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.
So you charge him with being a professional?! Considering he doesn't really own the IP, that could prove troublesome for him. But you'll make him look like the devil himself, just for not working exclusively with volunteers. And, like he said, if you want to do it right, and attract good Hollywood talent, you're simply not getting anyone unless you actually pay them. Fact of life. And, so far, other than, OMFG, having been professional, looks like he isn't guilty of any of the vile schemes imputed to him.
Isn't he? Like telling he's only renting that building: I think a Court would have little trouble finding out whether or not that's true. So I don't think he would be lying about such stuff.
No, he is not. Why? Because...facts. Their OWN financial report says they are PAYING themselves a salary and building a sound stage they plan to rent for PROFIT. Again, their OWN report says that. You cannot pay yourself or profit using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
What do you still not understand about the situation?
Isn't he? Like telling he's only renting that building: I think a Court would have little trouble finding out whether or not that's true. So I don't think he would be lying about such stuff.
I think you still don't 'get' it meimeitoo...
HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY MONEY AT ALL, NOR TO PAY HIMSELF OR ANYBODY ELSE ANY KIND OF MONEY OR PROFIT FROM SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM...
Sorry to 'shout' but you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake here...
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.
All four of these places are the "Go To" for honest looks into Axanar and not controlled by "Pro" Axanar people which means there is no controlling the narrative of what they want you to see.
Here is a copy/paste of a post I made before, summarizing the situation:
Said it before and I’ll say it again:
Absolute FACTS:
1) Axanar raised $1,000,000+ by using the Trek IP *WITHOUT* permission.
2) The Axanar team then paid themselves a salary with some of that money.
3) The Axanar team then used some of that money to build a sound stage that they stated they planned to rent for profit.
—————–
Now, my editorial:
For most fan productions, number 1 isn’t usually an issue as long as as all of the money is being invested in the project, and no PROFIT is being made. Although, admittedly, most fan productions don’t raise anywhere near that much money, and the more money raised the bigger the red flag. That said, numbers 2 and 3 are where the real problem starts, so here goes…
No, it is NOT wrong for a non profit organization to have paid employees. Organizations like the Red Cross are examples of non profits with paid employees.
However(and this is the key point), if you don’t actually work for the Red Cross, you can’t print off their logos, then go down to the mall and raise money, then keep some of that money to pay yourself. You cannot profit yourself using the Red Cross brand *WITHOUT* their express permission. Likewise, you cannot profit yourself using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* the IP owner’s express permission, which Axanar did not have.
The same logic described above also applies to the sound stage. They cannot use funds raised by using the Trek IP *WITHOUT* permission, then use those funds to build something that will make them a profit. So, the part where they absolutely screwed themselves was where they decided to start profiting.
Now, here is their defense: the project was taking all of our time, and we needed money to live on. This is an excellent example of a fake problem. The project was taking all of their time…because they *DECIDED* to spend all of their time on it. No one was forcing them work on it. So they cannot create a fake problem, then use that problem as an excuse to break the rules.
OMFG, having been professional, looks like he isn't guilty of any of the vile schemes imputed to him.
I appreciate you may have been (or are) a professional of some sort.
But to explain it in other terms... let's say you are an artist and this production company decided to use you art without permission in order to make a profit from your work (again without your permission) in addition to affecting you own sales of the aforementioned artwork that you may have produced.
Would you not be mighty peed off if somebody took a painting you made, stuck it on a kickstarter/crowdfunded source, took a big hunk of money for themselves, and then deciding to sue you when you say "hey... wait a minute... that's not right".
Yes, that's pretty much the blatant cheek of these guys.
You are not allowed to make a profit from somebody elses work...
Have you seen how much he paid himself (and others?). Is there something you are not 'getting' here?
I haven't seen his wages, no.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly good point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do. And that is actually quite unreasonable of them, IMHO. I know, many there be that would respond "But they don't have to. They can do whatever they want!!" And that only sounds fair, until you consider that, let's say, criminal law worked like that too:
"But Mr. Police Officer, why are you arresting me?! I had no idea driving thru this street was illegal now."
"Yeah, it's a new thing: I just decided that on the spot. Sucks to be you!"
