That you deem the very lucid article I (partially) quoted, by the International Trademark Association (INTA) itself, as 'word salad legal terms' is quite telling, in and by itself.
The fact you don't understand that quoting something irrelevant is 'word salad' is even more telling.
If somebody ask's me for the time and I quote a line from Beowulf I am likely to get some funny looks. You have still failed to connect the dots...
The key problem with your argument is that you're simply wrong.
Um... no. You have just in fact illustrated the complete opposite, in addition to illustrating your complete incomprehension (and total disregard of facts presented: with many appropriate references provided to you on many occasions) of the entire discussion at hand...
Your contribution to this thread thus far is to basically ignore all evidence presented to you and rant like a person with a tin foil helm.
Um, other than your usual ad hominems, do you actually have anything substantial to counter the legal facts I just stated about trademarks?! I thought not. (And please, don't even try: you'll look very foolish in the process)
No. Because you stated no relevant legal facts. You do not understand what you are talking about and are simply making random word salad 'backed up' by random 'word salad legal terms'.
I do not think at this point anybody could look more foolish than yourself... but keep trying, you will get there (somehow).
...Bye!
That you deem the very lucid article I (partially) quoted, by the International Trademark Association (INTA) itself, as 'word salad legal terms' is quite telling, in and by itself. Most people I know would simply admit they didn't know these facts. You, apparently, do things a little differently. I get that. Others, I'm sure, would not be so blatently obstinate as to deny an entire aspect of the law, simply because they didn't know about it.
You are still missing the key point:
1) Axanar is being sued for COPYRIGHT infringement
I will agree with @meimeitoo on one thing: CBS/Paramount should provide clear guidelines on what can and cannot be done on any future fan films... which could potentially harm projects like Continues or New Voyages, depending on the stipulations. If that is true, however, and CBS is being purposefully vague... that's kinda bad. But, no one from the other projects are really corroborating that, so...
And, to respond directly to one of your statements, @meimeitoo... Peters is (rightly, IMHO) catching all of the heat because of his actions are not matching his words. He posts a blog to donors stating that the Axanar script is locked & completed, yet he tells the court in their first Motion to Dismiss that the script is not done. They gave their donors the understanding that Ares Studios was theirs and they had big plans for it, but now these ideas of leases and selling to investor groups come in. He's raised over $1,000,000, but apparently needed about $1,000,000 more to complete the film. He's even admitted the film could be done by now, yet there's no end in sight.
Add to that the attacks/blacklisting he's done to "haters" that show the smallest notion of disagreement or questioning of him (or, in donors' cases, where the TRIBBLE their money went)... all while painting himself to be some sort of savior of the franchise?
Sorry, but he deserves this. He's brought it on himself. His story keeps changing... he is either going to draw CBS' ire for usurping and IP he has ZERO right to do, or lie to his donors by not delivering on his promises.
P.S: You are still confusing trademark with copyright ect. But keep going... I won't stop you...
You understand so very little of the Law. It's charming, really.
'STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.' In this case, they're choosing a copyright-suit, for strategic reasons (basically, so they don't create a express trademark-enforcement obligation towards others who infringe on their marks, that could thus really backfire on them). Choosing the copyright-only route (far as I know) indemnifies them of the obligation to do likewise to other fan movie makers. After all, as I stated earlier, no obligation at all exists to defend your copyright. You could say this strategy is a courtesy to other fan-film producers, and allows them to just specifically go after Axanar only.
Nonetheless, as stated, 'STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.' And CBS not 'policing' their trademarks rigorously, as I outlined to you, could mean they're in jeopardy of losing it eventually. (For example, if too many Trek fan movies were being made across the world, and they kept ignoring it for years, at which point their trademark would start to lose its distinctiveness, thus becoming weaker, to the point of them possibly losing it.)
P.S: You are still confusing trademark with copyright ect. But keep going... I won't stop you...
You understand so very little of the Law. It's charming, really.
'STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.' In this case, they're choosing a copyright-suit, for strategic reasons (basically, so they don't create a express trademark-enforcement obligation towards others who infringe on their marks, that could thus really backfire on them). Choosing the copyright-only route (far as I know) indemnifies them of the obligation to do likewise to other fan movie makers. After all, as I stated earlier, no obligation at all exists to defend your copyright. You could say this strategy is a courtesy to other fan-film producers, and allows them to just specifically go after Axanar only.
Nonetheless, as stated, 'STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.' And CBS not 'policing' their trademarks rigorously, as I outlined to you, could mean they're in jeopardy of losing it eventually. (For example, if too many Trek fan movies were being made across the world, and they kept ignoring it for years, at which point their trademark would start to lose its distinctiveness, thus becoming weaker, to the point of them possibly losing it.)
