Slashdot Mirror
CBS, Paramount Settle Lawsuit Over 'Star Trek' Fan Film (hollywoodreporter.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Hollywood Reporter: Stand down from battle stations. Star Trek rights holders CBS and Paramount have seen the logic of settling a copyright suit against Alec Peters, who solicited money on crowdfunding sites and hired professionals to make a YouTube short and a script of a planned feature film focused on a fictional event -- a Starfleet captain's victory in a war with the Klingon Empire -- referenced in the original 1960s Gene Roddenberry television series. Thanks to the settlement, CBS and Paramount won't be going to trial on Stardate 47634.44, known to most as Jan. 31, 2017. According to a joint statement, "Paramount Pictures Corporation, CBS Studios Inc., Axanar Productions, Inc. and Alec Peters are pleased to announce that the litigation regarding Axanar's film Prelude to Axanar and its proposed film Axanar has been resolved. Axanar and Mr. Peters acknowledge that both films were not approved by Paramount or CBS, and that both works crossed boundaries acceptable to CBS and Paramount relating to copyright law." Peters' Axanar video and script, which feature such arguably copyrighted elements as Vulcan ears, the Klingon language and an obscure character from a 1969 episode, sparked a lawsuit in December 2015. The litigation then proceeded at warp speed with the case almost making it to trial in just 13 months, an amazingly brisk pace by typical standards. When Axanar comes out, it will look different. "Axanar and Mr. Peters have agreed to make substantial changes to Axanar to resolve this litigation, and have also assured the copyright holders that any future Star Trek fan films produced by Axanar or Mr. Peters will be in accordance with the 'Guidelines for Fan Films' distributed by CBS and Paramount in June 2016," states the parties' joint announcement of a settlement.
The only thing I can read from this is that in order to meet CBS/Viacom/Paramount requirements, it can't retain any of the Star Trek elements we'd like to see. In which case, it will be just another space combat short with no connection to any greater framework that makes it have relevance. Peters' bluster has not only ruined his Axanar project that would have brought an interesting bit of Trek 'history' to light, but it has ruined the chances of any other fan film becoming a serious production worthy of consideration, thanks to those stringent guidelines CBS understandably developed.
Axenar looked significantly better than anything Paramount/CBS has come up with in the past 20 years. They had to kill it.
#DeleteChrome
To save some web searching, here is the movie on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?... , and the web site for the production company: http://www.axanarproductions.c...
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The law may be on the side of CBS and Paramount, but I'd like to know how they're harmed by the production of fan fiction. There's a case to be made that use of trademarks may be a problem, but the companies chose not to pursue that issue. They focused on copyright. How did this harm them?
Fan fiction doesn't reduce fan interest in the franchise and the works created by CBS and Paramount. Instead, it increases interest, by keeping fans interested in between series and movies and perhaps winning over new fans who might encounter the videos on Youtube. Thefan works are non-canon, and there's no reason why it would reduce the desire of fans for films that are considered canon. For example, Star Trek Continues makes use of most of the TOS characters played by different actors. I don't see any logical reason that Star Trek Continues would reduce interest in TOS, though. If anything, encountering that on Youtube might make viewers want to watch TOS and increase revenue for CBS and Paramount.
How could there be any damages to CBS and Paramount? Those donations are to cover the cost of production, not for the creators to pocket the money. That money was never going to CBS and Paramount anyway, who don't solicit donations to pay for the cost of their films. Instead, the studios set a budget, invest that money, and get paid though advertising and at the box office (for movies).
How were CBS and Paramount possibly harmed? And if they're not harmed, how could they collect any damages at all?
Some odd things in their guidelines
"Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any harmful or illegal activity.
Data has said "shit" in startrek before.
There has been some nudity in a couple of episodes, bum shots.
The entire crew of the enterprise got intoxicated on drugs in more than one occasion.
Some startrek drinks contain alcohol.
I'm sure there have been characters on the holodeck smoking tobacco before.
And.. if you can't show any "harmful or illegal activity" then anyone being murdered is out. No spaceships blowing up and killing anyone, unless it was accidental.
"uniforms, accessories, toys and props must be official merchandise and not bootleg items or imitations of such commercially available products"
This also seems a bit problematic, official merch/toys is often inferior to fan made props
Maybe you can use Magog ears instead. Who owns the rights to Andromeda?
Alec Peters has ruined Star Trek fan films for everyone due to his greed. And I was enjoying Star Trek Continues which can no longer continue thanks to him.
