Um... how is that circular logic? Fact is, CBS has never sued any other Fan film project. That is not conjecture. They HAVE chosen to sue Peters. We don't have the precise specifics, but we know enough for a reasonably accurate guess as to why.
Is it the quantity of funds raised? Probably not since there have been others that raised large sums.
Is it the quality of the work? They waited quite a long time after Prelude was released to act, so this is unlikely.
Is it the way Peters used the funds? This seems likely as the suit came shortly after Peters released a document that showed how much of the funds he'd used for things other than the film.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
I do have to ask though, Star Trek is ultimately a franchise which exists solely to make money, why were no regulations put in place by the rights holders laying out what they considered acceptable.
They presumably had very extensive cost-benefit analyses and decided that in the absence of anybody actually trying to make money off an unlicensed IP, they weren't going to mess with the fandom, because the fanworks built buzz for the franchise as a whole. That's why video game companies typically don't mess with Let's Play series and walkthrough videos even though they usually don't meet fair use standards: it's good for business.
Yeah, the lawsuit got started shortly after Peters published his statement of what funds were used for.
Said statement showed that he had paid himself a "modest" salary that was enough for him to live off of donations alone. Even if the project wasn't making a profit overall... which is impossible to determine as it didn't go far enough along to have countable production costs. Peters personally profited off of it. Which is where it's different from Renegades and Star Trek Continues. They'd actually raised quite a lot of money, but you could see where the money went, and it didn't go into the pockets of the producers.
But that is okay for a non-profit company. Non-Profit companies like the Red Cross also pay its members a salary, and they may be able to live from that (and even well).
What would not be okay is if the Red Cross was suddenly selling Star Trek T-Shirts without a legal agreement with CBS or Paramount. Even if they'd spend all that money to save lives.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I do have to ask though, Star Trek is ultimately a franchise which exists solely to make money, why were no regulations put in place by the rights holders laying out what they considered acceptable.
They presumably had very extensive cost-benefit analyses and decided that in the absence of anybody actually trying to make money off an unlicensed IP, they weren't going to mess with the fandom, because the fanworks built buzz for the franchise as a whole. That's why video game companies typically don't mess with Let's Play series and walkthrough videos even though they usually don't meet fair use standards: it's good for business.
Yeah, the lawsuit got started shortly after Peters published his statement of what funds were used for.
Said statement showed that he had paid himself a "modest" salary that was enough for him to live off of donations alone. Even if the project wasn't making a profit overall... which is impossible to determine as it didn't go far enough along to have countable production costs. Peters personally profited off of it. Which is where it's different from Renegades and Star Trek Continues. They'd actually raised quite a lot of money, but you could see where the money went, and it didn't go into the pockets of the producers.
But that is okay for a non-profit company. Non-Profit companies like the Red Cross also pay its members a salary, and they may be able to live from that (and even well).
What would not be okay is if the Red Cross was suddenly selling Star Trek T-Shirts without a legal agreement with CBS or Paramount. Even if they'd spend all that money to save lives.
Ah, BUT the status of the company as for/non-profit is irrelevant. Copyright law doesn't distinguish in that regard. The important thing is that it is a company using it without permission in the first place. That and Peters wasn't paying most of the people who would count as "employees" anyways, mostly just himself.
Red Cross can be a proper full-time job. By definition, a "fan-film" is NOT.
Looking back at other fanfilm projects, NONE of them attracted the attention of CBS/Paramount. Of Gods and Men, Renegades, Continues... none of them attracted their attention. Axanar did. So you can't say that Axanar didn't do something wrong. If the IP holders were fine with the others, why slam Axanar unless they broke some rule or law?
Circular logic is circular. The tail wags the dog. It must be true because I read it on the internet.
In the USA we have a presumption of innocence, and guilt must be proven. You are doing it backwards. Your argument is that I should presume guilt based on the fact of the accusation. I hope you never find yourself facing a jury of your peers, because the fact that you get accused of a crime proves you committed it, right?
Um... how is that circular logic? Fact is, CBS has never sued any other Fan film project. That is not conjecture. They HAVE chosen to sue Peters. We don't have the precise specifics, but we know enough for a reasonably accurate guess as to why.
Is it the quantity of funds raised? Probably not since there have been others that raised large sums.
Is it the quality of the work? They waited quite a long time after Prelude was released to act, so this is unlikely.
Is it the way Peters used the funds? This seems likely as the suit came shortly after Peters released a document that showed how much of the funds he'd used for things other than the film.
Your point is pure conjecture and is not backed by the facts. In order for your thesis to be correct you must assume CBS lied when they posted guidelines for Trek fanfic. This can be discovered by a simple Google search. Crowdfunding allows huge budgets, and advances in technology allow neophytes to create near-studio-quality productions. This is why CBS acted, according to CBS. When Axanar became the first Trek fanflick whose crowdfunding campaign topped $1 million in donations CBS acted.
Again, factually incorrect. Axanar is an S corp registered in California, and is seeking non-profit status. To qualify for Federal tax exemption they must first observe all not-for-profit rules and regulations.
Looking back at other fanfilm projects, NONE of them attracted the attention of CBS/Paramount. Of Gods and Men, Renegades, Continues... none of them attracted their attention. Axanar did. So you can't say that Axanar didn't do something wrong. If the IP holders were fine with the others, why slam Axanar unless they broke some rule or law?
Circular logic is circular. The tail wags the dog. It must be true because I read it on the internet.