Just so we're clear:
You are discussing a hypothetical situation regarding trademark that may arise in the future, but you are NOT discussing the actual lawsuit over copyright that is the topic of THIS thread?
Um, ok. Well, the funny thing is it seems most of the rest of us are discussing the ACTUAL topic of THIS thread, which is the copyright lawsuit.
I will agree with @meimeitoo on one thing: CBS/Paramount should provide clear guidelines on what can and cannot be done on any future fan films... which could potentially harm projects like Continues or New Voyages, depending on the stipulations. If that is true, however, and CBS is being purposefully vague... that's kinda bad. But, no one from the other projects are really corroborating that, so...
And, to respond directly to one of your statements, @meimeitoo... Peters is (rightly, IMHO) catching all of the heat because of his actions are not matching his words. He posts a blog to donors stating that the Axanar script is locked & completed, yet he tells the court in their first Motion to Dismiss that the script is not done. They gave their donors the understanding that Ares Studios was theirs and they had big plans for it, but now these ideas of leases and selling to investor groups come in. He's raised over $1,000,000, but apparently needed about $1,000,000 more to complete the film. He's even admitted the film could be done by now, yet there's no end in sight.
Add to that the attacks/blacklisting he's done to "haters" that show the smallest notion of disagreement or questioning of him (or, in donors' cases, where the TRIBBLE their money went)... all while painting himself to be some sort of savior of the franchise?
Sorry, but he deserves this. He's brought it on himself. His story keeps changing... he is either going to draw CBS' ire for usurping and IP he has ZERO right to do, or lie to his donors by not delivering on his promises.
And thegrandnagus has not declined my request for his stuffs... By meimeitoo's logic' I can now haz his stuffs, as he hasn't said I can't...
You are discussing a hypothetical situation regarding trademark that may arise in the future, but you are NOT discussing the actual lawsuit over copyright that is the topic of THIS thread?
Almost right. See, the Trademark and Copyright issues are related in this case.
Normally, CBS would go for a Trademark infringement. But, like I said, that has a nasty side-effect: since you're obligated to police your Trademarks, the 'rate' at which you do so, or your 'measure of vigor' at which you do so, if you will, could then be construed by others (on whom you didn't enforce it), as you apparently having abandoned your Trademark. Which effectively means CBS would, in case of Trademark, have forced their own hand, and be pretty much obligated to start suing other fan-movie makers too, and not just Axanar.
So, the copyright route is actually rather unusal, in cases like this. But it becomes clear when you understand what the (unintended) side-effects of a Trademark suit would be. I say 'unintended', as CBS had made it clear, in the past, they're not interested in pursuing not-for-profit fan-projects.
But the Copyright suit also still underlines what the eventual Trademark risk for CBS would be. So, at some point, they can't just completely ignore that either. The latter risk is currently very low, I'd say, as really, world-wide, only a handful of ppl make Star Trek fan movies. So the Copyright route, I say, was a clever one (and fan-friendly to boot).
You are discussing a hypothetical situation regarding trademark that may arise in the future, but you are NOT discussing the actual lawsuit over copyright that is the topic of THIS thread?
Almost right. See, the Trademark and Copyright issues are related in this case.
Normally, CBS would go for a Trademark infringement.
But they didn't. Again, we are discussing what they DID do. That is the topic of this thread.
So, in case you reply before I could have a chance to edit my previous post, here is my question:
Considering we are talking about the COPYRIGHT lawsuit, what 'disagreement' do you have with what anyone has said on the last page or so? Because the only disagreement I did see was you copy/pasting something about trademark law. Again, what disagreement do you have about this COPYRIGHT lawsuit?
Peters' paying himself? The sound stage they built for profit? What is your issue about what is actually being discussed?
You are discussing a hypothetical situation regarding trademark that may arise in the future, but you are NOT discussing the actual lawsuit over copyright that is the topic of THIS thread?
Almost right. See, the Trademark and Copyright issues are related in this case.
Normally, CBS would go for a Trademark infringement.
But they didn't. Again, we are discussing what they DID do. That is the topic of this thread.
Yes. But please understand my Trademark spinoff was in reply to:
A key problem with the argument of certain pro-Axanar posters is that they suggest copyright-holders must enforce their rights universally.
B
The key problem with your argument is that you're simply wrong. Whether you deem it fair or not, not defending your trademark(s) can cause you to lose them.
So, in case you reply before I could have a chance to edit my previous post, here is my question:
Considering we are talking about the COPYRIGHT lawsuit, what 'disagreement' do you have with what anyone has said on the last page or so? Because the only disagreement I did see was you copy/pasting something about trademark law. Again, what disagreement do you have about this COPYRIGHT lawsuit?
