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.
Just to add something to this: in the UK, there is a legal threshold before you can be prosecuted for speeding of 10%, so if the speed limit is 20mph, you're allowed to go as fast as 22mph, but no faster, to account for variation between actual speed and indicated speed.
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.
They touted themselves as a FULLY INDEPENDENT STAR TREK FILM & TREK LIKE YOU'VE NOT SEEN BEFORE
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
AXANAR COFFEE AND MINIONS TSHIRTS ANYONE (and the minions T's were and arent licensed [ i know i asked universal myself ] )
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.
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.
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. See:
Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. For example, if many third parties subsequently begin using the same or a similar mark in commerce in connection with goods and/or services similar to the trademark owner’s after the owner has already begun to use its trademark, and the owner does little or nothing to police its mark, the mark is likely to lose some or all of its value as a source identifier in the marketplace. As a result, the trademark will become weaker, and in some cases it may lose its distinctiveness entirely.
To help avoid such adverse consequences, the trademark owner should police its mark by enforcing its trademark rights through various legal means, such as (a) sending demand letters, (b) initiating opposition or cancellation proceedings with administrative entities, (c) proceeding with litigation in the courts and/or (d) entering into licensing and/or other agreements with third parties, as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
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.
P.S: It might help your case if you stop confusing trademark with copyright and vice versa.
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)
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!
P.S: You are still confusing trademark with copyright ect. But keep going... I won't stop you...
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.
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.
Comments
Just to add something to this: in the UK, there is a legal threshold before you can be prosecuted for speeding of 10%, so if the speed limit is 20mph, you're allowed to go as fast as 22mph, but no faster, to account for variation between actual speed and indicated speed.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
my edits in BOLD
The key problem with your argument is that you're simply wrong.
inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/LossofTrademarkRightsFactSheet.aspx
You should pay particular attention to:
Failure to Police
Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails effectively to police its mark against eroded distinctiveness, which may occur as a result of the presence of confusingly similar third-party marks in the market. For example, if many third parties subsequently begin using the same or a similar mark in commerce in connection with goods and/or services similar to the trademark owner’s after the owner has already begun to use its trademark, and the owner does little or nothing to police its mark, the mark is likely to lose some or all of its value as a source identifier in the marketplace. As a result, the trademark will become weaker, and in some cases it may lose its distinctiveness entirely.
To help avoid such adverse consequences, the trademark owner should police its mark by enforcing its trademark rights through various legal means, such as (a) sending demand letters, (b) initiating opposition or cancellation proceedings with administrative entities, (c) proceeding with litigation in the courts and/or (d) entering into licensing and/or other agreements with third parties, as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
(Emphasis mine)
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.
P.S: It might help your case if you stop confusing trademark with copyright and vice versa.
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!
P.S: You are still confusing trademark with copyright ect. But keep going... I won't stop you...
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.
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