Stardate 47634.44 would be in the middle of Star Trek: The Next Generation 7th season. But no Picard? Fake!
Alec Peters is a greedier bastard than Gene Roddenberry. That's quite an achievement.
Really? I've heard the last few Trek outings were absolute shit. I've been too busy to see many movies, but after Paramount's shenanigans began I couldn't see making time to give them any of my money. The fans made Trek - if they want to shit on the fans, then the fans can u make Trek. Except that most of them are p'tak.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The last three JJ Abrams Star Trek movies (I think one of them may have been mis-labeled as a Star Wars movie) were beyond awful.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
That's what disappoints me most. I'm reasonably convinced that Peters was trying to profit from Star Trek, which isn't OK. But other productions like Star Trek Continues aren't profiting and actually increase interest in Star Trek. I don't think that anyone would see Star Trek Continues on Youtube and then decide they didn't want to watch TOS. If anything, it's free advertising for TOS and would increase interest in that series. If CBS and Paramount had simply said you can't profit from Star Trek, or even that you have to give them a royalty-free and perpetual license them to use your works to promote their official Star Trek productions, I think that would be okay. It seems like the restrictions are draconian and are an overreaction to the problem.
If the writers are any good it will get a more Blake's 7 type treatment where it is up to the viewer to understand that it is a different view on the same "Federation" as in Star Trek, but with totally different names and iconography.
If they can't do that, then it was going to be weak anyways. They still get to make a movie, they still get to tell whatever parts of the story were original. Rather than being downgraded, this should actually improve the art; else they shouldn't have been doing it anyways.
This may be bad news for Trekkies and Trekkers, but it is good news for science fiction fans!
Everyone knows they were modeled on depictions of demons having pointed ears.
I totally agree. As a lifelong Star Trek fan I have to point out that William Shatner sincerely advised the obsessed people you talk about to "get a life" long ago. Perhaps anybody with an excessive attachment that they could "abandon" should finally now take his advice to heart?
My advice, choose what is on the screens you look at, and never ever ever make what somebody else put on a screen into part of your personal identity.
Star Trek's financial value of course won't change, but if twelve people stop buying Klingon prosthetics, all twelve of them will have more pennies. So their side of the financial effect is exactly the same. And by no longer obsessing about Star Trek, it will be almost as if it stopped existing for them. Create your reality by choosing what you spend your money on, and choosing what is on the screens you look at!
Star Trek Continues also violates those same guidelines (high-quality props/sets/uniforms instead of toy-store quality items, professional acting/directing/scriptwriting, episode length and continuity, etc.) and so could well be sued. However, Trek Continues is creating this content in an explicitly not-for-profit context. Trek Continues therefore is holding high hopes that CBS will choose not to exercise their legal rights against them.
Since CBS/Paramount and the Star Trek franchise are not demonstrably hurt by the Trek Continues production (and suing them might well result in such damage), the people associated with Trek Continues have said publicly that they intend to create the full eleven episode run which they originally set out to publish - intended to fill the gap between the episode Turnabout Intruder and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. They've also pointed out that just because CBS/Paramount can sue them doesn't mean they will sue them. They've said that they have sufficient funding and resources to complete and publish the remaining four episodes. While there's a lot if if coming off this, I share their hopes. CBS/Paramount would do vastly more to harm their interests by suing than they might gain from injunctive relief in this case. But - yes, Alec Peters tried to stick his fingers in the cookie jar, so to speak, and risked ruining a lot of great fan fiction for all of us.
Wait, what? I haven't heard anything about Star Trek continues not being able to um.... continue, and there is nothing on their Web Site or Twitter feed that indicates that. Are you aware of something that I'm not?
You could well be right that he was trying to profit from Star Trek, but I'm not convinced it's not okay.
Apparently he was accused of copying the "concept and feel" from decades old episodes, including "Vulcan ears, the Klingon language and an obscure character from a 1969 episode". The world's richest man founded his empire on copying the contemporary "look and feel" of the Mac from Apple (who copied it from Xerox). That seems a lot like the "concept and feel" to me, so if it's not okay, then I think there's a far bigger issue here. Also, the "concept and feel" in dispute is over 40 years old.
It's not clear to me from the article whether Alec Peters is or was intending to restrict distribution of the resulting work. If not, then I really don't think he was doing anything wrong. Copyright was intended to promote the production of works by restricting their distribution. I don't think it should hinder the production of works that can happen without restriction on distribution, over 40 years later. That seems counter productive to me.