In the USA we have a presumption of innocence, and guilt must be proven. You are doing it backwards. Your argument is that I should presume guilt based on the fact of the accusation. I hope you never find yourself facing a jury of your peers, because the fact that you get accused of a crime proves you committed it, right?
Um... how is that circular logic? Fact is, CBS has never sued any other Fan film project. That is not conjecture. They HAVE chosen to sue Peters. We don't have the precise specifics, but we know enough for a reasonably accurate guess as to why.
Is it the quantity of funds raised? Probably not since there have been others that raised large sums.
Is it the quality of the work? They waited quite a long time after Prelude was released to act, so this is unlikely.
Is it the way Peters used the funds? This seems likely as the suit came shortly after Peters released a document that showed how much of the funds he'd used for things other than the film.
Your point is pure conjecture and is not backed by the facts. In order for your thesis to be correct you must assume CBS lied when they posted guidelines for Trek fanfic. This can be discovered by a simple Google search. Crowdfunding allows huge budgets, and advances in technology allow neophytes to create near-studio-quality productions. This is why CBS acted, according to CBS. When Axanar became the first Trek fanflick whose crowdfunding campaign topped $1 million in donations CBS acted.
Oh really? you mean the guidelines they posted AFTER the lawsuit was filed?
Also:
"They’re not intended to end fan films, but with the explosion of crowdfunding, abuses have very definitely crept into the process," Citters said.
Looking back at other fanfilm projects, NONE of them attracted the attention of CBS/Paramount. Of Gods and Men, Renegades, Continues... none of them attracted their attention. Axanar did. So you can't say that Axanar didn't do something wrong. If the IP holders were fine with the others, why slam Axanar unless they broke some rule or law?
Circular logic is circular. The tail wags the dog. It must be true because I read it on the internet.
In the USA we have a presumption of innocence, and guilt must be proven. You are doing it backwards. Your argument is that I should presume guilt based on the fact of the accusation. I hope you never find yourself facing a jury of your peers, because the fact that you get accused of a crime proves you committed it, right?
Um... how is that circular logic? Fact is, CBS has never sued any other Fan film project. That is not conjecture. They HAVE chosen to sue Peters. We don't have the precise specifics, but we know enough for a reasonably accurate guess as to why.
Is it the quantity of funds raised? Probably not since there have been others that raised large sums.
Is it the quality of the work? They waited quite a long time after Prelude was released to act, so this is unlikely.
Is it the way Peters used the funds? This seems likely as the suit came shortly after Peters released a document that showed how much of the funds he'd used for things other than the film.
Your point is pure conjecture and is not backed by the facts. In order for your thesis to be correct you must assume CBS lied when they posted guidelines for Trek fanfic. This can be discovered by a simple Google search. Crowdfunding allows huge budgets, and advances in technology allow neophytes to create near-studio-quality productions. This is why CBS acted, according to CBS. When Axanar became the first Trek fanflick whose crowdfunding campaign topped $1 million in donations CBS acted.
Oh really? you mean the guidelines they posted AFTER the lawsuit was filed?
Not to mention, after Peters repeatedly said that it was all CBS' fault for not providing any guidance into what was allowed and what wasn't.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
CBS does not have to post ANY rules. Copyright law says that you cannot profit off someone else's intellectual property.
Most fan films are done for fun and do not ask for any money from the public in order to make them. The creators of the films use their own money and don't get any compensation, nor should they.
However sometime companies will allow small amounts of revenue to be made. That is why an artist can charge you to draw a picture of your favorite hero at a comic con. Technically the artist is breaking copyright law but companies turn a blind eye to it because it is happening on a small scale and only at comic cons. If an Artist were to start selling those same pieces online and was making lots of money without getting permission, the copyright holders would come after them for sure.
Pulling in a million plus on your fan film is a good reason for the rights holder to come after you and they are 100% in the right to do so.
Dr. Miranda Jones: I understand, Mr. Spock. The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.
Mr. Spock: And the ways our differences combine, to create meaning and beauty.
I have never claimed CBS lacked the right to try to stop the production of Axanar.
I have pointed out that Axanar has a case for being allowed to make the movie. Whether it is a winning case or not remains to be seen.
My objection is to the villification of a man, including defamatory statements attributing criminal motives where no evidence exists to support such statements. I don't know Mr. Peters, so I can't say if he's a good man or not. Neither do those on this forum who have openly posted accusations of criminal intent and conduct in the absence of evidence to support such accusations. The best those posters could come up with is, he was accused of something, so those accusations must be true. Since those accusations are true, the man must also have done these other things too, and yes, someone else with no knowledge of the case made that same accusation, so that proves it is true too.
Character assassination does not prove the person is evil, but it can ruin a person's life. Mr. Peters may not be innocent, but everyone deserves fair treatment. Accusing someone of criminal intent in the absence of evidence is unfair. It is also libel, which is illegal. Who is the real criminal here?
I have never claimed CBS lacked the right to try to stop the production of Axanar.
I have pointed out that Axanar has a case for being allowed to make the movie. Whether it is a winning case or not remains to be seen.
My objection is to the villification of a man, including defamatory statements attributing criminal motives where no evidence exists to support such statements. I don't know Mr. Peters, so I can't say if he's a good man or not. [uwNeither do those on this forum[/u] who have openly posted accusations of criminal intent and conduct in the absence of evidence to support such accusations. The best those posters could come up with is, he was accused of something, so those accusations must be true. Since those accusations are true, the man must also have done these other things too, and yes, someone else with no knowledge of the case made that same accusation, so that proves it is true too.