See? IP right holders should be held to the same standards: if you're unwilling to say what others can, or cannot do with your IP, whilst allowing a lot in practice, you're basically, maliciously, setting ppl up for a fall. Especially, as he claims, when you worked in close contact with CBS/Paramanount executives on your project, and they knew full well what you were doing (and they led it slide). At some point, apparently, he pissed off the wrong person. But that doesn't make him evil incarnate. Nor totally wrong, per se.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly could point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do.
See, this is the part you don't understand. CBS doesn't need to tell him, because the LAW already does. You can't use someone else's copyrighted brand to make money without their permission. Whether CBS says that or not makes no difference. That's like you saying that if I don't tell someone they can't break into my house and steal things, then it's ok. Um, no. The LAW says they can't, even if I don't specifically say so myself.
You are not allowed to make a profit from somebody elses work...
Have you seen how much he paid himself (and others?). Is there something you are not 'getting' here?
I haven't seen his wages, no.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly could point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do. And that is actually quite unreasonable of them, IMHO. I know, many there be that would respond "But they don't have to. They can do whatever they want!!" And that only sounds fair, until you consider that, let's say, criminal law worked like that too:
"But Mr. Police Officer, why are you arresting me?! I had no idea driving thru this street was illegal now."
"Yeah, it's a new thing: I just decided that on the spot. Sucks to be you!"
See? IP right holders should be held to the same standards: if you're unwilling to say what others can, or cannot do with your IP, whilst allowing a lot in practice, you're basically, maliciously, setting ppl up for a fall. Especially, as he claims, when you worked in close contact with CBS/Paramanount executives on your project, and they knew full well what you were doing (and they led it slide). At some point, apparently, he pissed off the wrong person. But that doesn't make him evil incarnate. Nor totally wrong, per se.
I really think you should stop talking now. [Modded unnecessary insult]
You have been given more than enough references/links explain the situation.
You are not allowed to make a profit from somebody elses work...
Have you seen how much he paid himself (and others?). Is there something you are not 'getting' here?
I haven't seen his wages, no.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly good point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do. And that is actually quite unreasonable of them, IMHO. I know, many there be that would respond "But they don't have to. They can do whatever they want!!" And that only sounds fair, until you consider that, let's say, criminal law worked like that too:
"But Mr. Police Officer, why are you arresting me?! I had no idea driving thru this street was illegal now."
"Yeah, it's a new thing: I just decided that on the spot. Sucks to be you!"
See? IP right holders should be held to the same standards: if you're unwilling to say what others can, or cannot do with your IP, whilst allowing a lot in practice, you're basically, maliciously, setting ppl up for a fall. Especially, as he claims, when you worked in close contact with CBS/Paramanount executives on your project, and they knew full well what you were doing (and they led it slide). At some point, apparently, he pissed off the wrong person. But that doesn't make him evil incarnate. Nor totally wrong, per se.
Unlike trademark infringement Copyright can be selectively enforced thus they do not have to explain anything as to why they went after Axanar and no others.
Also: Speaking about Axanar, CBS told the industry site The Wrap: "CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved. We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights."
That means CBS/Paramount are going after Axanar for a specific reason.
AND! Alec said he met with CBS last Aug about Axanar and then this "quote" from CBS came out does this not tell you that were NOT happy with what he told them and thus they had been watching him a for a while and this was going to happen way before the lawsuit dropped.
Now, here is the thing: to some people, 38k is a lot of money. To others, it's not. But the NUMBER doesn't actually mater. He raised that money using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission, then paid HIMSELF. You can't do that.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly could point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do.
See, this is the part you don't understand. CBS doesn't need to tell him, because the LAW already does. You can't use someone else's copyrighted brand to make money without their permission. Whether CBS says that or not makes no difference. That's like you saying that if I don't tell someone they can't break into my house and steal things, then it's ok. Um, no. The LAW says they can't, even if I don't specifically say so myself.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly could point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do.
See, this is the part you don't understand. CBS doesn't need to tell him, because the LAW already does. You can't use someone else's copyrighted brand to make money without their permission. Whether CBS says that or not makes no difference. That's like you saying that if I don't tell someone they can't break into my house and steal things, then it's ok. Um, no. The LAW says they can't, even if I don't specifically say so myself.