If he was intending to restrict distribution though, then his legal troubles don't bother me. Live by the sword, die by the sword, I guess.
A perfect example of the point I made earlier and previously when talking about Star Wars under Disney versus under Lucas. Not funding your own oppression is hardly radical, it's quite sensible to recognize that politics are very much a part of the matter involved in dealing with corporate media (such as Hollywood movies and TV shows). This also isn't a matter of seeking perfection -- if /.ers stop paying to see Star Trek we don't take down Paramount -- that argument puts more power in your hands than you have (flattery) and then tries to argue how you shouldn't use that power to get what you (presumably) want: more Star Trek-related works and the option of being a participant in that, not just a consumer. It's a matter of recognizing whether you want your money to go toward organizations that needlessly restrict their biggest fans from celebrating the work or organizations that show they're not jerks by letting the derivative works coexist and even considering them a challenge to come up with better plots, interesting characters, and another innovative series.
Digital Citizen
ST Continues was very well made, and most importantly, well-acted. It's now dead because of this crap
I read them, but according to an update at the Continues indiegogo site, CBS is reviewing everything on a case by case basis and has not suggested that Continues stop what it's doing as of yet: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/star-trek-continues#/updates
He didn't just copy the look and feel.
He took entire designs wholesale; Klingon ships, at least one Federation ship, etc.; he took the exact names of the fictional nations involved; he even used actual Star Trek screen-used costumes. But most damningly, he took at least one whole character for use in Axanar.
Interestingly, the character I'm referring to isn't from TOS, but rather from Enterprise, which is much more recent.
-- sigs cause cancer.
The last three JJ Abrams Star Trek movies (I think one of them may have been mis-labeled as a Star Wars movie) were beyond awful.
Personally, I rather enjoyed the reboot movies... Much better than any of the Enterprise episodes...
The guidelines they set out are sufficient that another company isn't allowed to have Star Trek TV show.
In this particular case, actually the guy WAS pocketing the money, which was the biggest issue. You can still make fan fiction if you want, you just can't sell tickets to a professionally-produced full-length feature film starring well-known actors b without getting permission first.
> The only thing I can read from this is that in order to meet CBS/Viacom/Paramount requirements, it can't retain any of the Star Trek elements we'd like to see
Read the actual guidelines rather than reading between the lines of the Slashdot summary. IF you want to use all the Star Trek trademarks and copyright stuff, you're not allowed to dob the following, unless you ask permission first:
Sell tickets
Have a long-running TV show with many episodes
Buy knock-off costumes (you can make them or buy licensed costumes)
Hire professional actors and crew
(Liberal snow flakes please just move to read the next comment and keep your mod phasers set to stun). This whole thing just highlights what is fundamentally wrong with copyright. This is a cut and dried example of how the ridiculously long copyright laws supported by both establishment parties are stifling and robbing our culture and are only for the enrichment of a few. This is the system that Barak Hussain Obama defended and did not fix for the last 8 years. We will have to see what the next administration brings.
We badly need to reform the system to something reasonable and in line with the original intent. Star Trek first aired in 1966, and it's creator is now dead. Reasonable copyright of 40 years from the creation date would put the Star Trek universe squarely in the public domain, while subsequent movies would still be protected for 40 years from their first showing. Nothing will change though if we the people just keep on bending over and taking it.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
He took two characters. Garth of Izar and Ambassador Soval, from TOS and Enterprise respectively.
Look into Renegades, Tim Russ' project, which basically did that very thing.
I get all your comments that it violated copyright. And I agree that he was selling model kits and taking a salary.
It was a bad scene.
The problem is that Axenar was one of the best star trek treatments I've seen since Wrath of Khan.
It felt RIGHT.
It sent shivers up and down my spine.
In a different world, CBS and Paramount would have have had Peters and the original crew make it as a real film as their employees in a regular setting.
And that would have also probably ruined it. Too big a budget ruins so many films.
And the premise may not have stood up to a full 90 to 110 minute film.
I could even see a partnership between kickstarters willing to invest money so it got made and recieve blue/ray copies on release into theatres and cbs/paramount who wouldn't have to spend nearly as much and just distribute it for profit.
They could have had stretch goals funded by higher box office gross receipts. (like a copy of the ship... a uniform... props. etc.)
