Duncanidaho, if you have a problem with JJTrek, I can understand that even though I am not as bothered as some fans about it. That is fine to criticize CBS' decisions in that area on their own merit or lack thereof. But your comment that CBS' shutting down Axanar means that THEY--CBS--don't want to produce content to your liking not only is a mistaken logical jump in your argument, it is also kind of Exhibit A to my argument about the intellectual property confusion potentially created by letting Trek actors reprise their old characters in a large-budget fanfilm that goes head-to-head with onscreen Trek. That right there is why I see CBS reacting as they are, since it seems the project's sheer size and use of Trek actors combined is being taken as a sign that no mere blind eye is being turned to it, but that it IS official in some capacity.
How is this any different that something like Star Trek Continues or Star Trek Renegades?
Neither one of them put up a successful and massive crowdfunding effort that among other things is buying a new studio. In other words, they are labors of love, not profit making enterprises.
I think it would behoove people to check their facts a bit. The man said they're only paying the lease (for 2 more months) on an existing building they rented. Assuming he is telling the truth, that is quite a stretch from the popular belief he took the money to build a new, for-profit, private studio for his own business.
I'm not saying I like the man; or even support him. But if even half the things he said in that interview are true (the Courts would soon find out), then he has, perhaps, in certain areas been given a raw public deal. Just sayin'.
Please note that we are a professional production and thus RUN like a professional production. That means our full time employees get paid. Not much honestly, but everyone has bills to pay and if you work full time for Axanar, you get paid.
Also, no other fan film has production insurance like we do. We pay $ 12,000 a year for that. Again, a professional production.
Emphasis mine. Would you like me to get the statement's of his own wage aswell (just to put paid to his silly statement 'they are a professional production (but don't get paid much 'honestly')?
Forgetting all that. He just repeatably stated its a professional production where people get PAID.
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
A nonprofit organization (NPO, also known as a non-business entity[1]) is an organization whose purposes are other than making a profit.[2] A nonprofit organization is often dedicated to furthering a particular social cause or advocating for a particular point of view. In economic terms, a nonprofit organization uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or mission, rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's shareholders (or equivalents) as profit or dividends. This is known as the distribution constraint.[3] The decision to adopt a nonprofit legal structure is one that will often have taxation implications, particularly where the nonprofit seeks income tax exemption, charitable status and so on.
The terms nonprofit and not-for-profit are not consistently differentiated across jurisdictions. In layman's terms they are usually equivalent in concept, although in various jurisdictions there are accounting and legal differences.
The nonprofit landscape is highly varied, although many people have come to associate NPOs with charitable organizations. Although charities do comprise an often high profile or visible aspect of the sector, there are many other types of nonprofits. Overall, they tend to be either member-serving or community-serving. Member-serving organizations include mutual societies, cooperatives, trade unions, credit unions, industry associations, sports clubs, retired serviceman's clubs and peak bodies – organizations that benefit a particular group of people i.e. the members of the organization. Typically, community-serving organizations are focused on providing services to the community in general, either globally or locally: organizations delivering human services programs or projects, aid and development programs, medical research, education and health services, and so on. It could be argued many nonprofits sit across both camps, at least in terms of the impact they make.[4] For example, the grassroots support group that provides a lifeline to those with a particular condition or disease could be deemed to be serving both its members (by directly supporting them) and the broader community (through the provision of a helping service for fellow citizens).
Many NPOs use the model of a double bottom line in that furthering their cause is more important than making a profit, though both are needed to ensure the organization's sustainability.[5][6]
Although NPOs are permitted to generate surplus revenues, they must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or plans.[7] NPOs have controlling members or a board of directors. Many have paid staff including management, whereas others employ unpaid volunteers and even executives who work with or without compensation (occasionally nominal).[8] In some countries, where there is a token fee, in general it is used to meet legal requirements for establishing a contract between the executive and the organization.
Designation as a nonprofit does not mean that the organization does not intend to make a profit, but rather that the organization has no 'owners' and that the funds realized in the operation of the organization will not be used to benefit any owners. The extent to which an NPO can generate surplus revenues may be constrained or use of surplus revenues may be restricted.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Which is an outright lie on their part - Axanar even released a 'Vulcan Scene' a few months ago (although it was taken down shortly after the lawsuit began). CBS and Paramount use images from that scene in their revised compliant to the Californian District Court to back up their copyright claims.