Ah, but see, this is the part you don't understand. The Law doesn't automagically protect trademarks. In fact, there's a commonly held principle in Law (pretty much across all Western civilizations), that you can, in fact, lose your trademarks even when you don't (rigorously) pursue the matter when someone infringes on it. (Which is, for instance, why lucas films lawyers continually, and vigorously, have Star Wars material removed from Second Life: if they don't, they stand to lose the trademark rights on it, when left unattended for too long). This is (only partly) a reflection of what in Law is known as the nulla poena principle: applicable to only crminal law now, of course, but I personally wouldn't mind seeing it extended to civil law as well: if you're going to punish people, it should simple be made clear what is, and what isn't allowed.
P.S. You don't have to defend copyright infringement, btw.
You are not allowed to make a profit from somebody elses work...
Have you seen how much he paid himself (and others?). Is there something you are not 'getting' here?
I haven't seen his wages, no.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly good point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do. And that is actually quite unreasonable of them, IMHO. I know, many there be that would respond "But they don't have to. They can do whatever they want!!" And that only sounds fair, until you consider that, let's say, criminal law worked like that too:
"But Mr. Police Officer, why are you arresting me?! I had no idea driving thru this street was illegal now."
"Yeah, it's a new thing: I just decided that on the spot. Sucks to be you!"
See? IP right holders should be held to the same standards: if you're unwilling to say what others can, or cannot do with your IP, whilst allowing a lot in practice, you're basically, maliciously, setting ppl up for a fall. Especially, as he claims, when you worked in close contact with CBS/Paramanount executives on your project, and they knew full well what you were doing (and they led it slide). At some point, apparently, he pissed off the wrong person. But that doesn't make him evil incarnate. Nor totally wrong, per se.
US Copyright and Trademark law is what's being violated here, not CBS/Paramount's own 'rules'. Under those laws, copyright- and trademark-holders have the right to seek legal remedy against unauthorised use of the copyrighted or trademarked works. Whether they decide to exercise that right is their decision - as is when they exercise it. CBS and Paramount have stated that they don't seek legal action on non-profit fan works (in effect, 'authorising' such works), but Ares Studios is producing Axanar, is a for-profit organisation, and the individuals involved in making Axanar are recieving a salary for their work - thus, making profit from the Star Trek Intellection Property. You can argue it's hypocritical of CBS to go after Axanar while allowing other unauthorised works (such as Renegades, Continues and New Voyages), but hypocrisy is not against US Law, nor does it change CBS/Paramount's rights under that law.
You are not allowed to make a profit from somebody elses work...
Have you seen how much he paid himself (and others?). Is there something you are not 'getting' here?
I haven't seen his wages, no.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly could point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do. And that is actually quite unreasonable of them, IMHO. I know, many there be that would respond "But they don't have to. They can do whatever they want!!" And that only sounds fair, until you consider that, let's say, criminal law worked like that too:
"But Mr. Police Officer, why are you arresting me?! I had no idea driving thru this street was illegal now."
"Yeah, it's a new thing: I just decided that on the spot. Sucks to be you!"
See? IP right holders should be held to the same standards: if you're unwilling to say what others can, or cannot do with your IP, whilst allowing a lot in practice, you're basically, maliciously, setting ppl up for a fall. Especially, as he claims, when you worked in close contact with CBS/Paramanount executives on your project, and they knew full well what you were doing (and they led it slide). At some point, apparently, he pissed off the wrong person. But that doesn't make him evil incarnate. Nor totally wrong, per se.
I really think you should stop talking now. Because you are coming across as a complete idiot.
You have been given more than enough references/links explain the situation.
That's all I'll say.
I really think I will stop listening to you now. That much is certain.
You can argue it's hypocritical of CBS to go after Axanar while allowing other unauthorised works (such as Renegades, Continues and New Voyages), but hypocrisy is not against US Law, nor does it change CBS/Paramount's rights under that law.
I don't think it's hypocrisy - infact they have been very generous to ignore other fan flicks. That said, here is a quote from the editorial/legal team:
"Why Target Axanar?
Wonder why the studios haven't gone after the other fan films? According to attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel, social media director for the popular Star Trek podcast, “The G&T Show,” there's no reason they can't:
There is no reason why they might not be [sued] in the future. CBS/Paramount is under no obligation whatsoever to sue all such productions in one big case. The Axanar matter can easily serve as precedent anyway.31)
What's different about Axanar is that its multi-million dollar budget was completely intended to be raised from Star Trek fans, using the appeal of the studios' copyrighted property. Unlike Axanar, there's no money in the other fan films for CBS to go after. In addition, Axanar's Annual Report detailed an extensive and expanding commercial operation trading off the studios' Star Trek intellectual property."
