corporations who believe in the commons. Even Apple, who legislates on design patents contributes to open source.

That said, the gist of what you said is true, and the only fix is to demolish the "corporations are people" legal construct (mostly because it's bullshit - corporations live forever and have no morals by default - it's simply legally convenient).

Fight against our corporate overlords!

[1] https://www.teslamotors.com/bl...

Re:Counterexamples

[Opportunist]

If corporations are people, then why can't you kill them with a bullet?

Re:boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I? The producers of Axanar are in the wrong here. It would be one thing if they were working on a no profit fan production, but they are making money off of this.

CBS and Paramount should win this case and I'll be supporting them.

So big data failed

[HalAtWork]

IT'S BECAUSE THEY JUST SEE A REDUCTION IN POPULARITY AND DON'T KNOW WHY!!!

So basically all that data that's being collected via Facebook, Twitter, Google trends, doubleclick/Google, location data, non-cash spending, etc etc etc can't tell anybody anything and we've still got knee jerk conclusions to everything? Good show.

Re: boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually just paused the final episode of DS9 to go outside and smoke right before reading this. To DS9 !

Re: boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

"JJ Abrahms and Justin Lin may be big Start Trek fans, the people who run CBS and Paramount are not."

That should be self evident since CBS and Paramount hired Abrahms and Lin?

I cant believe this is still going on

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it Paramount, you put your best & brightest against fan-made films & the fan-made films won.

Nobody wants to see your awful JJ Trek, we're sick to death of pod racing & Space GI Joes being chased down a corridor by an explosion.

We want to watch SCIENCE fiction, not lame action movies. Fan films provide that, you dont.

Please make sure Abrams is with you when you go die in a fire.

Re:Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Anonymous Coward]

good point

Re:boycott star trek

[Cinnamon Beige]

Yeah, the various bits of news I've heard about it basically made me feel like the whole thing is very much pandering to the Tumblr crowd--I'd not have minded something like an all-female team, but the way they've been selling it makes it feel like they just want to be seen as Feminist, and the sort where that text would be in a pretty feminine script font with blinking and sparkles. I'd have actually been happier it if was the product of blind casting, and in some ways that might have been the best way to do it anyway. Sure, it'd mean you'd have a potentially significant script revision that couldn't be done until you cast people, but it'd not come off as forced and at least mildly exploitative.

Re: boycott star trek

[Hylandr]

The best little soap opera that ever snagged a mans attention.

Got me in it's claws too.

Re: Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one claimed this was a parody, did you read the posts leading to these comments or just skip to the end of the chain and made your comment based on that alone?

Re:Spit or swallow, Paramount?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some of the front covers of such movies for those interested.

Re: boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this -1? Because he said the word "Jews"? He is 100% right though. It's nothing more than greed. Most Hollywood execs are Jewish.

Someone got mad and went all SJW and modded him down because he said Jews. Smfh. This PC world we live in fucking sucks.

Re: boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Thursday's, Friday's, and Saturdays, TNG on BBCA. 8 hours on Thursday and I believe almost all day on the weekends.

Parody

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure that you add plenty of funny shit to Axanar and call it a parody, at which point they can't do shit because parody is specifically protected against this kind of crap, so unless you are straight up copying line for line an episode of Star Trek, the lawyers will have to pound sand.

Devil's advocate. I'm sorry.... Educate me?

[irving47]

I really want to understand...
The way most people (including me) seems to understand the fan-film 'arrangement' for Trek and Wars.....
If they can do a fan-film and pay the vendors to provide costumes, props, and caterers, etc... It's allegedly fine, as the producers are not technically making a profit from using Star Trek properties. (The same appears to be true with Lucasfilm/Star Wars, but apparently it's laid out more specifically in writing?)
It even seems like it's even better (safer, legally) for the producers/creators if there's a LOSS on the whole endeavor.

A friend of mine is a guild-member script writer who knows more than me about these things.... What I was told was that a new production studio had been built with some of the indiefundmekickstarter money that was raised.
So... A real, tangible, standing structure... asset. That will be used to create other things in the future. Yes, including more Trek stuff, probably... But a substantial, real thing that could easily be converted to cash?