Character assassination does not prove the person is evil, but it can ruin a person's life. Mr. Peters may not be innocent, but everyone deserves fair treatment. Accusing someone of criminal intent in the absence of evidence is unfair. It is also libel, which is illegal. Who is the real criminal here?
How do you know who knows whom? For all you know, every person who's posted on this topic could not only be friends with or follow Alec Peters on FB, but anyone of us might even know him personally. (To be honest, I doubt it, but it's not impossible...)
From what I have seen of Alec Peters on social media, some of the things he says politically, I am inclined to agree with. On a personal level, he comes across as egotistical, narcisistic and borderline delusional (if he actually believes the clear lies he has told (such as trying to claim that the Vulcan script on character robes was Chinese, for example...) and not someone I would want to be friends with or know personally. Probably a very useful person to be friends with, but not worth it, given how he invariably then treats others (if their claims about his behaviour are to be believed (and personally I consider them believable, because I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to risk slandering someone as litigious)
Also, there's the matter of how many people have publically said that, especially the people who helped make Prelude.
Precisely. That many people with direct experience of him, all reporting various 'different but similar' incidents and behaviours, is too much of a pattern to consider coincidental or a deliberate smear campaign, but likely each person's truth of their experiences with him...
It does not matter how many people said what. Hearsay is not proof, and repeating it phrased in such a way that implies criminal intent or activity in the absence of evidence is Defamation of Character, or what I have called character assassination in this topic, and it is both morally wrong and illegal.
Here is the test for you to know if you are participating in echo-chamber libel:
Assume you are the person about whom the statements are made. Are they fair and fact-based? If the statements are based in supposition, assumption, and innuendo, ("Well, it must be so or people I don't know wouldn't say so,") they are not fair.
The reason you should always assume innocence until guilt is proven is that one day you may personally find out how quickly people jump on a hater bandwagon without critically examining the accusations. When that time comes you will feel very alone. I hope, if that ever happens to you, that you have someone like me who is willing to stand up for you. Either way, good luck repairing your reputation. It's about as easy to do as unscrambling an egg.
Don't shoot it unless you are going to eat it. You can't un-shoot it.
It does not matter how many people said what. Hearsay is not proof, and repeating it phrased in such a way that implies criminal intent or activity in the absence of evidence is Defamation of Character, or what I have called character assassination in this topic, and it is both morally wrong and illegal.
Here is the test for you to know if you are participating in echo-chamber libel:
Assume you are the person about whom the statements are made. Are they fair and fact-based? If the statements are based in supposition, assumption, and innuendo, ("Well, it must be so or people I don't know wouldn't say so,") they are not fair.
The reason you should always assume innocence until guilt is proven is that one day you may personally find out how quickly people jump on a hater bandwagon without critically examining the accusations. When that time comes you will feel very alone. I hope, if that ever happens to you, that you have someone like me who is willing to stand up for you. Either way, good luck repairing your reputation. It's about as easy to do as unscrambling an egg.
Don't shoot it unless you are going to eat it. You can't un-shoot it.
Hearsay is not proof, but when so many people related to the Axanar project have had issues with Mr Peters, I find it more plausible than not, that they are telling the truth. Also, what you are high-handedly calling Defamation of Character, etc, as I believe I've said to you before: If a statement about someone is true, it is neither libellous nor illegal.
If what these people are saying is untrue, let Alec Peters sue them, he certainly has no issue 'releasing the hounds' in a legal sense, even when he is in the wrong (unlicensed use of copyright, presenting false evidence to a judge) I understand why he made the countersuit, both legally and psychologically speaking: If he didn't make the suit now, then I understand that time limits could eventually run out, making him incapable of ever suing them for wrongful suit. The small flaw in that, is that it is not a wrongful suit. CBS/Paramount have every right to sue him for unlicensed use of their IP. On a psychological level, he did so because to do otherwise would be to admit his own wrong-doings. My excuse of a brother in law is trying every underhanded and dirty trick in the book against his former partner, and telling the most vile and transparently false lies about her. The problem there, is that he is so narcissistic, such a pathological liar, and so out of touch with reality, that he actually believes the nonsense he is spouting, and somehow thinks that if he keeps saying enough, a judge will believe him. Trust me, I know how people with this mindset operate. Nothing will ever convince Alec Peters (or my brother in law) that they are in the wrong, and even if a judge rules against them, rather than acknowledge their wrongdoing, they will just call it an unfair judgement, and then try and appeal against it...
It does not matter how many people said what. Hearsay is not proof, and repeating it phrased in such a way that implies criminal intent or activity in the absence of evidence is Defamation of Character, or what I have called character assassination in this topic, and it is both morally wrong and illegal.
Actually... I'm simply expressing my opinion of the case.
Also, assuming innocence is done BEFORE evidence is presented. Evidence HAS been presented. Thus it is past time to move on to the examining evidence stage.
Very well, then. What evidence supports the belief posted in these forums that Mr. Peters never intended to make a movie, and that instead his intent all along was to scam donors for personal profit?
He's been raising funds over a year, and didn't even have a rough draft of the script ready when the judge asked to see it.
Also his financial statements, that he published personally, show that he spent more on Ares Studio than the film itself. He also claimed that he planned to use it as a for-profit studio making non-fan films.
Another oddity is that the only piece of Axanar to actually get produced(the Vulcan scene) apparently used a CGI landscape.
