Well, Axanar is dead for sure and i will not be expecting any news on that end.
it is fine when you make fan made films and credit the correct groups that hold the franchise, it is another to steal the ideas and call them your own and further defending such an action.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
So, I read Peters' full statement (from the TrekMovie article, but I bet you can find it elsewhere)...
He calls Axanar a fan film, and a love letter to the franchise... the love letter thing is fine, but the fan film thing is bulls**t. They have, numerous times, claimed that Axanar is NOT a fan film, but an "independent Star Trek film." Sure, they want to beat the stigma of fan films, but you can't have it both ways.
And, as TrekMovie points out, they have no legal leg to stand on. If they can get the injunction overturned? Then, maybe... but, yeah, it's dead, otherwise.
I wonder if they could also get hit with a class action suit from donors?
As long as they keep filming and whatnot throughout the process we may eventually get the film leaked or something if CBS do win.
It could be that they can't do that throughout the process - but even if, it will certainly make things more complicated.
They can until a judge places an injunction on them, which is most likely the first thing the CBS/Paramount lawyers will ask for the fist time in front of the judge.
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
The commercial part is where they have a point. Even though Axanar might be a non-comm product, they generated a million dollars and they "trade" Blu-Rays and whatnot for "donations" - they went too far on this one, they effectively generate income from selling stuff. Maybe that will break their necks.
There's no maybe about it. When they crowdfunded, they established a revenue stream. The money basically means that if CBS does not defend their trademark at this point, they're very much at risk of losing the trademark outright to the public domain. And because of the money, Axanar has precisely zero chance of winning this.
So, I read Peters' full statement (from the TrekMovie article, but I bet you can find it elsewhere)...
He calls Axanar a fan film, and a love letter to the franchise... the love letter thing is fine, but the fan film thing is bulls**t. They have, numerous times, claimed that Axanar is NOT a fan film, but an "independent Star Trek film." Sure, they want to beat the stigma of fan films, but you can't have it both ways.
And, as TrekMovie points out, they have no legal leg to stand on. If they can get the injunction overturned? Then, maybe... but, yeah, it's dead, otherwise.
I wonder if they could also get hit with a class action suit from donors?
Would the law require them to do anything other than refund the donations?
Would the law require them to do anything other than refund the donations?
Possibly... but, maybe only the crowdfunding campaigns after Prelude to Axanar would be eligible... or, it could be listed in some EULA thing on Kickstarter or IndieGoGo that no refunds would be granted, and those fans are SOL.
I'm glad I didn't fund them, now, to be honest... was really thinking about dropping the $150 for the Special Edition Blu-ray. Thanks to the Axanar Podcast, and Peters and Burnett getting together with the Trek.fm people to TRIBBLE on JJ Abrams for an entire episode... I decided to hold off.
I feel better about giving Cryptic my money, at this point.
I'm not sure why it matters if CBS went after other productions or not. "They did it too" is not a defense if you break the law. I'm not saying the Axanar team did anything wrong, but IF(key word) they did, then they deserve whatever happens. What did or did not happen to other people has nothing to do with them. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, telling him that lots of other people are also doing it isn't going to change the fact that you were doing it and you are now in trouble.
honestly Im shocked no one has brought up the other option where CBS wants to cash in on Axanar, and the lawsuit is the first step toward a "settlement" that allows them to do that.
Surely if that were the case they'd just make an offer rather than become the bad guys in the media.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
If they wanted axanar they would throw enough money at them trust me from what I've been reading a certain person from that set up could do with some money. . .
But hey that's pure speculation from what I've read. .
Other than that the person that Alec guy really needs to stay off social media until this is sorted as some of the stuff he's been saying and doing leaves a lot to be desired. .
I'm not sure why it matters if CBS went after other productions or not. "They did it too" is not a defense if you break the law. I'm not saying the Axanar team did anything wrong, but IF(key word) they did, then they deserve whatever happens. What did or did not happen to other people has nothing to do with them. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, telling him that lots of other people are also doing it isn't going to change the fact that you were doing it and you are now in trouble.