Lets be honest, The only reason it is hard to tell what is or isn't true with Axanar is because there are so many lies it is hard to keep track.
From what little I HAVE been able to glean, Alec Peters continues to change his story (as to what is/isn't or what has/hasn't been done) to suit whatever it is he wants people (and the courts probably) believe.
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
There are 2 distinctly SEPARATE points people need to understand:
1) It *IS* ok for non profit organizations to have paid employees.
2) It is *NOT* ok to make money using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Regarding the first point, Axanar *ISN'T* even a non profit organization. But even if it *WAS*, they still did not have *PERMISSION* to make money using the Trek brand.
The reason I mentioned the Red Cross earlier is this: even though the Red Cross *DOES* have paid employees, you can't just go down to the mall and start collecting money in their name *WITHOUT* their permission, and then *KEEP* some of that money to "pay yourself for your time".
It is OK for the Red Cross to sell merchandise because they *OWN* their brand. It is *NOT* ok for Axanar to sell merchandise because they *DO NOT* own the Trek brand. And it is certainly not OK for Alec Peters to *PAY HIMSELF* money he raised using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Fan series Star Trek Continues is currently in post-production on “Embracing the Winds”, with episode six, “Come Not Between Dragons”, completed and scheduled to debut at FedCon Germany on May 13th.
The group is currently running a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo to fund the remaining post-production of “Embracing the Winds” and to produce three more episodes of the series. Of course, with the ongoing litigation between Paramount/CBS and successfully crowdfunded Star Trek fan film Axanar, other fan productions are feeling the effects of a now trepidatious donor base. Head of Star Trek Continues Vic Mignogna told TrekMovie that they have received “numerous messages stating fans are afraid to donate [to STC] due to the CBS lawsuit.” But, he adds that fans “have no reason to believe we will have any troubles. We are in compliance with every request CBS legal has made of us and will continue to be so.”
Interesting stuff, but I think this begins to illustrate the differences between Continues and Axanar. The comments by Vic Mignogna could suggest that CBS does provide some guidance to fan productions. They have also completed six hours of content, and are about to raise funds for three to four more episodes. This laps Axanar numerous times.
It's also important to note that Continues is officially recognized as a non-profit. The IRS has looked at their books, and has approved them that status. Axanar can't say that. They're in the process of doing this, apparently, but that's just on Alec Peters' word.
As I said upthread, CBS have gone to bat for STC against YouTube when YouTube pulled an episode due to what they perscieved to be a cooyright infringement. Vic Mignogna's words then made it very clear that the STC Production Team was in contact with CBS' legal deoartment, and that they were being supported by CBS in that matter, so it's of no surprise to me that he would be able to say that they are in compliance with CBS, or that CBS does issue some manner of guidelines...
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
There are 2 distinctly SEPARATE points people need to understand:
1) It *IS* ok for non profit organizations to have paid employees.
2) It is *NOT* ok to make money using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Regarding the first point, Axanar *ISN'T* even a non profit organization. But even if it *WAS*, they still did not have *PERMISSION* to make money using the Trek brand.
The reason I mentioned the Red Cross earlier is this: even though the Red Cross *DOES* have paid employees, you can't just go down to the mall and start collecting money in their name *WITHOUT* their permission, and then *KEEP* some of that money to "pay yourself for your time".
It is OK for the Red Cross to sell merchandise because they *OWN* their brand. It is *NOT* ok for Axanar to sell merchandise because they *DO NOT* own the Trek brand. And it is certainly not OK for Alec Peters to *PAY HIMSELF* money he raised using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Someone was arguing that Peters paying himself or others a salary, or that building a sound stage for rental use, would be indicative of something unlawful. I point out it isn't. Even a non-profit organization can and will do things like that.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Someone was arguing that Peters paying himself or others a salary, or that building a sound stage for rental use, would be indicative of something unlawful. I point out it isn't. Even a non-profit organization can and will do things like that.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Admittedly, This is me speculating, but I don't think "no one would have bat an eye." True, Legally, he would be in less hot water, because obviously he wouldn't have violated copyright law.