He's been raising funds over a year, and didn't even have a rough draft of the script ready when the judge asked to see it.
Also his financial statements, that he published personally, show that he spent more on Ares Studio than the film itself. He also claimed that he planned to use it as a for-profit studio making non-fan films.
Another oddity is that the only piece of Axanar to actually get produced(the Vulcan scene) apparently used a CGI landscape.
Please link me to a news article explaining this lack of script issue. George Takei claimed to have read it during the original Kickstarter campaign. Heck, there are even bloggers claiming they have copies of it, and some will even offer their views on its literary merits. Judges tend to not be stupid, so any judge smart enough to enter letters into a Bing bar can find a copy. I seriously doubt Mr. Peters' lawyers advised him to commit contempt of court, or would continue to represent him pro bono after he did so.
Part of the defense position is that there is as yet no movie, which makes claims of infringement premature. That is to say that until the movie is actually made CBS can't prove that Axanar is not a transformative work, nor can they show which elements of the movie actually infringe on the Trek IP. However, having looked for it several times since the 'no script' claim was made, I cannot find any reference to it.
Prelude To Axanar was a proof of capability production, intended to demonstrate what the people involved could actually do. In other words, it was a fundraiser. In the crowdfunding campaign, once it was apparent that they had exceeded their original goal three times over, Mr. Peters announced the construction of a studio and what would be done with it. He also guaranteed a three year lease for the warehouse they could convert into a sound stage on his own personal credit.
This was not underhanded and behind the scenes, but openly posted for anyone to read on the Axanar website. Additionally, although the Kickstarter host does not require fund recipients to disclose anything at all about how the money is used, Mr. Peters treated his donors as if they were investors and openly posted what he was doing with their money.
As the Vulcan Scene was filmed prior to completion of the studio, and filmed in a parking lot in California, its use of CGI scenery is perfectly understandable. I fail to see how this information reveals anything but that the Axanar team was anxious to get the ball rolling, (plus, to have a clip to show at conventions to keep the fans interested in the project.)
The first motion to dismiss asserted that Axanar didn't have a completed script, and therefore couldn't be determined to be fair use or not.
This was then rejected, since Axanar itself has made a few posts about a "locked script" for Axanar.
As to the whole "premature due to movie not yet made" thing; the plaintiffs lump together Prelude to Axanar and the movie itself.
Yeah, I guess the "no script" thing is a case where Peters has contradicted himself badly enough that you know that at least one of the statements is a lie, but it's hard to be sure which one. Either way it reflects poorly on his character.
This was not underhanded and behind the scenes, but openly posted for anyone to read on the Axanar website. Additionally, although the Kickstarter host does not require fund recipients to disclose anything at all about how the money is used, Mr. Peters treated his donors as if they were investors and openly posted what he was doing with their money.
Except that his "investors", as you put it, paid him to do something other than what he actually did.
As the Vulcan Scene was filmed prior to completion of the studio, and filmed in a parking lot in California, its use of CGI scenery is perfectly understandable. I fail to see how this information reveals anything but that the Axanar team was anxious to get the ball rolling, (plus, to have a clip to show at conventions to keep the fans interested in the project.)
1: that's part speculation. 2: why did they stop? They demonstrated that they had the resources to get started with production but did not do so. 2b: several of the people who made Prelude quit the main Axanar project after alleging that Peters was intentionally delaying production.
Very well, then. What evidence supports the belief posted in these forums that Mr. Peters never intended to make a movie, and that instead his intent all along was to scam donors for personal profit?
He's been raising funds over a year, and didn't even have a rough draft of the script ready when the judge asked to see it.
Also his financial statements, that he published personally, show that he spent more on Ares Studio than the film itself. He also claimed that he planned to use it as a for-profit studio making non-fan films.
Another oddity is that the only piece of Axanar to actually get produced(the Vulcan scene) apparently used a CGI landscape.
Please link me to a news article explaining this lack of script issue. George Takei claimed to have read it during the original Kickstarter campaign. Heck, there are even bloggers claiming they have copies of it, and some will even offer their views on its literary merits. Judges tend to not be stupid, so any judge smart enough to enter letters into a Bing bar can find a copy. I seriously doubt Mr. Peters' lawyers advised him to commit contempt of court, or would continue to represent him pro bono after he did so.
Part of the defense position is that there is as yet no movie, which makes claims of infringement premature. That is to say that until the movie is actually made CBS can't prove that Axanar is not a transformative work, nor can they show which elements of the movie actually infringe on the Trek IP. However, having looked for it several times since the 'no script' claim was made, I cannot find any reference to it.
Prelude To Axanar was a proof of capability production, intended to demonstrate what the people involved could actually do. In other words, it was a fundraiser. In the crowdfunding campaign, once it was apparent that they had exceeded their original goal three times over, Mr. Peters announced the construction of a studio and what would be done with it. He also guaranteed a three year lease for the warehouse they could convert into a sound stage on his own personal credit.
This was not underhanded and behind the scenes, but openly posted for anyone to read on the Axanar website. Additionally, although the Kickstarter host does not require fund recipients to disclose anything at all about how the money is used, Mr. Peters treated his donors as if they were investors and openly posted what he was doing with their money.
As the Vulcan Scene was filmed prior to completion of the studio, and filmed in a parking lot in California, its use of CGI scenery is perfectly understandable. I fail to see how this information reveals anything but that the Axanar team was anxious to get the ball rolling, (plus, to have a clip to show at conventions to keep the fans interested in the project.)