Peters' paying himself? The sound stage they built for profit? What is your issue about what is actually being discussed?
Funny you ask, as I think his copyright suit will go VERY badly for him. Actually, I think he has the worst lawyers ever. :P I mean, I read somewhere his lawyers alleged, among other things, that a 'Vulcan' is just some generic cosmic concept, and doesn't belong to CBS. Riiiight. If that be a preview of the level of their defense, he might as well just throw in the towel rightaway. So, you saw right: you didn't see me object to any of the copyright issues. He's toast on that one, I think.
Only thing I really objected to, is that I think he's being villified too much. Yes, he paid himself a sallary (maybe thinking being close to CBS execs would grant him immunity?); but 38k doesn't seem too exorbitant to me; and I didn't get the impressing he was ourtright scamming the lot. His lawyers (the same stupid ones?) he mentioned in his interview should have *never* let him take money, for himself, without express written consent of CBS. Honestly, I think he hired total idiots for lawyers (or he just blatantly ignored their advice). So, in short, I think he has just been incredibly stupid, thinking he could tackle this as yet another professional job. But I don't feel he's a scam artist. And I reallly *did* like his preview trailer.
What part of "Using Crowd-Funded Income Designated For A Specific NOT-FOR-PROFIT Project" to pay oneself and others a salary, do you not understand?
(never mind using said funds for everything BUT, what was stated as the reason to begin the collection process)
How can you justify in your own mind (never mind to the rest of us), that the guy did this under the above circumstances?
And how can you totally ignore the completely inconsistent and incompatible statements this guy has made on various occasions, which indicate that he IS actually lying about something to somebody?
Trying to make him seem like the injured party here, is at the very least a LOOOOOG Stretch of the observable facts.
<SMH>
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Only thing I really objected to, is that I think he's being villified too much.
And that is a fair opinion. However, IMO, you are misunderstanding WHY he is being "vilified". From my discussions around various forums, it's not just the act of taking the salary or building the for profit assets that made people view him as a villain, but the way he has *responded* to the issue. He has pretended he is innocent and blamed the big bad CBS for picking on him. He has silenced anyone who questioned what he was doing, on any site that he controls. He even talks about how he is really just fighting for the fans, not himself. And as others have mentioned, he has outright lied by telling the donors one thing regarding various aspects of the project, then telling the court the exact opposite.
Personally, I don't mind someone making a mistake if they admit it and try to fix the situation. But doing something wrong and then pretending like you are some kind of hero is pretty bad. Not only did he cross a line, but he has done everything he can to mislead people afterwards. So yes, IMO, he deserves the 'vilification' he has gotten.
Had he said on the kickstarter that he would be using the funds to set up Ares Studio, and that Ares Studio was not for the exclusive use of the Axanar Project, then fine. But he didn't. Regardless of the issues with CBS/Paramount, it is still 'obtaining funds by deception', and that is illegal... He well and truly brought this on himself, and deserves everything thrown at him by both the courts and the fans, who he scammed out of $$s...
Fan series Star Trek Continues is currently in post-production on “Embracing the Winds”, with episode six, “Come Not Between Dragons”, completed and scheduled to debut at FedCon Germany on May 13th.
The group is currently running a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo to fund the remaining post-production of “Embracing the Winds” and to produce three more episodes of the series. Of course, with the ongoing litigation between Paramount/CBS and successfully crowdfunded Star Trek fan film Axanar, other fan productions are feeling the effects of a now trepidatious donor base. Head of Star Trek Continues Vic Mignogna told TrekMovie that they have received “numerous messages stating fans are afraid to donate [to STC] due to the CBS lawsuit.” But, he adds that fans “have no reason to believe we will have any troubles. We are in compliance with every request CBS legal has made of us and will continue to be so.”
Interesting stuff, but I think this begins to illustrate the differences between Continues and Axanar. The comments by Vic Mignogna could suggest that CBS does provide some guidance to fan productions. They have also completed six hours of content, and are about to raise funds for three to four more episodes. This laps Axanar numerous times.
It's also important to note that Continues is officially recognized as a non-profit. The IRS has looked at their books, and has approved them that status. Axanar can't say that. They're in the process of doing this, apparently, but that's just on Alec Peters' word.
It's also important to note that Continues is officially recognized as a non-profit. The IRS has looked at their books, and has approved them that status. Axanar can't say that. They're in the process of doing this, apparently, but that's just on Alec Peters' word.
That will be interesting. So they are working on making a for profit production studio while also working on getting non-profit status. Yeah, good luck with that.
Indeed, LOL... But, that is why people don't trust Alec Peters.
Getting 501-C Non-Profit status is no small task, and it's a pretty big deal to get it and maintain it. Continues has that status, has raised under $1,000,000 (pretty sure it's around $900,000), but has produced almost seven hours of content (from sets, to costumes, to actors, to production).
