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.
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.
Not until they are facing losing said IP.
No corporation has ever given anything except at gunpoint.
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.
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.
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.
Using the "same setting" qualifies as a derivative work. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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.
I don't know why you think that. Characters can be copyrighted, for explanation see here or here
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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