He tried to make the claim that the writing on Soval's robes was Chinese, not Vulcan. Therefore, he knowingly submitted false testimonial, thus could be viewed as being in contempt of court.
While Technically Accurate, this is a moot point. His intention was to make Star Trek:Axanar. He used IP of CBS/Paramount without their permission in the Prelude, is a violation in itself, and if as claimed, he really did aim to make the film, not just scam money to get a film studio, then he had definite intent to use IP without their permission for that too.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt about not being a scammer for just a moment, his intent to use IP which was not his, without permission, is actionable. I'm not sure about in America, but if someone in the UK was to walk down the street with a Bowie knife strapped to their hip, they would be charged with 'possessing an Offensive Weapon with intent' (intent being, the only reason for carrying a Bowie knife in a highstreet, is to use it on someone, so it is being carried 'with the intent' to cause harm) I don't consider it unreasonable to believe that America would have similar statutes, such as conspiracy and solicitation, which are arrestable offences, that deal with criminal acts which a party is presumed to have been intending to carry out, rather than actual committed crimes. CBS/Paramount can reasonably state that without their intervention, he would have produced Star Trek: Axanar, thus using their IP without permission.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,669Community Moderator
And then... there's the Axanar Coffee. Essentially merchandising Axanar without permission from CBS. While they claim that the proceeds go to support Axanar... that is still merchandising an unlicensed product.
While I don't know exactly where that falls, I've never heard of a fan project selling coffee directly related to the project to help get funding.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
people keep bringing up this coffee...does anyone have pictures of what the bag looks like?
as for civilians carrying weapons, you can do so in the US provided you have a license - that's for guns, though, and only up to a certain size (or caliber, not sure which), so i don't know if they also have licenses that cover knives
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
people keep bringing up this coffee...does anyone have pictures of what the bag looks like?
as for civilians carrying weapons, you can do so in the US provided you have a license - that's for guns, though, and only up to a certain size (or caliber, not sure which), so i don't know if they also have licenses that cover knives
I'm sure I saw a picture of one last year... try google?
[Edit to add] Not a picture, but a clip...
While it might not feature the words 'Star Trek' on the packaging, it does feature i) the image of Richard Hatch dressed as a Klingon (an IP element7) and ii) replaces one of the 'a's with the stylized Starfleet Command star. That is a symbol which is i) immediately recognizable, as opposed to a typical five-point star, and ii) I would hazard a guess is a symbol protected as CBS/Paramount IP...
In America, if someone carries a Bowie knife, and uses it on someone, even in self-defence, they get charged with murder, as the law holds that someone does not need to carry a blade of that size unless undertaking bushcraft, or out to kill someone The point is, the law (both American and English) can charge people before they commit the crime, it the intent to commit it is there... Alec Peters breached CBS/Paramount with the coffee and prelude, and intended* to breach it with the Axanar film.
* Still giving the benefit that he actually intended to make the film, and not just use it as a lure to get people to pay in money to get himself a film studio, and get himself and his lady some nice convention trips...
The first motion to dismiss asserted that Axanar didn't have a completed script, and therefore couldn't be determined to be fair use or not.
This was then rejected, since Axanar itself has made a few posts about a "locked script" for Axanar.
As to the whole "premature due to movie not yet made" thing; the plaintiffs lump together Prelude to Axanar and the movie itself.
The first motion to dismiss claimed there was no movie. I am not aware of any mention of a script.
Erin Ranahan, the lead lawyer of the Axanar defense team, is the one who claimed the writing on the Vulcan robes is Chinese. I don't have the video so I can't say. I'll take your word that those are actual Vulcan characters from actual Vulcan Language texts copyrighted by CBS. In any case, I have not been able to discover where those words were attributed to Mr. Peters, but as I said before, judges aren't stupid and lawyers know they risk summary judgement against for things like contempt of court.
As for Axanar Coffee, I did see a bag in a picture posted on the internet. So? Mr. Peters claims it was a fundraiser. Who but a handfull of Trek geeks knew Axanar was a reference to Trek? As a band member I walked the local neighborhood hocking everything from chocolate bars to decorative sponges.
None of this demonstrates any evidence of Mr. Peters' intent to commit fraud. As for his use of the IP owned by CBS/Paramount, well, that was well known from the outset by everyone who either was involved in the project or donated to it.
The first motion to dismiss asserted that Axanar didn't have a completed script, and therefore couldn't be determined to be fair use or not.
This was then rejected, since Axanar itself has made a few posts about a "locked script" for Axanar.
As to the whole "premature due to movie not yet made" thing; the plaintiffs lump together Prelude to Axanar and the movie itself.
The first motion to dismiss claimed there was no movie. I am not aware of any mention of a script.
Erin Ranahan, the lead lawyer of the Axanar defense team, is the one who claimed the writing on the Vulcan robes is Chinese. I don't have the video so I can't say. I'll take your word that those are actual Vulcan characters from actual Vulcan Language texts copyrighted by CBS. In any case, I have not been able to discover where those words were attributed to Mr. Peters, but as I said before, judges aren't stupid and lawyers know they risk summary judgement against for things like contempt of court.
As for Axanar Coffee, I did see a bag in a picture posted on the internet. So? Mr. Peters claims it was a fundraiser. Who but a handfull of Trek geeks knew Axanar was a reference to Trek? As a band member I walked the local neighborhood hocking everything from chocolate bars to decorative sponges.