Axanar does not have that status. Axanar has raised $1,100,000 in public fundraising campaigns, but has only produced a 20-minute short and one scene on Vulcan. We do not know how much was raised through the Donor Store, which sells the ship models and what not. We also don't know where that money has gone.
Indeed, LOL... But, that is why people don't trust Alec Peters.
Getting 501-C Non-Profit status is no small task, and it's a pretty big deal to get it and maintain it. Continues has that status, has raised under $1,000,000 (pretty sure it's around $900,000), but has produced almost seven hours of content (from sets, to costumes, to actors, to production).
Axanar does not have that status. Axanar has raised $1,100,000 in public fundraising campaigns, but has only produced a 20-minute short and one scene on Vulcan. We do not know how much was raised through the Donor Store, which sells the ship models and what not. We also don't know where that money has gone.
Continues has no such "store."
Also, the fact that Axanar has a store which sells merchandise of the Star Trek theme (the ships may not be CBS or Paramount designs, but they're clearly in the Star Trek style) is another area CBS can get them for (though I believe only on trademark grounds).
As for Continues, remember that Continues has also been in production for longer than Axanar (not counting 'Prelude'), which counts for something, although not a helluva lot considering they've only filmed a few minutes at most (and have since claimed that they haven't started filming at all).
Axanar does not have that status. Axanar has raised $1,100,000 in public fundraising campaigns, but has only produced a 20-minute short and one scene on Vulcan. We do not know how much was raised through the Donor Store, which sells the ship models and what not. We also don't know where that money has gone.
Continues has no such "store."
And here is the thing. I don't think that 1 million dollars counts Prelude. If I am understanding everything correctly, Prelude had its own crowdfunding campaign. So that 1 million was all suppose to be for Axanar only. And they have very little to show for it.
Also, the fact that Axanar has a store which sells merchandise of the Star Trek theme (the ships may not be CBS or Paramount designs, but they're clearly in the Star Trek style) is another area CBS can get them for (though I believe only on trademark grounds).
As for Continues, remember that Continues has also been in production for longer than Axanar (not counting 'Prelude'), which counts for something, although not a helluva lot considering they've only filmed a few minutes at most (and have since claimed that they haven't started filming at all).
If I understand what they claim in the lawsuit dismissal, they have not filmed anything. As one of their "defenses" to CBS is they can't have infringed on their copyright as there isn't even a script yet. So that is 1 million dollars crowdfunded and they can't even get a script written.
Axanar does not have that status. Axanar has raised $1,100,000 in public fundraising campaigns, but has only produced a 20-minute short and one scene on Vulcan. We do not know how much was raised through the Donor Store, which sells the ship models and what not. We also don't know where that money has gone.
Continues has no such "store."
And here is the thing. I don't think that 1 million dollars counts Prelude. If I am understanding everything correctly, Prelude had its own crowdfunding campaign. So that 1 million was all suppose to be for Axanar only. And they have very little to show for it.
Also, the fact that Axanar has a store which sells merchandise of the Star Trek theme (the ships may not be CBS or Paramount designs, but they're clearly in the Star Trek style) is another area CBS can get them for (though I believe only on trademark grounds).
As for Continues, remember that Continues has also been in production for longer than Axanar (not counting 'Prelude'), which counts for something, although not a helluva lot considering they've only filmed a few minutes at most (and have since claimed that they haven't started filming at all).
If I understand what they claim in the lawsuit dismissal, they have not filmed anything. As one of their "defenses" to CBS is they can't have infringed on their copyright as there isn't even a script yet. So that is 1 million dollars crowdfunded and they can't even get a script written.
Which is an outright lie on their part - Axanar even released a 'Vulcan Scene' a few months ago (although it was taken down shortly after the lawsuit began). CBS and Paramount use images from that scene in their revised compliant to the Californian District Court to back up their copyright claims.
Duncanidaho, if you have a problem with JJTrek, I can understand that even though I am not as bothered as some fans about it. That is fine to criticize CBS' decisions in that area on their own merit or lack thereof. But your comment that CBS' shutting down Axanar means that THEY--CBS--don't want to produce content to your liking not only is a mistaken logical jump in your argument, it is also kind of Exhibit A to my argument about the intellectual property confusion potentially created by letting Trek actors reprise their old characters in a large-budget fanfilm that goes head-to-head with onscreen Trek. That right there is why I see CBS reacting as they are, since it seems the project's sheer size and use of Trek actors combined is being taken as a sign that no mere blind eye is being turned to it, but that it IS official in some capacity.
How is this any different that something like Star Trek Continues or Star Trek Renegades?