But I think a lot of donors would still be mad. I am not saying other crowdfunding projects don't pay their people. I am sure they do, but most have something to show for it. Peters basically, promised people a movie. Paid himself for his "work" on the movie. Not to mention build a studio off of it, and their still isn't any concrete evidence he has done ANYTHING but get rich collecting donors money.
Someone was arguing that Peters paying himself or others a salary, or that building a sound stage for rental use, would be indicative of something unlawful. I point out it isn't. Even a non-profit organization can and will do things like that.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Admittedly, This is me speculating, but I don't think "no one would have bat an eye." True, Legally, he would be in less hot water, because obviously he wouldn't have violated copyright law.
But I think a lot of donors would still be mad. I am not saying other crowdfunding projects don't pay their people. I am sure they do, but most have something to show for it. Peters basically, promised people a movie. Paid himself for his "work" on the movie. Not to mention build a studio off of it, and their still isn't any concrete evidence he has done ANYTHING but get rich collecting donors money.
I supported a crowdfunded a web series a while back, because I knew one of the actresses appearing in it, and I wanted to help contribute for her to potentially have a new project. As time went on, I came to the conclusion that the writer/director/producer was an TRIBBLE, and I began to feel very conflicted about supporting it... I wanted to support my friend, but I didn't want to be supporting him. It nearly didn't meet it's target, but a second kickstarter scraped enough, and the project went ahead. Yay for my friend, I was happy that she had a project to work on, and enjoyed doing so, but then cracks started appearing in the picture, such as the sound engineer mysteriously running off with the sound recordings, and necessitating re-recordings, but, I was still curious about the project, and keen to see my friend on screen again.
Then the release came, which my friend was keen to promote and let people know was coming...
But no, the producer had a trick up his sleeve... He was on,y releasing a trailer for the series (made from footage he had only been able to achieve via filming the entire series) and would only unlock Episode I, after the trailer had received 5000 views... And this would repeat for each episode... 5000 new views, or no new episodes...
To say I was pissed off is an understatement... This TRIBBLE had traded on the good will of the cast's friends and fans to get the money to essentially make a vanity project, which he was essentially trying to keep to himself... If it got released, so be it, either way, he had the series on his showreel... Eventually, enough views were reached, and episodes were unlocked, but I know my friend wasn't really happy with the situation of the 5000, and called it quite silly (or something similarly inoffensive, but equally disapproving) and the only time she has discussed or promoted it since its release, was once ever episode was available to the public, and even that was a very dry, factual post along the lines of "All episodes are now available..." No more, no less, certainly no excitement or pride in a project undertaken or a desire to discuss it further...
Not all crowdfunding is like this, or the Axanar scenario, but it is a danger, and one which (as my tale of woe illustrates) does happen when producers really have very little accountability to their funders...
Someone was arguing that Peters paying himself or others a salary, or that building a sound stage for rental use, would be indicative of something unlawful. I point out it isn't. Even a non-profit organization can and will do things like that.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Admittedly, This is me speculating, but I don't think "no one would have bat an eye." True, Legally, he would be in less hot water, because obviously he wouldn't have violated copyright law.
But I think a lot of donors would still be mad. I am not saying other crowdfunding projects don't pay their people. I am sure they do, but most have something to show for it. Peters basically, promised people a movie. Paid himself for his "work" on the movie. Not to mention build a studio off of it, and their still isn't any concrete evidence he has done ANYTHING but get rich collecting donors money.
I supported a crowdfunded a web series a while back, because I knew one of the actresses appearing in it, and I wanted to help contribute for her to potentially have a new project. As time went on, I came to the conclusion that the writer/director/producer was an TRIBBLE, and I began to feel very conflicted about supporting it... I wanted to support my friend, but I didn't want to be supporting him. It nearly didn't meet it's target, but a second kickstarter scraped enough, and the project went ahead. Yay for my friend, I was happy that she had a project to work on, and enjoyed doing so, but then cracks started appearing in the picture, such as the sound engineer mysteriously running off with the sound recordings, and necessitating re-recordings, but, I was still curious about the project, and keen to see my friend on screen again.
Then the release came, which my friend was keen to promote and let people know was coming...
But no, the producer had a trick up his sleeve... He was on,y releasing a trailer for the series (made from footage he had only been able to achieve via filming the entire series) and would only unlock Episode I, after the trailer had received 5000 views... And this would repeat for each episode... 5000 new views, or no new episodes...