Edit: this is not in argument of your post by the way, just highlighting a certain point of it
You are not allowed to make a profit from somebody elses work...
Have you seen how much he paid himself (and others?). Is there something you are not 'getting' here?
I haven't seen his wages, no.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly could point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do. And that is actually quite unreasonable of them, IMHO. I know, many there be that would respond "But they don't have to. They can do whatever they want!!" And that only sounds fair, until you consider that, let's say, criminal law worked like that too:
"But Mr. Police Officer, why are you arresting me?! I had no idea driving thru this street was illegal now."
"Yeah, it's a new thing: I just decided that on the spot. Sucks to be you!"
See? IP right holders should be held to the same standards: if you're unwilling to say what others can, or cannot do with your IP, whilst allowing a lot in practice, you're basically, maliciously, setting ppl up for a fall. Especially, as he claims, when you worked in close contact with CBS/Paramanount executives on your project, and they knew full well what you were doing (and they led it slide). At some point, apparently, he pissed off the wrong person. But that doesn't make him evil incarnate. Nor totally wrong, per se.
I really think you should stop talking now. Because you are coming across as a complete idiot.
You have been given more than enough references/links explain the situation.
That's all I'll say.
I really think I will stop listening to you now. That much is certain.
Dude seriously this is one thing that GRATES on me about the Axanar fan groups when they are presented with facts they still say black is white...
I dont think anyone is say YOU MUST change your mind but at least listen to whats been said and remember IDIC
So far, all I'm really seeing is a guy who paid himself 38k in wages (per year). That was probably a dumb-ish move, as making money off other ppl's IP, without permisson, is usually where peeps draw the line. So, he'll probably lose (can't imagine any other outcome, really). But 38k a year is hardly an indication of outrageous scamming; in fact, the cost of living in LA being very high as it is, I say it really *is* a rather modest wage (I personally expected a lot more). Meanwhile, I have yet to see anything that warrants the huge villifying against him that's going on here.
Dude seriously this is one thing that GRATES on me about the Axanar fan groups when they are presented with facts they still say black is white...
I dont think anyone is say YOU MUST change your mind but at least listen to whats been said and remember IDIC
I'm beginning to think of Axanar a bit like I think of Pakled. They steal things to 'make them go'. And then attempt to destroy (sue) the people who made things 'go' in the first place.
You can argue it's hypocritical of CBS to go after Axanar while allowing other unauthorised works (such as Renegades, Continues and New Voyages), but hypocrisy is not against US Law, nor does it change CBS/Paramount's rights under that law.
I don't think it's hypocrisy - infact they have been very generous to ignore other fan flicks. That said, here is a quote from the editorial/legal team:
"Why Target Axanar?
Wonder why the studios haven't gone after the other fan films? According to attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel, social media director for the popular Star Trek podcast, “The G&T Show,” there's no reason they can't:
There is no reason why they might not be [sued] in the future. CBS/Paramount is under no obligation whatsoever to sue all such productions in one big case. The Axanar matter can easily serve as precedent anyway.31)
What's different about Axanar is that its multi-million dollar budget was completely intended to be raised from Star Trek fans, using the appeal of the studios' copyrighted property. Unlike Axanar, there's no money in the other fan films for CBS to go after. In addition, Axanar's Annual Report detailed an extensive and expanding commercial operation trading off the studios' Star Trek intellectual property."
Edit: this is not in argument of your post by the way, just highlighting a certain point of it
I don't think it's hypocritical either - CBS/Paramount have stated the conditions under which they will defend their copyright/trademark, I'm just pointing out that some could argue it's hypocritical.
But yes, you're absolutely right. No fan work is protected from legal action by CBS/Paramount. The only reason those works haven't been the subject of lawsuits or cease-and-desist notices is because CBS/Paramount have chosen not to in those cases, which is their right as the copyright/trademark-holders. A key problem with the argument of certain pro-Axanar posters is that they suggest copyright-holders must enforce their rights universally. If someone borrows my pen without informing me or getting my permission, I am not legally required to report them for theft of my pen and if I choose not to I'm not exempt from reporting someone else for actually stealing my pen. The same applies for copyright and trademarks; it is the prerogative of the property-holder whether or not to initiate legal action.