Neither one of them put up a successful and massive crowdfunding effort that among other things is buying a new studio. In other words, they are labors of love, not profit making enterprises.
I think it would behoove people to check their facts a bit. The man said they're only paying the lease (for 2 more months) on an existing building they rented. Assuming he is telling the truth, that is quite a stretch from the popular belief he took the money to build a new, for-profit, private studio for his own business.
I'm not saying I like the man; or even support him. But if even half the things he said in that interview are true (the Courts would soon find out), then he has, perhaps, in certain areas been given a raw public deal. Just sayin'.
Please note that we are a professional production and thus RUN like a professional production. That means our full time employees get paid. Not much honestly, but everyone has bills to pay and if you work full time for Axanar, you get paid.
Also, no other fan film has production insurance like we do. We pay $ 12,000 a year for that. Again, a professional production.
Emphasis mine. Would you like me to get the statement's of his own wage aswell (just to put paid to his silly statement 'they are a professional production (but don't get paid much 'honestly')?
Forgetting all that. He just repeatably stated its a professional production where people get PAID.
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
A nonprofit organization (NPO, also known as a non-business entity[1]) is an organization whose purposes are other than making a profit.[2] A nonprofit organization is often dedicated to furthering a particular social cause or advocating for a particular point of view. In economic terms, a nonprofit organization uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or mission, rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's shareholders (or equivalents) as profit or dividends. This is known as the distribution constraint.[3] The decision to adopt a nonprofit legal structure is one that will often have taxation implications, particularly where the nonprofit seeks income tax exemption, charitable status and so on.
The terms nonprofit and not-for-profit are not consistently differentiated across jurisdictions. In layman's terms they are usually equivalent in concept, although in various jurisdictions there are accounting and legal differences.
The nonprofit landscape is highly varied, although many people have come to associate NPOs with charitable organizations. Although charities do comprise an often high profile or visible aspect of the sector, there are many other types of nonprofits. Overall, they tend to be either member-serving or community-serving. Member-serving organizations include mutual societies, cooperatives, trade unions, credit unions, industry associations, sports clubs, retired serviceman's clubs and peak bodies – organizations that benefit a particular group of people i.e. the members of the organization. Typically, community-serving organizations are focused on providing services to the community in general, either globally or locally: organizations delivering human services programs or projects, aid and development programs, medical research, education and health services, and so on. It could be argued many nonprofits sit across both camps, at least in terms of the impact they make.[4] For example, the grassroots support group that provides a lifeline to those with a particular condition or disease could be deemed to be serving both its members (by directly supporting them) and the broader community (through the provision of a helping service for fellow citizens).
Many NPOs use the model of a double bottom line in that furthering their cause is more important than making a profit, though both are needed to ensure the organization's sustainability.[5][6]
Although NPOs are permitted to generate surplus revenues, they must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or plans.[7] NPOs have controlling members or a board of directors. Many have paid staff including management, whereas others employ unpaid volunteers and even executives who work with or without compensation (occasionally nominal).[8] In some countries, where there is a token fee, in general it is used to meet legal requirements for establishing a contract between the executive and the organization.
Designation as a nonprofit does not mean that the organization does not intend to make a profit, but rather that the organization has no 'owners' and that the funds realized in the operation of the organization will not be used to benefit any owners. The extent to which an NPO can generate surplus revenues may be constrained or use of surplus revenues may be restricted.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Which is an outright lie on their part - Axanar even released a 'Vulcan Scene' a few months ago (although it was taken down shortly after the lawsuit began). CBS and Paramount use images from that scene in their revised compliant to the Californian District Court to back up their copyright claims.
Lets be honest, The only reason it is hard to tell what is or isn't true with Axanar is because there are so many lies it is hard to keep track.
From what little I HAVE been able to glean, Alec Peters continues to change his story (as to what is/isn't or what has/hasn't been done) to suit whatever it is he wants people (and the courts probably) believe.
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
There are 2 distinctly SEPARATE points people need to understand:
1) It *IS* ok for non profit organizations to have paid employees.
2) It is *NOT* ok to make money using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Regarding the first point, Axanar *ISN'T* even a non profit organization. But even if it *WAS*, they still did not have *PERMISSION* to make money using the Trek brand.
The reason I mentioned the Red Cross earlier is this: even though the Red Cross *DOES* have paid employees, you can't just go down to the mall and start collecting money in their name *WITHOUT* their permission, and then *KEEP* some of that money to "pay yourself for your time".
It is OK for the Red Cross to sell merchandise because they *OWN* their brand. It is *NOT* ok for Axanar to sell merchandise because they *DO NOT* own the Trek brand. And it is certainly not OK for Alec Peters to *PAY HIMSELF* money he raised using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Fan series Star Trek Continues is currently in post-production on “Embracing the Winds”, with episode six, “Come Not Between Dragons”, completed and scheduled to debut at FedCon Germany on May 13th.