To say I was pissed off is an understatement... This TRIBBLE had traded on the good will of the cast's friends and fans to get the money to essentially make a vanity project, which he was essentially trying to keep to himself... If it got released, so be it, either way, he had the series on his showreel... Eventually, enough views were reached, and episodes were unlocked, but I know my friend wasn't really happy with the situation of the 5000, and called it quite silly (or something similarly inoffensive, but equally disapproving) and the only time she has discussed or promoted it since its release, was once ever episode was available to the public, and even that was a very dry, factual post along the lines of "All episodes are now available..." No more, no less, certainly no excitement or pride in a project undertaken or a desire to discuss it further...
Not all crowdfunding is like this, or the Axanar scenario, but it is a danger, and one which (as my tale of woe illustrates) does happen when producers really have very little accountability to their funders...
Which proves my point. Alec Peters used crowdfunding on bad faith and people are pissed about it. The fact that he did it in such a way as to also bring the ire of CBS/Paramount, just shows he is either an idiot or a raging egotistical megalomaniac.
Someone was arguing that Peters paying himself or others a salary, or that building a sound stage for rental use, would be indicative of something unlawful. I point out it isn't. Even a non-profit organization can and will do things like that.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Admittedly, This is me speculating, but I don't think "no one would have bat an eye." True, Legally, he would be in less hot water, because obviously he wouldn't have violated copyright law.
But I think a lot of donors would still be mad. I am not saying other crowdfunding projects don't pay their people. I am sure they do, but most have something to show for it. Peters basically, promised people a movie. Paid himself for his "work" on the movie. Not to mention build a studio off of it, and their still isn't any concrete evidence he has done ANYTHING but get rich collecting donors money.
I supported a crowdfunded a web series a while back, because I knew one of the actresses appearing in it, and I wanted to help contribute for her to potentially have a new project. As time went on, I came to the conclusion that the writer/director/producer was an TRIBBLE, and I began to feel very conflicted about supporting it... I wanted to support my friend, but I didn't want to be supporting him. It nearly didn't meet it's target, but a second kickstarter scraped enough, and the project went ahead. Yay for my friend, I was happy that she had a project to work on, and enjoyed doing so, but then cracks started appearing in the picture, such as the sound engineer mysteriously running off with the sound recordings, and necessitating re-recordings, but, I was still curious about the project, and keen to see my friend on screen again.
Then the release came, which my friend was keen to promote and let people know was coming...
But no, the producer had a trick up his sleeve... He was on,y releasing a trailer for the series (made from footage he had only been able to achieve via filming the entire series) and would only unlock Episode I, after the trailer had received 5000 views... And this would repeat for each episode... 5000 new views, or no new episodes...
To say I was pissed off is an understatement... This TRIBBLE had traded on the good will of the cast's friends and fans to get the money to essentially make a vanity project, which he was essentially trying to keep to himself... If it got released, so be it, either way, he had the series on his showreel... Eventually, enough views were reached, and episodes were unlocked, but I know my friend wasn't really happy with the situation of the 5000, and called it quite silly (or something similarly inoffensive, but equally disapproving) and the only time she has discussed or promoted it since its release, was once ever episode was available to the public, and even that was a very dry, factual post along the lines of "All episodes are now available..." No more, no less, certainly no excitement or pride in a project undertaken or a desire to discuss it further...
Not all crowdfunding is like this, or the Axanar scenario, but it is a danger, and one which (as my tale of woe illustrates) does happen when producers really have very little accountability to their funders...
Which proves my point. Alec Peters used crowdfunding on bad faith and people are pissed about it. The fact that he did it in such a way as to also bring the ire of CBS/Paramount, just shows he is either an idiot or a raging egotistical megalomaniac.
Yup... I would have been inclined to say the former, but given his handling of the situation since this hit litigation, I'm suspecting the latter... To quote Trading Places... "A very sordid business..."
Great commentary piece by Lukas Kendall, producer and former colleague of Robert Meyer Burnett. Worth a read.
Awesome piece, thanks for sharing I especially liked the observation that the JJ Abrams films were dogshit
Well, to be fair, the observation was that Peters was claiming the Abrams films were dogshit, and such comments hurt his position. And I agree.
I also don't think the Abrams films are dogshit, but that's for another discussion...