None of this demonstrates any evidence of Mr. Peters' intent to commit fraud. As for his use of the IP owned by CBS/Paramount, well, that was well known from the outset by everyone who either was involved in the project or donated to it.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
A lawyer will not make statements without their client's approval, meaning for her to say it is Chinese, Alec Peters (or someone speaking on his behalf) would have had to have told her that it was Chinese.
The Vulcan language, like the Klingon language, exists within the protected framework of the Star Trek IP
The level of recognition of the symbol is irrelevant, it is a part of a protected IP! It doesn't matter if anyone recognizes it, its use is a breach. Stop being pedantic.
Again, lack of progress on the project is a good indicator. Also, as with recognition, it doesn't matter if everyone involved or who donated knew it was CBS/Paramount IP! HE WAS USING THE IP WITHOUT THE IP OWNER'S PERMISSION!!! How difficult for you to understand is that? How many times must we repeat ourselves before it sinks in/you decide to accept it?
Here's the first page of Google Images results for "axanar coffee". Apparently there were at least three brews, and the image on "Decaf-6" is rather blatantly a Klingon cruiser, identifiable by anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Star Trek. (There's also an amusing image that can be used for the sigline of anyone here unfortunate enough to have given to the Kickstarter campaign...)
people keep bringing up this coffee...does anyone have pictures of what the bag looks like?
as for civilians carrying weapons, you can do so in the US provided you have a license - that's for guns, though, and only up to a certain size (or caliber, not sure which), so i don't know if they also have licenses that cover knives
Apaprently I can't link Axamonitor properly, but they have a blog with pics of all the merch. Let's see if I can link the pics.... nope...
"Andorian Ice"
Andorian is obvious...
"House of Kharn"
The background pic is obviously Qo'nos as seen in TNG. Legally it doesn't matter if it's a screencap or original art that imitates it.
"Decaf-6"
The name is a reference to the D-6 model of Klingon cruiser, also it has a picture of one.
"Izarian Gold"
Technically it's a new ship design, but it's obviously derivative. Also... Garth of Izar...
"Ramirez"
No idea... but it was discontinued.
Also, it's technically not illegal to carry knives in the US. It's illegal to bring them into certain public buildings, but that's a special thing. Carrying it is not considered intent since it's not officially considered a "weapon" any more than a kitchen knife is. Now, if you start talking about how you're planning to stab someone.... THAT is intent. It's also not illegal to carry a gun if you have the right licenses. Most people don't, but it IS legal to wear a pistol(unless visiting govt buildings).
Also, it's technically not illegal to carry knives in the US. It's illegal to bring them into certain public buildings, but that's a special thing. Carrying it is not considered intent since it's not officially considered a "weapon" any more than a kitchen knife is. Now, if you start talking about how you're planning to stab someone.... THAT is intent. It's also not illegal to carry a gun if you have the right licenses. Most people don't, but it IS legal to wear a pistol(unless visiting govt buildings).
Knives below a certain size I believe, and I think a switchblade is considered a weapon. But something like my leatherman multitool or a swiss army knife is acceptable I believe.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
people keep bringing up this coffee...does anyone have pictures of what the bag looks like?
as for civilians carrying weapons, you can do so in the US provided you have a license - that's for guns, though, and only up to a certain size (or caliber, not sure which), so i don't know if they also have licenses that cover knives
Apaprently I can't link Axamonitor properly, but they have a blog with pics of all the merch. Let's see if I can link the pics.... nope...
"Andorian Ice"
Andorian is obvious...
"House of Kharn"
The background pic is obviously Qo'nos as seen in TNG. Legally it doesn't matter if it's a screencap or original art that imitates it.
"Decaf-6"
The name is a reference to the D-6 model of Klingon cruiser, also it has a picture of one.
"Izarian Gold"
Technically it's a new ship design, but it's obviously derivative. Also... Garth of Izar...
"Ramirez"
No idea... but it was discontinued.
Also, it's technically not illegal to carry knives in the US. It's illegal to bring them into certain public buildings, but that's a special thing. Carrying it is not considered intent since it's not officially considered a "weapon" any more than a kitchen knife is. Now, if you start talking about how you're planning to stab someone.... THAT is intent. It's also not illegal to carry a gun if you have the right licenses. Most people don't, but it IS legal to wear a pistol(unless visiting govt buildings).
I'd been miss-informed... Looking into it, it would appear that Bowie knives only come under prohibition for concealed carry, I was sure that there was an element of intent attatched to their public carry... Bowie knives aside, America does have the model penal code, which acknowledges criminal intent, under catagories of both knowingly, and negligently... In that regard, Alec Peters either knew, or should have known, that the coffee (and the rest of the Axanar Works) was breaching CBS/Paramount'/ IP...
Comments
THANK YOU!
I'm American. Pacific Northwest. I know how our legal system works. Don't assume anything about me please.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
What would not be okay is if the Red Cross was suddenly selling Star Trek T-Shirts without a legal agreement with CBS or Paramount. Even if they'd spend all that money to save lives.
Also, as of this article (http://www.signalscv.com/blog/2016/09/29/industry-studios-aims-provide-affordable-space-smaller-productions/) Industry Studios (formerly Ares/Valkyrie Studios) is completley for-profit.
Red Cross can be a proper full-time job. By definition, a "fan-film" is NOT.