The group is currently running a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo to fund the remaining post-production of “Embracing the Winds” and to produce three more episodes of the series. Of course, with the ongoing litigation between Paramount/CBS and successfully crowdfunded Star Trek fan film Axanar, other fan productions are feeling the effects of a now trepidatious donor base. Head of Star Trek Continues Vic Mignogna told TrekMovie that they have received “numerous messages stating fans are afraid to donate [to STC] due to the CBS lawsuit.” But, he adds that fans “have no reason to believe we will have any troubles. We are in compliance with every request CBS legal has made of us and will continue to be so.”
Interesting stuff, but I think this begins to illustrate the differences between Continues and Axanar. The comments by Vic Mignogna could suggest that CBS does provide some guidance to fan productions. They have also completed six hours of content, and are about to raise funds for three to four more episodes. This laps Axanar numerous times.
It's also important to note that Continues is officially recognized as a non-profit. The IRS has looked at their books, and has approved them that status. Axanar can't say that. They're in the process of doing this, apparently, but that's just on Alec Peters' word.
As I said upthread, CBS have gone to bat for STC against YouTube when YouTube pulled an episode due to what they perscieved to be a cooyright infringement. Vic Mignogna's words then made it very clear that the STC Production Team was in contact with CBS' legal deoartment, and that they were being supported by CBS in that matter, so it's of no surprise to me that he would be able to say that they are in compliance with CBS, or that CBS does issue some manner of guidelines...
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
There are 2 distinctly SEPARATE points people need to understand:
1) It *IS* ok for non profit organizations to have paid employees.
2) It is *NOT* ok to make money using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Regarding the first point, Axanar *ISN'T* even a non profit organization. But even if it *WAS*, they still did not have *PERMISSION* to make money using the Trek brand.
The reason I mentioned the Red Cross earlier is this: even though the Red Cross *DOES* have paid employees, you can't just go down to the mall and start collecting money in their name *WITHOUT* their permission, and then *KEEP* some of that money to "pay yourself for your time".
It is OK for the Red Cross to sell merchandise because they *OWN* their brand. It is *NOT* ok for Axanar to sell merchandise because they *DO NOT* own the Trek brand. And it is certainly not OK for Alec Peters to *PAY HIMSELF* money he raised using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Someone was arguing that Peters paying himself or others a salary, or that building a sound stage for rental use, would be indicative of something unlawful. I point out it isn't. Even a non-profit organization can and will do things like that.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Someone was arguing that Peters paying himself or others a salary, or that building a sound stage for rental use, would be indicative of something unlawful. I point out it isn't. Even a non-profit organization can and will do things like that.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Admittedly, This is me speculating, but I don't think "no one would have bat an eye." True, Legally, he would be in less hot water, because obviously he wouldn't have violated copyright law.
But I think a lot of donors would still be mad. I am not saying other crowdfunding projects don't pay their people. I am sure they do, but most have something to show for it. Peters basically, promised people a movie. Paid himself for his "work" on the movie. Not to mention build a studio off of it, and their still isn't any concrete evidence he has done ANYTHING but get rich collecting donors money.
Comments
The fact you don't understand that quoting something irrelevant is 'word salad' is even more telling.
If somebody ask's me for the time and I quote a line from Beowulf I am likely to get some funny looks. You have still failed to connect the dots...
Anyhoo. I have tried my best.
Tatty bye and good luck to you.
You are still missing the key point:
1) Axanar is being sued for COPYRIGHT infringement
2) You are talking about TRADEMARK law
Those 2 words do NOT mean the same thing.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I will agree with @meimeitoo on one thing: CBS/Paramount should provide clear guidelines on what can and cannot be done on any future fan films... which could potentially harm projects like Continues or New Voyages, depending on the stipulations. If that is true, however, and CBS is being purposefully vague... that's kinda bad. But, no one from the other projects are really corroborating that, so...
And, to respond directly to one of your statements, @meimeitoo... Peters is (rightly, IMHO) catching all of the heat because of his actions are not matching his words. He posts a blog to donors stating that the Axanar script is locked & completed, yet he tells the court in their first Motion to Dismiss that the script is not done. They gave their donors the understanding that Ares Studios was theirs and they had big plans for it, but now these ideas of leases and selling to investor groups come in. He's raised over $1,000,000, but apparently needed about $1,000,000 more to complete the film. He's even admitted the film could be done by now, yet there's no end in sight.
Add to that the attacks/blacklisting he's done to "haters" that show the smallest notion of disagreement or questioning of him (or, in donors' cases, where the TRIBBLE their money went)... all while painting himself to be some sort of savior of the franchise?