I just found the piece super interesting, because of the observations about Peters' "cult of personality," and the idea that he attempted/is attempting a sort of "hostile takeover" of Trek. Also, the idea of Peters getting a "lifetime ban" from Trek, to the level of Pete Rose, is highly intriguing.
Man, this story will make for a fascinating documentary... not made by Peters, of course.
Great commentary piece by Lukas Kendall, producer and former colleague of Robert Meyer Burnett. Worth a read.
Awesome piece, thanks for sharing I especially liked the observation that the JJ Abrams films were dogshit
Well, to be fair, the observation was that Peters was claiming the Abrams films were dogshit, and such comments hurt his position. And I agree.
I also don't think the Abrams films are dogshit, but that's for another discussion...
I just found the piece super interesting, because of the observations about Peters' "cult of personality," and the idea that he attempted/is attempting a sort of "hostile takeover" of Trek. Also, the idea of Peters getting a "lifetime ban" from Trek, to the level of Pete Rose, is highly intriguing.
Man, this story will make for a fascinating documentary... not made by Peters, of course.
I know, but it still made me chuckle And absolutely, I thought the idea of the lifetime ban was very interesting. Arguably, he could still go to a convention and sell autographs, just not on photos where he's dressed as Garth, and it also raises fhe question of if any convention organizers would actually invite him... I know actors can't just roll up with a table, nor book to appear, in the same way someone can pay for a stall at a mind/body/spirit fayre, they have to be invited, and after all this, I can't see that happening...
If MR Peters gets invited anywhere it will be some nerds birthday as guest of honor i seriously doubt anyone will touch hi with a 500 lightyear barge pole
If MR Peters gets invited anywhere it will be some nerds birthday as guest of honor i seriously doubt anyone will touch hi with a 500 lightyear barge pole
He could literally start a cult with the people who are defending him at this point. That is how delusional and dedicated they are. They would probably do anything he says.
If MR Peters gets invited anywhere it will be some nerds birthday as guest of honor i seriously doubt anyone will touch hi with a 500 lightyear barge pole
He could literally start a cult with the people who are defending him at this point. That is how delusional and dedicated they are. They would probably do anything he says.
Oh I've been saying since day one its like the Church of Axanar
And today C/P filed an actual response to Axanar's second motion to dismiss the case. It appears they're taking the gloves off and going on the offensive with regard to soundly picking apart the Axanar legal team's contention that effectively no element of Star Trek is copyrightable (which was a specious and ridiculous argument in the first place):
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Shame, too, since Kraft was basically a one-man production crew. Interesting, too, that he blames Peters and Axanar for this.
Other fan productions would be wise to wait until after the Axanar issue is over, as CBS really has no choice but to shut them all down for now or risk undermining the Axanar suit.
Shame, too, since Kraft was basically a one-man production crew. Interesting, too, that he blames Peters and Axanar for this.
Other fan productions would be wise to wait until after the Axanar issue is over, as CBS really has no choice but to shut them all down for now or risk undermining the Axanar suit.
It would be funny if it was no so sad. Axanar has single handedly put in motion a series of events that have the potential to destroy all of the good work volunteered by fan productions. And all because they refuse to back down on making a profit from something that does not belong to them.
I can only hope CBS/Paramount (when they win) put the whole issue aside and allow fan productions to continue.
Shame, too, since Kraft was basically a one-man production crew. Interesting, too, that he blames Peters and Axanar for this.
I thought this might happen. A lot of people in this thread said it would not; but it looks like lines are being drawn in the sand.
The thing the article also points out (which I'd already guessed from facebook) is that people aren't donating to Star Trek Continues... I hope some folks have 'some stern words' with Alec Peters if he ever shows his face at a convention again... >_<
Shame, too, since Kraft was basically a one-man production crew. Interesting, too, that he blames Peters and Axanar for this.
Other fan productions would be wise to wait until after the Axanar issue is over, as CBS really has no choice but to shut them all down for now or risk undermining the Axanar suit.
It would be funny if it was no so sad. Axanar has single handedly put in motion a series of events that have the potential to destroy all of the good work volunteered by fan productions. And all because they refuse to back down on making a profit from something that does not belong to them.
I can only hope CBS/Paramount (when they win) put the whole issue aside and allow fan productions to continue.