My character Tsin'xing
Your point is pure conjecture and is not backed by the facts. In order for your thesis to be correct you must assume CBS lied when they posted guidelines for Trek fanfic. This can be discovered by a simple Google search. Crowdfunding allows huge budgets, and advances in technology allow neophytes to create near-studio-quality productions. This is why CBS acted, according to CBS. When Axanar became the first Trek fanflick whose crowdfunding campaign topped $1 million in donations CBS acted.
Again, factually incorrect. Axanar is an S corp registered in California, and is seeking non-profit status. To qualify for Federal tax exemption they must first observe all not-for-profit rules and regulations.
Also:
My character Tsin'xing
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Most fan films are done for fun and do not ask for any money from the public in order to make them. The creators of the films use their own money and don't get any compensation, nor should they.
However sometime companies will allow small amounts of revenue to be made. That is why an artist can charge you to draw a picture of your favorite hero at a comic con. Technically the artist is breaking copyright law but companies turn a blind eye to it because it is happening on a small scale and only at comic cons. If an Artist were to start selling those same pieces online and was making lots of money without getting permission, the copyright holders would come after them for sure.
Pulling in a million plus on your fan film is a good reason for the rights holder to come after you and they are 100% in the right to do so.
Mr. Spock: And the ways our differences combine, to create meaning and beauty.
-Star Trek: Is There in Truth No Beauty? (1968)
I have never claimed CBS lacked the right to try to stop the production of Axanar.
I have pointed out that Axanar has a case for being allowed to make the movie. Whether it is a winning case or not remains to be seen.
My objection is to the villification of a man, including defamatory statements attributing criminal motives where no evidence exists to support such statements. I don't know Mr. Peters, so I can't say if he's a good man or not. Neither do those on this forum who have openly posted accusations of criminal intent and conduct in the absence of evidence to support such accusations. The best those posters could come up with is, he was accused of something, so those accusations must be true. Since those accusations are true, the man must also have done these other things too, and yes, someone else with no knowledge of the case made that same accusation, so that proves it is true too.
Character assassination does not prove the person is evil, but it can ruin a person's life. Mr. Peters may not be innocent, but everyone deserves fair treatment. Accusing someone of criminal intent in the absence of evidence is unfair. It is also libel, which is illegal. Who is the real criminal here?
From what I have seen of Alec Peters on social media, some of the things he says politically, I am inclined to agree with. On a personal level, he comes across as egotistical, narcisistic and borderline delusional (if he actually believes the clear lies he has told (such as trying to claim that the Vulcan script on character robes was Chinese, for example...) and not someone I would want to be friends with or know personally. Probably a very useful person to be friends with, but not worth it, given how he invariably then treats others (if their claims about his behaviour are to be believed (and personally I consider them believable, because I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to risk slandering someone as litigious)
My character Tsin'xing
Here is the test for you to know if you are participating in echo-chamber libel:
Assume you are the person about whom the statements are made. Are they fair and fact-based? If the statements are based in supposition, assumption, and innuendo, ("Well, it must be so or people I don't know wouldn't say so,") they are not fair.
The reason you should always assume innocence until guilt is proven is that one day you may personally find out how quickly people jump on a hater bandwagon without critically examining the accusations. When that time comes you will feel very alone. I hope, if that ever happens to you, that you have someone like me who is willing to stand up for you. Either way, good luck repairing your reputation. It's about as easy to do as unscrambling an egg.
Don't shoot it unless you are going to eat it. You can't un-shoot it.
If what these people are saying is untrue, let Alec Peters sue them, he certainly has no issue 'releasing the hounds' in a legal sense, even when he is in the wrong (unlicensed use of copyright, presenting false evidence to a judge) I understand why he made the countersuit, both legally and psychologically speaking: If he didn't make the suit now, then I understand that time limits could eventually run out, making him incapable of ever suing them for wrongful suit. The small flaw in that, is that it is not a wrongful suit. CBS/Paramount have every right to sue him for unlicensed use of their IP. On a psychological level, he did so because to do otherwise would be to admit his own wrong-doings. My excuse of a brother in law is trying every underhanded and dirty trick in the book against his former partner, and telling the most vile and transparently false lies about her. The problem there, is that he is so narcissistic, such a pathological liar, and so out of touch with reality, that he actually believes the nonsense he is spouting, and somehow thinks that if he keeps saying enough, a judge will believe him. Trust me, I know how people with this mindset operate. Nothing will ever convince Alec Peters (or my brother in law) that they are in the wrong, and even if a judge rules against them, rather than acknowledge their wrongdoing, they will just call it an unfair judgement, and then try and appeal against it...
Also, assuming innocence is done BEFORE evidence is presented. Evidence HAS been presented. Thus it is past time to move on to the examining evidence stage.
My character Tsin'xing
Also his financial statements, that he published personally, show that he spent more on Ares Studio than the film itself. He also claimed that he planned to use it as a for-profit studio making non-fan films.
Another oddity is that the only piece of Axanar to actually get produced(the Vulcan scene) apparently used a CGI landscape.
My character Tsin'xing
Please link me to a news article explaining this lack of script issue. George Takei claimed to have read it during the original Kickstarter campaign. Heck, there are even bloggers claiming they have copies of it, and some will even offer their views on its literary merits. Judges tend to not be stupid, so any judge smart enough to enter letters into a Bing bar can find a copy. I seriously doubt Mr. Peters' lawyers advised him to commit contempt of court, or would continue to represent him pro bono after he did so.