You can argue it's hypocritical of CBS to go after Axanar while allowing other unauthorised works (such as Renegades, Continues and New Voyages), but hypocrisy is not against US Law, nor does it change CBS/Paramount's rights under that law.
I don't think it's hypocrisy - infact they have been very generous to ignore other fan flicks. That said, here is a quote from the editorial/legal team:
"Why Target Axanar?
IMO, it's kind of like speeding. There is kind of an 'unwritten rule' among most(though not all) cops that they aren't going to bother you unless you are going 10 miles over the speed limit. So, sure all of the fan productions might be speeding a little, but Axanar was going ridiculously fast.
In this case, the "speeding" would be using the Trek brand without permission. Technically, no one should be doing it. But since the others weren't paying themselves salaries or building for profit assets, CBS/Paramount was letting it slide. But Axanar decided to get a big head and cross the line no one else was crossing.
But 38k a year is hardly an indication of outrageous scamming; in fact, the cost of living in LA being very high as it is, I say it really *is* a rather modest wage (I personally expected a lot more).
I am not quite sure if you are joking or just... being obtuse.
He and them 'Axanar' productions and it's staff are not entitled to be paid anything, at all. Regardless of how much it costs to live were they are...
So yes, it IS an indication of 'outrageous scamming' because the kick starter and the funds they gained from it were not intended to paid in such a manner.
I am still not quite sure if you are being serious...
So far, all I'm really seeing is a guy who paid himself 38k in wages (per year). That was probably a dumb-ish move, as making money off other ppl's IP, without permisson, is usually where peeps draw the line. So, he'll probably lose (can't imagine any other outcome, really). But 38k a year is hardly an indication of outrageous scamming; in fact, the cost of living in LA being very high as it is, I say it really *is* a rather modest wage (I personally expected a lot more). Meanwhile, I have yet to see anything that warrants the huge villifying against him that's going on here.
The number itself doesn't really matter. The fact that he was openly paying himself and building for profit assets is where they crossed the line. And you know what? I wouldn't really care that much if he had been a really nice guy about it. But I have seen them censor or ban anyone who even slightly questioned what they were doing on the sites they control, and I have heard him blame CBS/Paramount rather than just apologizing. So because of his arrogant attitude, he has lost a lot of goodwill from people who would have supported him.
So far, all I'm really seeing is a guy who paid himself 38k in wages (per year). That was probably a dumb-ish move, as making money off other ppl's IP, without permisson, is usually where peeps draw the line. So, he'll probably lose (can't imagine any other outcome, really). But 38k a year is hardly an indication of outrageous scamming; in fact, the cost of living in LA being very high as it is, I say it really *is* a rather modest wage (I personally expected a lot more). Meanwhile, I have yet to see anything that warrants the huge villifying against him that's going on here.
1) at no time in his crowdfunding did he mention using the funds to pay HIMSELF or HIS PRODUCTION a salary. Nor, did he mention using it to build a professional studio. It was stated as going to "Axanar" a movie which to my knowledge a year later is still not even filming. Let alone done.
By comparison, The actors and production studio behind Veronica Mars crowdfunded to create a movie to continue the story. They raised 5 million dollars roughly. ALL of that money went to the film, which a year later was DONE. completed.
2) They created merchandise, for Axanar, using Star Trek IP elements. Merchandise they had no legal right to do. And my understanding is Star Trek was not the only merchandise they were selling
3) They are not the IP holders. You CAN NOT make profit from something that is not yours. End of story. I don't care how awesome they movie would have been. And lets be honest, since even Alec himself admitted there is no script, you have no idea how good the movie would or would not have been.
What he did was wrong. Ethically and legally. End of discussion. The fact that people are complaining that CBS isn't tougher with the IP is half the reason people are upset with what he did. Because CBS is likely to then go and start playing hardball and go after any unauthorized use of their IP. The result is the end of Fan films and the like.
So far, all I'm really seeing is a guy who paid himself 38k in wages (per year). That was probably a dumb-ish move, as making money off other ppl's IP, without permisson, is usually where peeps draw the line. So, he'll probably lose (can't imagine any other outcome, really). But 38k a year is hardly an indication of outrageous scamming; in fact, the cost of living in LA being very high as it is, I say it really *is* a rather modest wage (I personally expected a lot more). Meanwhile, I have yet to see anything that warrants the huge villifying against him that's going on here.