This is really the long and short of it. Granted it looks like this production was also looking for more funds then most fan-films (they mentions $250,000 rather then the usuall 10,000 to 60,000) but it looks like they were largely in compliance with what fan-films were suppose to do.
I like that Kraft made it clear this appears to be a step that CBS/Paramount did not want to take. But with Axanar playing hardball, the writing was on the wall. I am surprised that the shutting down of all fan-films (and lets be honest, that is what is going on) happened so quickly, but not surprised it is happening. CBS/Paramount needs to protect their brand and it was clearly from Axanar's actions, that a hard line was going to have to be drawn.
I think this is one of the main reasons people were so mad at Alec Peters, even if they were not directly involved in what I still feel was a fraudulent action. In his greed, Peters put every Star Trek fan film at risk. This is the inevitable result.
I think this is one of the main reasons people were so mad at Alec Peters, even if they were not directly involved in what I still feel was a fraudulent action. In his greed, Peters put every Star Trek fan film at risk. This is the inevitable result.
Well said.
It's sad, too, because I think that Prelude-era Peters was pretty genuine in his desire, but his tenor and motives slowly changed as the campaign brought in more money, and it blew up in his face. Now, he's full of s**t, in over his head, and ruined the party for everyone.
Peters' actions are really starting to catch up with people... and I hate to bring this up, but there is a small connection between STO and Axanar, and it would break my heart if this happens to... yeah.
Peters' actions are really starting to catch up with people... and I hate to bring this up, but there is a small connection between STO and Axanar, and it would break my heart if this happens to... yeah.
That really is sad, but I wouldn't worry about STO, because STO is officially licensed...
Peters' actions are really starting to catch up with people... and I hate to bring this up, but there is a small connection between STO and Axanar, and it would break my heart if this happens to... yeah.
That really is sad, but I wouldn't worry about STO, because STO is officially licensed...
I think he was implying that someone involved with STO has some link with Axanar, and he doesn't want to see that person blacklisted too.
Comments
Professional however still does not make it a "for-profit" thing. Non-Profit organizations do pay their employees and owners, too, and they might have to own buildings, leases and what not.
Making a Star Trek Fan Production is not exactly the same as the Red Cross, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to work for it going broke or doing it during their holidays and free time. And I think selling merchandise isn't out of the question either. (The Red Cross sells merchandise, too.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization
Lets be honest, The only reason it is hard to tell what is or isn't true with Axanar is because there are so many lies it is hard to keep track.
From what little I HAVE been able to glean, Alec Peters continues to change his story (as to what is/isn't or what has/hasn't been done) to suit whatever it is he wants people (and the courts probably) believe.
There are 2 distinctly SEPARATE points people need to understand:
1) It *IS* ok for non profit organizations to have paid employees.
2) It is *NOT* ok to make money using someone else's brand *WITHOUT* permission.
Regarding the first point, Axanar *ISN'T* even a non profit organization. But even if it *WAS*, they still did not have *PERMISSION* to make money using the Trek brand.
The reason I mentioned the Red Cross earlier is this: even though the Red Cross *DOES* have paid employees, you can't just go down to the mall and start collecting money in their name *WITHOUT* their permission, and then *KEEP* some of that money to "pay yourself for your time".
It is OK for the Red Cross to sell merchandise because they *OWN* their brand. It is *NOT* ok for Axanar to sell merchandise because they *DO NOT* own the Trek brand. And it is certainly not OK for Alec Peters to *PAY HIMSELF* money he raised using the Trek brand *WITHOUT* permission.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://blueserif.com/doku/doku.php?id=endgame
Great commentary piece by Lukas Kendall, producer and former colleague of Robert Meyer Burnett. Worth a read.
The only thing that needs to be worried about is whether they violated Star Trek copyright. That is really the only sticking point. If he had done the very same thing with his own, new franchise (or a licensed property), no one would have to bat an eye.
Admittedly, This is me speculating, but I don't think "no one would have bat an eye." True, Legally, he would be in less hot water, because obviously he wouldn't have violated copyright law.
But I think a lot of donors would still be mad. I am not saying other crowdfunding projects don't pay their people. I am sure they do, but most have something to show for it. Peters basically, promised people a movie. Paid himself for his "work" on the movie. Not to mention build a studio off of it, and their still isn't any concrete evidence he has done ANYTHING but get rich collecting donors money.
