Slashdot Mirror
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. "
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.
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.)
I called it. What do you have to say now J.J. Abrams?
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.
Interview with J.J. Abrams saying he never liked Star Trek.
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.
Somehow I doubt that corporations are going to go for a reasonable good-will arrangement when it comes to IP.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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...
"That isn't a boycott, these geeks are just ripping our movies now! We need tougher laws to protect the all important EIIII PEEEE!"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, to be fair, come July there will be no Ghostbusters fan left on the planet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Its your interpretation of copyright law which is flawed, not the Judges. This is a fairly slam dunk case of a derivative work.
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.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
(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.
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.
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.
According to definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... please tell me of which exact work is Axanar derivative?
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."
A parody does not have to be funny though. Some leaves a sour aftertaste.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
> "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 ...
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.
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.)
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
https://www.change.org/p/cbs-s...
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Using the "same setting" qualifies as a derivative work. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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.
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...
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
"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.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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.
Twinstiq, game news
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.
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.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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.
The best little soap opera that ever snagged a mans attention.
Got me in it's claws too.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
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.
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.
I had a sucky sig.
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.
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
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.
Are you unfamiliar with a concept called "books"?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.