As a star fleet battles player, it was really nice to see the battles were implemented with star fleet battles in mind (and perhaps actually played out with SFB in mind).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I was just going by the article, and in particular what seemed to me a key passage: "the judge found under an objective analysis that the YouTube video, dubbed Prelude to Axanar, was too congruent to Star Trek, leaving a jury to decide whether a reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar." Perhaps there were other charges too, but still, the Apple v. Microsoft "look and feel" case at least seems relevant to this charge.
really hope they get to Continue this series, they have finally got a good cast and settled into roles, Vic does a pretty good kirk, and the new Spock and Mccoy are passable, story lines are solid, and it has the "feel" of TOS, if they cant go on, we will be left with all the shitty green screen clones that look rubbish...
Okay, but by the same token, movie studios let people see their movies in exchange for a cut of ticket prices. If showing for a fee imparts a license to copy, then both Apple and movie goers receive this.
Are you saying it's theft to copy an expression, but not theft to copy an idea, and "concept and feel" is an expression, whereas "look and feel" is an idea? Presumably Alec Peters didn't use any Star Trek footage (although ZenShadow says he did use some Star Trek costumes). Also, like Apple, he produced something new.
So now you're saying Apple bought stolen goods from Xerox?
This isn't convincing me. I'm just feeling like, if you ask questions about intangible property, you get incongruent answers.
As much as I hate to admit it, you're probably right. The movies have been wildly successful by every margin that Hollywood cares about (money & blow jobs) and they did this by removing everything that made Star Trek what it was. Most of these elements required the audience to think and that's the last thing you and the masses want to do, even if you and they are capable. So what we ended up with was three Star Wars films with the names changed to avoid copyright issues. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Star Wars but, it's mindless entertainment.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
If anything, the film maker should have been granted a reasonable license fee from the studio for using the copyrighted works. We all know the reboot is trash and here we have someone going back to the series' roots to make something new.
where it is up to the viewer to understand that it is a different view on the same "Federation" as in Star Trek
Blake's 7's Federation had nothing in common with Trek's Federation except one word in their name. Terran Federation != United Federation of Planets.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
My Valcun first officer tells me we're running the risk of Klangon attack, but I never listen to that pointy-nosed pink-blooded twerp.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Okay, but by the same token, movie studios let people see their movies in exchange for a cut of ticket prices. If showing for a fee imparts a license to copy, then both Apple and movie goers receive this.
In both cases, it's not license to copy but certainly allows you to take the idea and express it in a new and different fashion. Copyright protects the expression, not the underlying concept or idea. There are plenty of "Zombies / Aliens / Animals attack shows and movies but each is a different expression of the idea, and the expression is protected. For example, I can watch Transformers and decide to create a movie about aliens who are on earth disguised as common household appliances and reveal themselves to fight off an evil invader, because that is an underlying idea. No one would mistake my movie for Transformers. I can't call it Transformers or used a copy of Bumblebee or character names, etc.
Are you saying it's theft to copy an expression, but not theft to copy an idea, and "concept and feel" is an expression, whereas "look and feel" is an idea? Presumably Alec Peters didn't use any Star Trek footage (although ZenShadow says he did use some Star Trek costumes). Also, like Apple, he produced something new.
The difference is Apple took the idea of a desktop and created their own version of, they didn't just make a duplicate of Xerox's implementation. Using ST props, copies of vessels, names, etc. would cross the line between the concept and how it is expressed. He wasn't making a satirical look at ST, which may have been ok, but a drama using material from ST. Like it or not, Paramount has to protect its copyrights. Much of copyright law is broken, but the underlying idea is sound.
In addition, while not relevant to this discussion, is the different philosophy exposed early in the development of the PC. It was much more of an academic / hobbyist ethos were ideas were shared more freely and the idea that they should be copyrighted and protected was much less prevalent. Once significant sums of money became involved the attitude changed. Hollywood, OTOH, has always looked to the money.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Look into Renegades, Tim Russ' project, which basically did that very thing.
They needed to do something because Renegades was rather boring. It had a lot of promise but was too disjointed to be any good, and certainly didn't interest me is supporting the sequel(s). They, IMHO, traded too much on "Hey, this is a new type of ST" and didn't put enough time into making it an interesting story.
What I don't understand is why professionals think Paramount will ignore their work even when it uses their copyrighted material? Make a pilot, even crowd fund it, pitch it and hope it sells; or try to license the material so you don't wind up in court later.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Wouldn't copyrighting a language run afoul of the First Amendment ? I would like to see the results of a lawsuit of this
You can't follow guidelines that don't exist. Those were created specifically to hinder Axanar after the lawsuit was already in progress.
Sure, I understand that you can copyright a story. But fucking Vulcan ears?