The American judiciary, from an outside perspective, seems obsessed with checkable 'points of law' and 'precedents', rather than actual justice -- If someone has gotten out of a crime somehow before in the past (or been prosecuted in the past) their attorneys will cite that precedent in their client's favor. It's not a case of "They did it too", and the reason it matters if CBS go after other productions, is one which has been explained up-thread: If they do not defend infringements to their IP in every single instance, the second they try to prosecute someone for infringing it, the infringers attorneys can turn round and say "Well they didn't care when those guys did it, ergo, why should they care that my client has done it?", and that would cast significant doubt onto CBS's vigilance in defending their IP. Disney are notorious for doing it, so those're the examples to read up on to better understand the legal terrain
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
CBS is full of idiots they could have done a collaboration funding and put this in theaters and made some serious bank. This was by far the most promising thing I've seen that is trek related and now the unholy corporate lawyers are gonna skewer this project and leave us with the TRIBBLE J J spews out as our only trek thing. A sad day for Trek indeed...
It matters if someone else did it too because if it can be shown in court that CBS/Paramount failed to defend their trademark with sufficient vigor, it could be ruled that they have relinquished that trademark, like Bayer and Fawcett before them. That could prove quite expensive, especially with this new TV show coming up...
I am glad to see CBS go after Axanar! After seeing how much of a joke Renegades was. CBS needs to stamp out these poor quality fan made movies that use their IP. Axanar had it coming though, as they didn't have permission from CBS, where others like Renegades did.
I am glad to see CBS go after Axanar! After seeing how much of a joke Renegades was. CBS needs to stamp out these poor quality fan made movies that use their IP. Axanar had it coming though, as they didn't have permission from CBS, where others like Renegades did.
Are you seriously comparing the quality of Prelude to Axanar -- which was of distribution-quality -- with the shambles that was Renegades?? O_O If the Axanar producers didn't abide by some rules CBS stipulated, then by all means, let them face the consequences, but the quality of their production values were first rate...
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back to it, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films? Is it petty? Sure. No worse than the times Simon Pegg has slagged off and condescended to fans on Twitter, but people still treat him (for Godknows what reason) like the sun shines out of his TRIBBLE... I remember reading an interview with him on SuicideGirls when Shaun of the Dead was released: He came across as an egotistical jackass then, and nothing I've heard since has changed my view of him (although I will freely admit that I do enjoy the movies he has done...)
Surely if that were the case they'd just make an offer rather than become the bad guys in the media.
Who says they didn't? Considering the main mouth behind Axanar seems very petty, self-centered, and arrogant I wouldn't put it past him to say 'no' to such an offer. Which leads to CBS unleashing the dogs of war, and getting what they wanted anyway
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back to it, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
I don't know for sure how that would play in court either (it could be the indirect trigger even if never admitted into evidence), but it does illustrate the saying that you should never eat and relieve yourself in the same place. And no matter HOW much anyone hates it, that is exactly what it constitutes. And in a business deal as opposed to a government thing, pissing someone off/talking trash/etc. can be grounds for a business relationship to go very bad.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I am glad to see CBS go after Axanar! After seeing how much of a joke Renegades was. CBS needs to stamp out these poor quality fan made movies that use their IP. Axanar had it coming though, as they didn't have permission from CBS, where others like Renegades did.
Are you seriously comparing the quality of Prelude to Axanar -- which was of distribution-quality -- with the shambles that was Renegades?? O_O If the Axanar producers didn't abide by some rules CBS stipulated, then by all means, let them face the consequences, but the quality of their production values were first rate...
While they were excellent for an indie project, they were far from "first rate" by today's standards. And any movie buff worth their salt could watch "Prelude to Axanar", and tell it was a low budget indie project. I sure as hell did.
Axanar is what some would call "direct to video" quality. That doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it's not up to modern production standards, like the current "NuTrek" films.
CBS is full of idiots they could have done a collaboration funding and put this in theaters and made some serious bank. This was by far the most promising thing I've seen that is trek related and now the unholy corporate lawyers are gonna skewer this project and leave us with the TRIBBLE J J spews out as our only trek thing. A sad day for Trek indeed...