Then the release came, which my friend was keen to promote and let people know was coming...
But no, the producer had a trick up his sleeve... He was on,y releasing a trailer for the series (made from footage he had only been able to achieve via filming the entire series) and would only unlock Episode I, after the trailer had received 5000 views... And this would repeat for each episode... 5000 new views, or no new episodes...
To say I was pissed off is an understatement... This TRIBBLE had traded on the good will of the cast's friends and fans to get the money to essentially make a vanity project, which he was essentially trying to keep to himself... If it got released, so be it, either way, he had the series on his showreel... Eventually, enough views were reached, and episodes were unlocked, but I know my friend wasn't really happy with the situation of the 5000, and called it quite silly (or something similarly inoffensive, but equally disapproving) and the only time she has discussed or promoted it since its release, was once ever episode was available to the public, and even that was a very dry, factual post along the lines of "All episodes are now available..." No more, no less, certainly no excitement or pride in a project undertaken or a desire to discuss it further...
Not all crowdfunding is like this, or the Axanar scenario, but it is a danger, and one which (as my tale of woe illustrates) does happen when producers really have very little accountability to their funders...
Which proves my point. Alec Peters used crowdfunding on bad faith and people are pissed about it. The fact that he did it in such a way as to also bring the ire of CBS/Paramount, just shows he is either an idiot or a raging egotistical megalomaniac.
Well, to be fair, the observation was that Peters was claiming the Abrams films were dogshit, and such comments hurt his position. And I agree.
I also don't think the Abrams films are dogshit, but that's for another discussion...
I just found the piece super interesting, because of the observations about Peters' "cult of personality," and the idea that he attempted/is attempting a sort of "hostile takeover" of Trek. Also, the idea of Peters getting a "lifetime ban" from Trek, to the level of Pete Rose, is highly intriguing.
Man, this story will make for a fascinating documentary... not made by Peters, of course.
He could literally start a cult with the people who are defending him at this point. That is how delusional and dedicated they are. They would probably do anything he says.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Oh I've been saying since day one its like the Church of Axanar
http://1701news.com/node/1130/cbs-paramount-say-axanar-motion-misguided-misleading.html
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
http://1701news.com/node/1151/cbs-reportedly-shuts-down-second-fan-film.html
Shame, too, since Kraft was basically a one-man production crew. Interesting, too, that he blames Peters and Axanar for this.
I thought this might happen. A lot of people in this thread said it would not; but it looks like lines are being drawn in the sand.
Other fan productions would be wise to wait until after the Axanar issue is over, as CBS really has no choice but to shut them all down for now or risk undermining the Axanar suit.
It would be funny if it was no so sad. Axanar has single handedly put in motion a series of events that have the potential to destroy all of the good work volunteered by fan productions. And all because they refuse to back down on making a profit from something that does not belong to them.
I can only hope CBS/Paramount (when they win) put the whole issue aside and allow fan productions to continue.
This is really the long and short of it. Granted it looks like this production was also looking for more funds then most fan-films (they mentions $250,000 rather then the usuall 10,000 to 60,000) but it looks like they were largely in compliance with what fan-films were suppose to do.
I like that Kraft made it clear this appears to be a step that CBS/Paramount did not want to take. But with Axanar playing hardball, the writing was on the wall. I am surprised that the shutting down of all fan-films (and lets be honest, that is what is going on) happened so quickly, but not surprised it is happening. CBS/Paramount needs to protect their brand and it was clearly from Axanar's actions, that a hard line was going to have to be drawn.
I think this is one of the main reasons people were so mad at Alec Peters, even if they were not directly involved in what I still feel was a fraudulent action. In his greed, Peters put every Star Trek fan film at risk. This is the inevitable result.
Well said.
It's sad, too, because I think that Prelude-era Peters was pretty genuine in his desire, but his tenor and motives slowly changed as the campaign brought in more money, and it blew up in his face. Now, he's full of s**t, in over his head, and ruined the party for everyone.
http://blueserif.com/doku/doku.php?id=does#blacklisting
Peters' actions are really starting to catch up with people... and I hate to bring this up, but there is a small connection between STO and Axanar, and it would break my heart if this happens to... yeah.
I think he was implying that someone involved with STO has some link with Axanar, and he doesn't want to see that person blacklisted too.