The money he is using to pay the salaries (including his own) isn't money he's earned: it's money that was donated by Star Trek fans to produce a Star Trek fan film - in effect, he is taking $38k a year (which is about £28k GBP) of donators' money and keeping it for himself, which at the very least is morally ambiguous. (To put it into perspective, the averages cost of living in the UK is around £24k per year, so it's not like he's making himself filthy rich with his salary by British standards.)
The only problem I have with what he's doing is that it's illegal and that he's trying to say that it isn't despite all the evidence.
So far, all I'm really seeing is a guy who paid himself 38k in wages (per year). That was probably a dumb-ish move, as making money off other ppl's IP, without permisson, is usually where peeps draw the line. So, he'll probably lose (can't imagine any other outcome, really). But 38k a year is hardly an indication of outrageous scamming; in fact, the cost of living in LA being very high as it is, I say it really *is* a rather modest wage (I personally expected a lot more). Meanwhile, I have yet to see anything that warrants the huge villifying against him that's going on here.
The number itself doesn't really matter. The fact that he was openly paying himself and building for profit assets is where they crossed the line. And you know what? I wouldn't really care that much if he had been a really nice guy about it. But I have seen them censor or ban anyone who even slightly questioned what they were doing on the sites they control, and I have heard him blame CBS/Paramount rather than just apologizing. So because of his arrogant attitude, he has lost a lot of goodwill from people who would have supported him.
Banned and proud lol WHY.. For asking Why is propworx in the same building as Axanar isnt this a contradiction to the NON PROFIT story.... #BANNNNNNNED for no reason lol
Comments
So you charge him with being a professional?! Considering he doesn't really own the IP, that could prove troublesome for him. But you'll make him look like the devil himself, just for not working exclusively with volunteers. And, like he said, if you want to do it right, and attract good Hollywood talent, you're simply not getting anyone unless you actually pay them. Fact of life. And, so far, other than, OMFG, having been professional, looks like he isn't guilty of any of the vile schemes imputed to him.
Um... yes?
You are not allowed to make a profit from somebody elses work...
Have you seen how much he paid himself (and others?). Is there something you are not 'getting' here?
Isn't he? Like telling he's only renting that building: I think a Court would have little trouble finding out whether or not that's true. So I don't think he would be lying about such stuff.
No, he is not. Why? Because...facts. Their OWN financial report says they are PAYING themselves a salary and building a sound stage they plan to rent for PROFIT. Again, their OWN report says that. You cannot pay yourself or profit using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
What do you still not understand about the situation?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I think you still don't 'get' it meimeitoo...
HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY MONEY AT ALL, NOR TO PAY HIMSELF OR ANYBODY ELSE ANY KIND OF MONEY OR PROFIT FROM SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM...
Sorry to 'shout' but you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake here...
Axamonitor is one of 3 places to go -
*There is the legal take on it from the guys at http://www.gandtshow.com/
* There is the frank and honest views and help to the "Fans" from @TrekSentry47 on Twitter he has helped people find info on things like refunds etc.
*also there is the FB group https://www.facebook.com/groups/CBSvsAxanar/
All four of these places are the "Go To" for honest looks into Axanar and not controlled by "Pro" Axanar people which means there is no controlling the narrative of what they want you to see.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I appreciate you may have been (or are) a professional of some sort.
But to explain it in other terms... let's say you are an artist and this production company decided to use you art without permission in order to make a profit from your work (again without your permission) in addition to affecting you own sales of the aforementioned artwork that you may have produced.
Would you not be mighty peed off if somebody took a painting you made, stuck it on a kickstarter/crowdfunded source, took a big hunk of money for themselves, and then deciding to sue you when you say "hey... wait a minute... that's not right".
Yes, that's pretty much the blatant cheek of these guys.
I haven't seen his wages, no.
But as to 'what he is allowed to do', he also has a fairly good point, that CBS/Paramount never tell ppl what they can do. And that is actually quite unreasonable of them, IMHO. I know, many there be that would respond "But they don't have to. They can do whatever they want!!" And that only sounds fair, until you consider that, let's say, criminal law worked like that too:
"But Mr. Police Officer, why are you arresting me?! I had no idea driving thru this street was illegal now."