CBS and Paramount are well within their legal rights to defend their legal ownership of their IPs. If the Axanar crew crossed the "fair use" line, then they should have their dicks knocked into the legal dirt by those "unholy" corporate lawyers. Period. End of Story. No amount of fanatical Trekkie fanbois, drunk off of the Abrams hateraide, screeching to the heavens with torches and pitchforks, is going to change that.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films? Is it petty? Sure. No worse than the times Simon Pegg has slagged off and condescended to fans on Twitter, but people still treat him (for Godknows what reason) like the sun shines out of his TRIBBLE... I remember reading an interview with him on SuicideGirls when Shaun of the Dead was released: He came across as an egotistical jackass then, and nothing I've heard since has changed my view of him (although I will freely admit that I do enjoy the movies he has done...)
I'm not saying they broke the law by talking on a podcast. They are entitled to their opinions.
But, if I'm on the legal team for Paramount, and I'm trying to build a case that Axanar Productions willfully infringed on my IP... then, yeah, I'd be submitting stuff found in media to show intent to directly compete with the products of my client. That's where the law-breaking comes in... a judge may not care what Alec Peters or Rob Burnett think of JJ Abrams, but he/she might be very interested in comments that show an entity willfully and illegally competing with the legitimate product.
CBS and Paramount are well within their legal rights to defend their legal ownership of their IPs. If the Axanar crew crossed the "fair use" line, then they should have their dicks knocked into the legal dirt by those "unholy" corporate lawyers. Period. End of Story. No amount of fanatical Trekkie fanbois, drunk off of the Abrams hateraide, screeching to the heavens with torches and pitchforks, is going to change that.
What is legally permissible is not the same as what "should" happen. Modern US copyright law is weighted to favor IP holders (particularly corporations) over the public, which is the opposite of what it's designed to do. Copyright is a "carrot" dangled in front of creators to encourage them to create new things that are of benefit to the public, with the aim of making it freely available for public use after the copyright period is up. Copyright is a means, not an end, but these days it's just one long series of extensions. [/rant]
All I know is that I am most likely going to miss out what could have been something fantastic.. Something i have wanted to see for a very long time and CBS and paramount has failed to create.
I am glad to see CBS go after Axanar! After seeing how much of a joke Renegades was. CBS needs to stamp out these poor quality fan made movies that use their IP. Axanar had it coming though, as they didn't have permission from CBS, where others like Renegades did.
Are you seriously comparing the quality of Prelude to Axanar -- which was of distribution-quality -- with the shambles that was Renegades?? O_O If the Axanar producers didn't abide by some rules CBS stipulated, then by all means, let them face the consequences, but the quality of their production values were first rate...
While they were excellent for an indie project, they were far from "first rate" by today's standards. And any movie buff worth their salt could watch "Prelude to Axanar", and tell it was a low budget indie project. I sure as hell did.
Axanar is what some would call "direct to video" quality. That doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it's not up to modern production standards, like the current "NuTrek" films.
Perhaps I misremembered the quality of Prelude (and I admit, it was watched on a tablet, rather than a decent-sized monitor) but I thought it was as good as anything I've seen professionally released. The CGI appeared at least on a par with DS-9/Voyager, and IMHO better than Babylon 5 and Andromeda. That it's not at the same level as JJ's films, given the differences in budget and resources, I don't find surprising. But it is still significantly better than Renegades, which was truly only of amateur quality (in every aspect, from costumes through to writing) To compare Axanar to that, I felt was a tad unfair...
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films?
"Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't arrest you for saying things they don't like(as long as you aren't breaking some law, such as inciting violence). "Freedom of speech" does *NOT* mean that what you say has no effect on your personal or professional life.
I am glad to see CBS go after Axanar! After seeing how much of a joke Renegades was. CBS needs to stamp out these poor quality fan made movies that use their IP. Axanar had it coming though, as they didn't have permission from CBS, where others like Renegades did.
Are you seriously comparing the quality of Prelude to Axanar -- which was of distribution-quality -- with the shambles that was Renegades?? O_O If the Axanar producers didn't abide by some rules CBS stipulated, then by all means, let them face the consequences, but the quality of their production values were first rate...
While they were excellent for an indie project, they were far from "first rate" by today's standards. And any movie buff worth their salt could watch "Prelude to Axanar", and tell it was a low budget indie project. I sure as hell did.
Axanar is what some would call "direct to video" quality. That doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it's not up to modern production standards, like the current "NuTrek" films.