Sorry, but he deserves this. He's brought it on himself. His story keeps changing... he is either going to draw CBS' ire for usurping and IP he has ZERO right to do, or lie to his donors by not delivering on his promises.
You understand so very little of the Law. It's charming, really.
'STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.' In this case, they're choosing a copyright-suit, for strategic reasons (basically, so they don't create a express trademark-enforcement obligation towards others who infringe on their marks, that could thus really backfire on them). Choosing the copyright-only route (far as I know) indemnifies them of the obligation to do likewise to other fan movie makers. After all, as I stated earlier, no obligation at all exists to defend your copyright. You could say this strategy is a courtesy to other fan-film producers, and allows them to just specifically go after Axanar only.
Nonetheless, as stated, 'STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.' And CBS not 'policing' their trademarks rigorously, as I outlined to you, could mean they're in jeopardy of losing it eventually. (For example, if too many Trek fan movies were being made across the world, and they kept ignoring it for years, at which point their trademark would start to lose its distinctiveness, thus becoming weaker, to the point of them possibly losing it.)
As somebody who is always willing to learn something new, I am now going to sit back and listen to what else you have to say in this thread.
I am almost positive this is going to be a most entertaining experience. Please, continue.
P.S: Remember to keep Paramount in your thoughts, as you educate us.
Just so we're clear:
You are discussing a hypothetical situation regarding trademark that may arise in the future, but you are NOT discussing the actual lawsuit over copyright that is the topic of THIS thread?
Um, ok. Well, the funny thing is it seems most of the rest of us are discussing the ACTUAL topic of THIS thread, which is the copyright lawsuit.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Almost right.
Normally, CBS would go for a Trademark infringement. But, like I said, that has a nasty side-effect: since you're obligated to police your Trademarks, the 'rate' at which you do so, or your 'measure of vigor' at which you do so, if you will, could then be construed by others (on whom you didn't enforce it), as you apparently having abandoned your Trademark. Which effectively means CBS would, in case of Trademark, have forced their own hand, and be pretty much obligated to start suing other fan-movie makers too, and not just Axanar.
So, the copyright route is actually rather unusal, in cases like this. But it becomes clear when you understand what the (unintended) side-effects of a Trademark suit would be. I say 'unintended', as CBS had made it clear, in the past, they're not interested in pursuing not-for-profit fan-projects.
But the Copyright suit also still underlines what the eventual Trademark risk for CBS would be. So, at some point, they can't just completely ignore that either. The latter risk is currently very low, I'd say, as really, world-wide, only a handful of ppl make Star Trek fan movies. So the Copyright route, I say, was a clever one (and fan-friendly to boot).
But they didn't. Again, we are discussing what they DID do. That is the topic of this thread.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Considering we are talking about the COPYRIGHT lawsuit, what 'disagreement' do you have with what anyone has said on the last page or so? Because the only disagreement I did see was you copy/pasting something about trademark law. Again, what disagreement do you have about this COPYRIGHT lawsuit?
Peters' paying himself? The sound stage they built for profit? What is your issue about what is actually being discussed?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yes. But please understand my Trademark spinoff was in reply to:
And I simply corrected him on that.
B
Edit: Time for bed!
Funny you ask, as I think his copyright suit will go VERY badly for him. Actually, I think he has the worst lawyers ever. :P I mean, I read somewhere his lawyers alleged, among other things, that a 'Vulcan' is just some generic cosmic concept, and doesn't belong to CBS. Riiiight. If that be a preview of the level of their defense, he might as well just throw in the towel rightaway. So, you saw right: you didn't see me object to any of the copyright issues. He's toast on that one, I think.
Only thing I really objected to, is that I think he's being villified too much. Yes, he paid himself a sallary (maybe thinking being close to CBS execs would grant him immunity?); but 38k doesn't seem too exorbitant to me; and I didn't get the impressing he was ourtright scamming the lot. His lawyers (the same stupid ones?) he mentioned in his interview should have *never* let him take money, for himself, without express written consent of CBS. Honestly, I think he hired total idiots for lawyers (or he just blatantly ignored their advice). So, in short, I think he has just been incredibly stupid, thinking he could tackle this as yet another professional job. But I don't feel he's a scam artist. And I reallly *did* like his preview trailer.
(never mind using said funds for everything BUT, what was stated as the reason to begin the collection process)
How can you justify in your own mind (never mind to the rest of us), that the guy did this under the above circumstances?
And how can you totally ignore the completely inconsistent and incompatible statements this guy has made on various occasions, which indicate that he IS actually lying about something to somebody?
Trying to make him seem like the injured party here, is at the very least a LOOOOOG Stretch of the observable facts.