"Yeah, it's a new thing: I just decided that on the spot. Sucks to be you!"
See? IP right holders should be held to the same standards: if you're unwilling to say what others can, or cannot do with your IP, whilst allowing a lot in practice, you're basically, maliciously, setting ppl up for a fall. Especially, as he claims, when you worked in close contact with CBS/Paramanount executives on your project, and they knew full well what you were doing (and they led it slide). At some point, apparently, he pissed off the wrong person. But that doesn't make him evil incarnate. Nor totally wrong, per se.
See, this is the part you don't understand. CBS doesn't need to tell him, because the LAW already does. You can't use someone else's copyrighted brand to make money without their permission. Whether CBS says that or not makes no difference. That's like you saying that if I don't tell someone they can't break into my house and steal things, then it's ok. Um, no. The LAW says they can't, even if I don't specifically say so myself.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I really think you should stop talking now. [Modded unnecessary insult]
You have been given more than enough references/links explain the situation.
That's all I'll say.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Unlike trademark infringement Copyright can be selectively enforced thus they do not have to explain anything as to why they went after Axanar and no others.
Also: Speaking about Axanar, CBS told the industry site The Wrap: "CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved. We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights."
That means CBS/Paramount are going after Axanar for a specific reason.
AND! Alec said he met with CBS last Aug about Axanar and then this "quote" from CBS came out does this not tell you that were NOT happy with what he told them and thus they had been watching him a for a while and this was going to happen way before the lawsuit dropped.
Here it is:
From page 10:
http://axamonitor.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=axanar-annual-report-v2.pdf
Now, here is the thing: to some people, 38k is a lot of money. To others, it's not. But the NUMBER doesn't actually mater. He raised that money using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission, then paid HIMSELF. You can't do that.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I can haz your stuffs??
Ah, but see, this is the part you don't understand. The Law doesn't automagically protect trademarks. In fact, there's a commonly held principle in Law (pretty much across all Western civilizations), that you can, in fact, lose your trademarks even when you don't (rigorously) pursue the matter when someone infringes on it. (Which is, for instance, why lucas films lawyers continually, and vigorously, have Star Wars material removed from Second Life: if they don't, they stand to lose the trademark rights on it, when left unattended for too long). This is (only partly) a reflection of what in Law is known as the nulla poena principle: applicable to only crminal law now, of course, but I personally wouldn't mind seeing it extended to civil law as well: if you're going to punish people, it should simple be made clear what is, and what isn't allowed.
P.S. You don't have to defend copyright infringement, btw.
US Copyright and Trademark law is what's being violated here, not CBS/Paramount's own 'rules'. Under those laws, copyright- and trademark-holders have the right to seek legal remedy against unauthorised use of the copyrighted or trademarked works. Whether they decide to exercise that right is their decision - as is when they exercise it. CBS and Paramount have stated that they don't seek legal action on non-profit fan works (in effect, 'authorising' such works), but Ares Studios is producing Axanar, is a for-profit organisation, and the individuals involved in making Axanar are recieving a salary for their work - thus, making profit from the Star Trek Intellection Property. You can argue it's hypocritical of CBS to go after Axanar while allowing other unauthorised works (such as Renegades, Continues and New Voyages), but hypocrisy is not against US Law, nor does it change CBS/Paramount's rights under that law.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=summary_of_the_lawsuit#side-by-side_comparisons
I really think I will stop listening to you now. That much is certain.
I don't think it's hypocrisy - infact they have been very generous to ignore other fan flicks. That said, here is a quote from the editorial/legal team:
"Why Target Axanar?
Wonder why the studios haven't gone after the other fan films? According to attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel, social media director for the popular Star Trek podcast, “The G&T Show,” there's no reason they can't:
There is no reason why they might not be [sued] in the future. CBS/Paramount is under no obligation whatsoever to sue all such productions in one big case. The Axanar matter can easily serve as precedent anyway.31)
What's different about Axanar is that its multi-million dollar budget was completely intended to be raised from Star Trek fans, using the appeal of the studios' copyrighted property. Unlike Axanar, there's no money in the other fan films for CBS to go after. In addition, Axanar's Annual Report detailed an extensive and expanding commercial operation trading off the studios' Star Trek intellectual property."