Perhaps I misremembered the quality of Prelude (and I admit, it was watched on a tablet, rather than a decent-sized monitor) but I thought it was as good as anything I've seen professionally released. The CGI appeared at least on a par with DS-9/Voyager, and IMHO better than Babylon 5 and Andromeda. That it's not at the same level as JJ's films, given the differences in budget and resources, I don't find surprising. But it is still significantly better than Renegades, which was truly only of amateur quality (in every aspect, from costumes through to writing) To compare Axanar to that, I felt was a tad unfair...
I agree that Prelude isn't on par with what I see in theaters, but it does look just as good if not better than what we have seen in previous Trek TV series.
I like this. It's one thing to disagree with creative choices...I have some of my own with him...but the viciousness I see aimed at him is way out of line.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films? Is it petty? Sure. No worse than the times Simon Pegg has slagged off and condescended to fans on Twitter, but people still treat him (for Godknows what reason) like the sun shines out of his TRIBBLE... I remember reading an interview with him on SuicideGirls when Shaun of the Dead was released: He came across as an egotistical jackass then, and nothing I've heard since has changed my view of him (although I will freely admit that I do enjoy the movies he has done...)
I'm not saying they broke the law by talking on a podcast. They are entitled to their opinions.
But, if I'm on the legal team for Paramount, and I'm trying to build a case that Axanar Productions willfully infringed on my IP... then, yeah, I'd be submitting stuff found in media to show intent to directly compete with the products of my client. That's where the law-breaking comes in... a judge may not care what Alec Peters or Rob Burnett think of JJ Abrams, but he/she might be very interested in comments that show an entity willfully and illegally competing with the legitimate product.
Does criticising another director's work, and saying that you can do as well actually equal infringement? It might constitute a challenge to the work, but the issue of 'direct competition', IMHO, comes down to if Axanar were to be commercially released in cinemas, selling tickets, and generating a profit. If it's only giving discs of the product to supporters, that's nothing more than a perk as Kickstarter-norm, and I would suspect not actually generating profit, which is where I would draw the definition for infringement. Anything else, is just trash-talk, to which I'd say 'toughen up and ignore it'. The issue is not knowing exactly what CBS/Paramount are suing for and why. As I've mentioned upthread, I suspect it is because CBS sees Axanar as showing up their planned new series and subscription service, and they are simply using the 'infringement' claim, because it's likely to be taken more seriously, and possibly easier to show, than to sue for damage to business reputation/potential come (via subscription). In which case, I believe they're going about it all wrong. If, on the other hand, they gave Axanar a list of criteria which they had to meet to fall under the permitted use (and as someone who has submitted spec scripts to DS-9 and received a copy of the writer's guidelines, I know that they are specific) and the producers ignored it and just arrogantly did their own thing, then I would say CBS/Paramount are doing the right thing in either bringing them into compliance, or shutting them down. It all depends on what the notices actually state the suits are for...
CBS and Paramount are well within their legal rights to defend their legal ownership of their IPs. If the Axanar crew crossed the "fair use" line, then they should have their dicks knocked into the legal dirt by those "unholy" corporate lawyers. Period. End of Story. No amount of fanatical Trekkie fanbois, drunk off of the Abrams hateraide, screeching to the heavens with torches and pitchforks, is going to change that.
What is legally permissible is not the same as what "should" happen. Modern US copyright law is weighted to favor IP holders (particularly corporations) over the public, which is the opposite of what it's designed to do. Copyright is a "carrot" dangled in front of creators to encourage them to create new things that are of benefit to the public, with the aim of making it freely available for public use after the copyright period is up. Copyright is a means, not an end, but these days it's just one long series of extensions. [/rant]
I am for cutting the length of copyright protection significantly and ending all extensions after the author dies. You would get whichever of these two options turns out to be longer for you:
1) The ORIGINAL author's lifetime (not the estate, not a corporation...that would not be considered a "person" in this case)
2) 50 years.
No ability for your estate or a corporation to lengthen that date under any circumstances.
But if an inappropriate action is committed during that shortened window, I would still have no problem with a copyright holder doing what they had to do to protect their property.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
All I know is that I am most likely going to miss out what could have been something fantastic.. Something i have wanted to see for a very long time and CBS and paramount has failed to create.