<SMH>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
And that is a fair opinion. However, IMO, you are misunderstanding WHY he is being "vilified". From my discussions around various forums, it's not just the act of taking the salary or building the for profit assets that made people view him as a villain, but the way he has *responded* to the issue. He has pretended he is innocent and blamed the big bad CBS for picking on him. He has silenced anyone who questioned what he was doing, on any site that he controls. He even talks about how he is really just fighting for the fans, not himself. And as others have mentioned, he has outright lied by telling the donors one thing regarding various aspects of the project, then telling the court the exact opposite.
Personally, I don't mind someone making a mistake if they admit it and try to fix the situation. But doing something wrong and then pretending like you are some kind of hero is pretty bad. Not only did he cross a line, but he has done everything he can to mislead people afterwards. So yes, IMO, he deserves the 'vilification' he has gotten.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Interesting stuff, but I think this begins to illustrate the differences between Continues and Axanar. The comments by Vic Mignogna could suggest that CBS does provide some guidance to fan productions. They have also completed six hours of content, and are about to raise funds for three to four more episodes. This laps Axanar numerous times.
It's also important to note that Continues is officially recognized as a non-profit. The IRS has looked at their books, and has approved them that status. Axanar can't say that. They're in the process of doing this, apparently, but that's just on Alec Peters' word.
That will be interesting. So they are working on making a for profit production studio while also working on getting non-profit status. Yeah, good luck with that.
Getting 501-C Non-Profit status is no small task, and it's a pretty big deal to get it and maintain it. Continues has that status, has raised under $1,000,000 (pretty sure it's around $900,000), but has produced almost seven hours of content (from sets, to costumes, to actors, to production).
Axanar does not have that status. Axanar has raised $1,100,000 in public fundraising campaigns, but has only produced a 20-minute short and one scene on Vulcan. We do not know how much was raised through the Donor Store, which sells the ship models and what not. We also don't know where that money has gone.
Continues has no such "store."
Also, the fact that Axanar has a store which sells merchandise of the Star Trek theme (the ships may not be CBS or Paramount designs, but they're clearly in the Star Trek style) is another area CBS can get them for (though I believe only on trademark grounds).
As for Continues, remember that Continues has also been in production for longer than Axanar (not counting 'Prelude'), which counts for something, although not a helluva lot considering they've only filmed a few minutes at most (and have since claimed that they haven't started filming at all).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
And here is the thing. I don't think that 1 million dollars counts Prelude. If I am understanding everything correctly, Prelude had its own crowdfunding campaign. So that 1 million was all suppose to be for Axanar only. And they have very little to show for it.
If I understand what they claim in the lawsuit dismissal, they have not filmed anything. As one of their "defenses" to CBS is they can't have infringed on their copyright as there isn't even a script yet. So that is 1 million dollars crowdfunded and they can't even get a script written.
Which is an outright lie on their part - Axanar even released a 'Vulcan Scene' a few months ago (although it was taken down shortly after the lawsuit began). CBS and Paramount use images from that scene in their revised compliant to the Californian District Court to back up their copyright claims.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization
Lets be honest, The only reason it is hard to tell what is or isn't true with Axanar is because there are so many lies it is hard to keep track.
From what little I HAVE been able to glean, Alec Peters continues to change his story (as to what is/isn't or what has/hasn't been done) to suit whatever it is he wants people (and the courts probably) believe.
There are 2 distinctly SEPARATE points people need to understand:
1) It *IS* ok for non profit organizations to have paid employees.
2) It is *NOT* ok to make money using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Regarding the first point, Axanar *ISN'T* even a non profit organization. But even if it *WAS*, they still did not have *PERMISSION* to make money using the Trek brand.
The reason I mentioned the Red Cross earlier is this: even though the Red Cross *DOES* have paid employees, you can't just go down to the mall and start collecting money in their name *WITHOUT* their permission, and then *KEEP* some of that money to "pay yourself for your time".
It is OK for the Red Cross to sell merchandise because they *OWN* their brand. It is *NOT* ok for Axanar to sell merchandise because they *DO NOT* own the Trek brand. And it is certainly not OK for Alec Peters to *PAY HIMSELF* money he raised using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://blueserif.com/doku/doku.php?id=endgame
Great commentary piece by Lukas Kendall, producer and former colleague of Robert Meyer Burnett. Worth a read.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Admittedly, This is me speculating, but I don't think "no one would have bat an eye." True, Legally, he would be in less hot water, because obviously he wouldn't have violated copyright law.
But I think a lot of donors would still be mad. I am not saying other crowdfunding projects don't pay their people. I am sure they do, but most have something to show for it. Peters basically, promised people a movie. Paid himself for his "work" on the movie. Not to mention build a studio off of it, and their still isn't any concrete evidence he has done ANYTHING but get rich collecting donors money.