Edit: this is not in argument of your post by the way, just highlighting a certain point of it
Dude seriously this is one thing that GRATES on me about the Axanar fan groups when they are presented with facts they still say black is white...
I dont think anyone is say YOU MUST change your mind but at least listen to whats been said and remember IDIC
I'm beginning to think of Axanar a bit like I think of Pakled. They steal things to 'make them go'. And then attempt to destroy (sue) the people who made things 'go' in the first place.
It's all really rather sad.
I don't think it's hypocritical either - CBS/Paramount have stated the conditions under which they will defend their copyright/trademark, I'm just pointing out that some could argue it's hypocritical.
But yes, you're absolutely right. No fan work is protected from legal action by CBS/Paramount. The only reason those works haven't been the subject of lawsuits or cease-and-desist notices is because CBS/Paramount have chosen not to in those cases, which is their right as the copyright/trademark-holders. A key problem with the argument of certain pro-Axanar posters is that they suggest copyright-holders must enforce their rights universally. If someone borrows my pen without informing me or getting my permission, I am not legally required to report them for theft of my pen and if I choose not to I'm not exempt from reporting someone else for actually stealing my pen. The same applies for copyright and trademarks; it is the prerogative of the property-holder whether or not to initiate legal action.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
IMO, it's kind of like speeding. There is kind of an 'unwritten rule' among most(though not all) cops that they aren't going to bother you unless you are going 10 miles over the speed limit. So, sure all of the fan productions might be speeding a little, but Axanar was going ridiculously fast.
In this case, the "speeding" would be using the Trek brand without permission. Technically, no one should be doing it. But since the others weren't paying themselves salaries or building for profit assets, CBS/Paramount was letting it slide. But Axanar decided to get a big head and cross the line no one else was crossing.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I am not quite sure if you are joking or just... being obtuse.
He and them 'Axanar' productions and it's staff are not entitled to be paid anything, at all. Regardless of how much it costs to live were they are...
So yes, it IS an indication of 'outrageous scamming' because the kick starter and the funds they gained from it were not intended to paid in such a manner.
I am still not quite sure if you are being serious...
The number itself doesn't really matter. The fact that he was openly paying himself and building for profit assets is where they crossed the line. And you know what? I wouldn't really care that much if he had been a really nice guy about it. But I have seen them censor or ban anyone who even slightly questioned what they were doing on the sites they control, and I have heard him blame CBS/Paramount rather than just apologizing. So because of his arrogant attitude, he has lost a lot of goodwill from people who would have supported him.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
1) at no time in his crowdfunding did he mention using the funds to pay HIMSELF or HIS PRODUCTION a salary. Nor, did he mention using it to build a professional studio. It was stated as going to "Axanar" a movie which to my knowledge a year later is still not even filming. Let alone done.
By comparison, The actors and production studio behind Veronica Mars crowdfunded to create a movie to continue the story. They raised 5 million dollars roughly. ALL of that money went to the film, which a year later was DONE. completed.
2) They created merchandise, for Axanar, using Star Trek IP elements. Merchandise they had no legal right to do. And my understanding is Star Trek was not the only merchandise they were selling
3) They are not the IP holders. You CAN NOT make profit from something that is not yours. End of story. I don't care how awesome they movie would have been. And lets be honest, since even Alec himself admitted there is no script, you have no idea how good the movie would or would not have been.
What he did was wrong. Ethically and legally. End of discussion. The fact that people are complaining that CBS isn't tougher with the IP is half the reason people are upset with what he did. Because CBS is likely to then go and start playing hardball and go after any unauthorized use of their IP. The result is the end of Fan films and the like.
The money he is using to pay the salaries (including his own) isn't money he's earned: it's money that was donated by Star Trek fans to produce a Star Trek fan film - in effect, he is taking $38k a year (which is about £28k GBP) of donators' money and keeping it for himself, which at the very least is morally ambiguous. (To put it into perspective, the averages cost of living in the UK is around £24k per year, so it's not like he's making himself filthy rich with his salary by British standards.)
The only problem I have with what he's doing is that it's illegal and that he's trying to say that it isn't despite all the evidence.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Banned and proud lol WHY.. For asking Why is propworx in the same building as Axanar isnt this a contradiction to the NON PROFIT story.... #BANNNNNNNED for no reason lol