What I don't get is how people know these particular pointed ear props are Vulcan and not Elven. Maybe Nintendo should be talking to them for impersonating Link...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Link's not an elf; he's a Hylian. The Zelda universe has its own counterpart to wood elves, called Kokiri. Link in Ocarina of Time was raised by Kokiri.
But at least CBS and Paramount have decided to embrace fan creativity by publishing guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable fan work. Nintendo doesn't at all.
He didn't do anything that anyone else hasn't done.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What do you expect? It's a Trek fan film. The TOS ones take everything lock stock and barrel including unfilmed scripts and original actors. Of course a fan film is going to reuse major elements from the franchise.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It is perhaps worth noting that the guidelines are an additional grant of license by Paramount / CBS. People who want to do something outside of those guidelines can still ask permission, and I suspect it would be granted if it were in the same spirit as what the guidelines envision.
Of course, people can also still make Fair Use works, and "not for profit" gets you halfway to fair use.
> Star Trek Continues also violates the guidelines, but I have a hard time seeing how their copyright infringement is harmful to CBS/Paramount in any significant way.
It appears CBS and Paramount may agree with you - they haven't taken any enforcement action against Star Trek Continues, as far as I know.
I don't think CBS and Paramount could announce a policy of allowing "non-profit" use with professional cast and crew. They can be forced to honor whatever policy they publish, and a producer could pay himself a salary of $1 million. No "profit", that's his salary as professional producer.
Yes, I get that, but this passage preceded one that began "Besides, you can't copyright an idea.", indicating that these lines of argument were supposed to be independent. If this line of argument wasn't supposed to be independent of the following one, then I'm at a total loss to understand what, if anything, it was supposed to achieve.
Are you sure that was the intention of copyright law? Is the Transformers universe an idea, or an expression of idea(s)? (If it is the expression of idea(s), what idea(s) is it the expression of? Is this even a meaningful question?) Would a new story based in the Transformers universe not be a "transformative work"? (The pun's kind of unavoidable, but the question remains valid.)
You completely missed my first point, that he was charged with copying the "concept and feel", which, you seem to agree, it shouldn't be possible to charge him with. Are you seriously suggesting that all he did was "make a duplicate" of a Star Trek story, not make a new story? Really? Doesn't copyright law allow transformative works as well as satire? (Well, apparently it doesn't today. Maybe yesterday or tomorrow, depending on who does it, and how much cash they have.)
I'm not convinced about that either. As far as I can see, it's given us a shit operating system and a bunch of shit low-brow entertainment in exchange for draconian enforcement of bunch of restrictions that no-one really seems to understand.
You completely missed my first point, that he was charged with copying the "concept and feel", which, you seem to agree, it shouldn't be possible to charge him with. Are you seriously suggesting that all he did was "make a duplicate" of a Star Trek story, not make a new story? Really? Doesn't copyright law allow transformative works as well as satire? (Well, apparently it doesn't today. Maybe yesterday or tomorrow, depending on who does it, and how much cash they have.)
Satire certainly. If by transformative you mean derivative and I think the answer to that is no, and that's exactly what the movie was - a derivative work using props and replicas of items from the original, which violates the original's copyright.
I'm not convinced about that either. As far as I can see, it's given us a shit operating system and a bunch of shit low-brow entertainment in exchange for draconian enforcement of bunch of restrictions that no-one really seems to understand.
It's also given us OSS, because without copyrights the GPL would not be enforceable. Copyrights let creators decide how their works can be used, and I'd wager much of what is produced wouldn't be absent copyrights. As I've said, the fundamental principle is sound it's all the ways it is implemented that is broken. For example, the extension of copyright to essentially forever which prevents things from entering the public domain.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
See Copyright & Copywrong: What are Derivative and Transformative Works?
Without copyright, I don't think the GPL would be necessary. What would be the point of hiding the source if the executable was freely distributable? Wouldn't someone doing that just be encumbering themselves with the full development costs?
I'm sure you're right with regards to massively-expensive blockbuster movies. I doubt the world would have missed them if we didn't have them though. I enjoyed Blake's 7 when I was a kid. (I don't recall ever thinking "I'd like this if not for the lack of ludicrously-expensive special effects".) That kind of low-budget entertainment would be within the means of state broadcasters.
With regards to actually useful works, copyright is good at quickly hacking together shit works, which grab mind share, and hinder the development of free works. I'd wager we would have been better off without copyright (if such a wager were possible).
I suspect the only upside of copyright is that it's slowing the shift to the cloud, which will be even worst.