I really want to understand why/if this is right or wrong, factually, and if it's something that makes a difference to people that have the "It's OK, as long as they don't make profit" mindset?

I asked this question, and was basically banned from their facebook page for asking. (I think they turned off permission for me to post in the comments)

Disclaimer: I LOVE Prelude to Axanar. I honestly think it should have been licensed, shown in theaters as an add-on "short" to some other Paramount property as a one-time thing, offered on iTunes for $5, and shown with ST Beyond in the theaters.
A couple of Trekkie friends of mine got together a little while back, and we all watched Star Trek: Rebels as the "main event" that night. I said that was ok... but check THIS out! Axanar won the night, hands-down.

I think I'm going to hate Beyond, and would gladly trade the new movie franchise for Axanar-like material on a one-for-one basis, regardless of length.

Re:Devil's advocate. I'm sorry.... Educate me?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Axanar crew has that kind of backing, why doesn't Paramount just make them pay a nominal four-figure licensing fee to sweep the whole thing under the rug?

Re:Devil's advocate. I'm sorry.... Educate me?

[tlhIngan]

I really want to understand why/if this is right or wrong, factually, and if it's something that makes a difference to people that have the "It's OK, as long as they don't make profit" mindset?

Basically it boils down to licensing.

"Fan films" and other fan-items are generally produced for free and given away, with no profit motive at all - they were created by fans who wanted to play in the universe. These are generally done as hobby projects and no expectation of cash is given, other than maybe a few bucks in donations and whatever you scrape up through YouTube donations.

This production is somewhat... different. First off, there is a grey area for the profit motive - because the film will not be released for all immediately for free, but instead given to backers who have first viewing, one could argue it's a profit motive as you sold exclusivity.

And then there's the whole "is it fandom" thing if you're hiring actors, post production, etc teams to do a lot of the work. Fan works generally have an aura of crappiness to them because they were shot with consumer grade camcorders and edited using whatever was available, though some can be quite well produced if given the time or the creators had a skilled person in their team.

This is made even more complex because CBS has a licensing arm who would gladly license you out the rights to Star Trek - though because they get so many, it costs around $55,000 to arrange a sit-down meeting with the licensing agents and lawyers. (Other CBS properties generally cost that much). This is just to get to a first meeting, not to hammer out a licensing deal - just to get you in the door and either laughed out of the room or they show interest in making a deal. It probably costs a lot more after that to get the lawyers involved and get a deal done

Who will prevail? In the end, being Hollywood and all, it will probably be settled, a license fee paid, and everyone walks away. If not, things will get very nasty very quickly - including difficult, if any of the production companies start getting blackballed

Re:boycott star trek

[HatofPig]

These arguments have already been battled out months ago. There was an "I Stand with CBS/Paramount" movement on facebook, run from TrekBBS which was in perpetual flamewar with the pro-Axanar people. The biggest issue was the tone Axanar was taking with Paramount, which lead to all the long-term fan-film fans to worry about one rogue production bringing down the ban-hammer on everyone.

Axanar was explicitly marketing itself as more than just a fan film, but rather a professional-quality production. Which is something which is usually, you know, licensed? Star Trek was being used as a way to crowd-fund the creation of a movie-studio that the crew would use to later make original works. Original works, one assumes, with names which could not have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars on a crowd-funding site like Star Trek did.

Most fan films are grateful to CBS for allowing them to exist, not resentful. CBS definitely has strong (relatively speaking) connections to the existing fan film industry. Enterprise borrowed Sulu's pop-out helm scanner for their mirror-universe episode. So this whole affair has been an ugly mark on what's been a very nice thing until now.

Re: boycott star trek

[Anonymous Coward]

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Star Trek pirates YOU!

What a country!

The intent is totally evil ...

[systemBuilder]

It's pretty clear that fan-films are okay as long as they are crap. Once you raise enough $$$ to produce something good CBS/Paramount will rob you ...