I'd lay equal odds of it being crappy. Not in terms of production quality or writing, but in terms of concepts.
Comments
it is fine when you make fan made films and credit the correct groups that hold the franchise, it is another to steal the ideas and call them your own and further defending such an action.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
He calls Axanar a fan film, and a love letter to the franchise... the love letter thing is fine, but the fan film thing is bulls**t. They have, numerous times, claimed that Axanar is NOT a fan film, but an "independent Star Trek film." Sure, they want to beat the stigma of fan films, but you can't have it both ways.
And, as TrekMovie points out, they have no legal leg to stand on. If they can get the injunction overturned? Then, maybe... but, yeah, it's dead, otherwise.
I wonder if they could also get hit with a class action suit from donors?
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
Possibly... but, maybe only the crowdfunding campaigns after Prelude to Axanar would be eligible... or, it could be listed in some EULA thing on Kickstarter or IndieGoGo that no refunds would be granted, and those fans are SOL.
I'm glad I didn't fund them, now, to be honest... was really thinking about dropping the $150 for the Special Edition Blu-ray. Thanks to the Axanar Podcast, and Peters and Burnett getting together with the Trek.fm people to TRIBBLE on JJ Abrams for an entire episode... I decided to hold off.
I feel better about giving Cryptic my money, at this point.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But hey that's pure speculation from what I've read. .
Other than that the person that Alec guy really needs to stay off social media until this is sorted as some of the stuff he's been saying and doing leaves a lot to be desired. .
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back to it, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Who says they didn't? Considering the main mouth behind Axanar seems very petty, self-centered, and arrogant I wouldn't put it past him to say 'no' to such an offer. Which leads to CBS unleashing the dogs of war, and getting what they wanted anyway
I don't know for sure how that would play in court either (it could be the indirect trigger even if never admitted into evidence), but it does illustrate the saying that you should never eat and relieve yourself in the same place. And no matter HOW much anyone hates it, that is exactly what it constitutes. And in a business deal as opposed to a government thing, pissing someone off/talking trash/etc. can be grounds for a business relationship to go very bad.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
While they were excellent for an indie project, they were far from "first rate" by today's standards. And any movie buff worth their salt could watch "Prelude to Axanar", and tell it was a low budget indie project. I sure as hell did.
Axanar is what some would call "direct to video" quality. That doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it's not up to modern production standards, like the current "NuTrek" films.
CBS and Paramount are well within their legal rights to defend their legal ownership of their IPs. If the Axanar crew crossed the "fair use" line, then they should have their dicks knocked into the legal dirt by those "unholy" corporate lawyers. Period. End of Story. No amount of fanatical Trekkie fanbois, drunk off of the Abrams hateraide, screeching to the heavens with torches and pitchforks, is going to change that.
I'm not saying they broke the law by talking on a podcast. They are entitled to their opinions.
But, if I'm on the legal team for Paramount, and I'm trying to build a case that Axanar Productions willfully infringed on my IP... then, yeah, I'd be submitting stuff found in media to show intent to directly compete with the products of my client. That's where the law-breaking comes in... a judge may not care what Alec Peters or Rob Burnett think of JJ Abrams, but he/she might be very interested in comments that show an entity willfully and illegally competing with the legitimate product.
"Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't arrest you for saying things they don't like(as long as you aren't breaking some law, such as inciting violence). "Freedom of speech" does *NOT* mean that what you say has no effect on your personal or professional life.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I agree that Prelude isn't on par with what I see in theaters, but it does look just as good if not better than what we have seen in previous Trek TV series.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I like this. It's one thing to disagree with creative choices...I have some of my own with him...but the viciousness I see aimed at him is way out of line.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I am for cutting the length of copyright protection significantly and ending all extensions after the author dies. You would get whichever of these two options turns out to be longer for you:
1) The ORIGINAL author's lifetime (not the estate, not a corporation...that would not be considered a "person" in this case)
2) 50 years.
No ability for your estate or a corporation to lengthen that date under any circumstances.
But if an inappropriate action is committed during that shortened window, I would still have no problem with a copyright holder doing what they had to do to protect their property.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
My character Tsin'xing