Part of the defense position is that there is as yet no movie, which makes claims of infringement premature. That is to say that until the movie is actually made CBS can't prove that Axanar is not a transformative work, nor can they show which elements of the movie actually infringe on the Trek IP. However, having looked for it several times since the 'no script' claim was made, I cannot find any reference to it.
Prelude To Axanar was a proof of capability production, intended to demonstrate what the people involved could actually do. In other words, it was a fundraiser. In the crowdfunding campaign, once it was apparent that they had exceeded their original goal three times over, Mr. Peters announced the construction of a studio and what would be done with it. He also guaranteed a three year lease for the warehouse they could convert into a sound stage on his own personal credit.
This was not underhanded and behind the scenes, but openly posted for anyone to read on the Axanar website. Additionally, although the Kickstarter host does not require fund recipients to disclose anything at all about how the money is used, Mr. Peters treated his donors as if they were investors and openly posted what he was doing with their money.
As the Vulcan Scene was filmed prior to completion of the studio, and filmed in a parking lot in California, its use of CGI scenery is perfectly understandable. I fail to see how this information reveals anything but that the Axanar team was anxious to get the ball rolling, (plus, to have a clip to show at conventions to keep the fans interested in the project.)
This was then rejected, since Axanar itself has made a few posts about a "locked script" for Axanar.
As to the whole "premature due to movie not yet made" thing; the plaintiffs lump together Prelude to Axanar and the movie itself.
My character Tsin'xing
He tried to make the claim that the writing on Soval's robes was Chinese, not Vulcan. Therefore, he knowingly submitted false testimonial, thus could be viewed as being in contempt of court.
While Technically Accurate, this is a moot point. His intention was to make Star Trek:Axanar. He used IP of CBS/Paramount without their permission in the Prelude, is a violation in itself, and if as claimed, he really did aim to make the film, not just scam money to get a film studio, then he had definite intent to use IP without their permission for that too.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt about not being a scammer for just a moment, his intent to use IP which was not his, without permission, is actionable. I'm not sure about in America, but if someone in the UK was to walk down the street with a Bowie knife strapped to their hip, they would be charged with 'possessing an Offensive Weapon with intent' (intent being, the only reason for carrying a Bowie knife in a highstreet, is to use it on someone, so it is being carried 'with the intent' to cause harm) I don't consider it unreasonable to believe that America would have similar statutes, such as conspiracy and solicitation, which are arrestable offences, that deal with criminal acts which a party is presumed to have been intending to carry out, rather than actual committed crimes. CBS/Paramount can reasonably state that without their intervention, he would have produced Star Trek: Axanar, thus using their IP without permission.
While I don't know exactly where that falls, I've never heard of a fan project selling coffee directly related to the project to help get funding.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
as for civilians carrying weapons, you can do so in the US provided you have a license - that's for guns, though, and only up to a certain size (or caliber, not sure which), so i don't know if they also have licenses that cover knives
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
[Edit to add] Not a picture, but a clip...
While it might not feature the words 'Star Trek' on the packaging, it does feature i) the image of Richard Hatch dressed as a Klingon (an IP element7) and ii) replaces one of the 'a's with the stylized Starfleet Command star. That is a symbol which is i) immediately recognizable, as opposed to a typical five-point star, and ii) I would hazard a guess is a symbol protected as CBS/Paramount IP...
In America, if someone carries a Bowie knife, and uses it on someone, even in self-defence, they get charged with murder, as the law holds that someone does not need to carry a blade of that size unless undertaking bushcraft, or out to kill someone
* Still giving the benefit that he actually intended to make the film, and not just use it as a lure to get people to pay in money to get himself a film studio, and get himself and his lady some nice convention trips...
The first motion to dismiss claimed there was no movie. I am not aware of any mention of a script.
Erin Ranahan, the lead lawyer of the Axanar defense team, is the one who claimed the writing on the Vulcan robes is Chinese. I don't have the video so I can't say. I'll take your word that those are actual Vulcan characters from actual Vulcan Language texts copyrighted by CBS. In any case, I have not been able to discover where those words were attributed to Mr. Peters, but as I said before, judges aren't stupid and lawyers know they risk summary judgement against for things like contempt of court.
As for Axanar Coffee, I did see a bag in a picture posted on the internet. So? Mr. Peters claims it was a fundraiser. Who but a handfull of Trek geeks knew Axanar was a reference to Trek? As a band member I walked the local neighborhood hocking everything from chocolate bars to decorative sponges.
None of this demonstrates any evidence of Mr. Peters' intent to commit fraud. As for his use of the IP owned by CBS/Paramount, well, that was well known from the outset by everyone who either was involved in the project or donated to it.
A lawyer will not make statements without their client's approval, meaning for her to say it is Chinese, Alec Peters (or someone speaking on his behalf) would have had to have told her that it was Chinese.
The Vulcan language, like the Klingon language, exists within the protected framework of the Star Trek IP
The level of recognition of the symbol is irrelevant, it is a part of a protected IP! It doesn't matter if anyone recognizes it, its use is a breach. Stop being pedantic.
Again, lack of progress on the project is a good indicator. Also, as with recognition, it doesn't matter if everyone involved or who donated knew it was CBS/Paramount IP! HE WAS USING THE IP WITHOUT THE IP OWNER'S PERMISSION!!! How difficult for you to understand is that? How many times must we repeat ourselves before it sinks in/you decide to accept it?
"Andorian Ice"
Andorian is obvious...
"House of Kharn"
The background pic is obviously Qo'nos as seen in TNG. Legally it doesn't matter if it's a screencap or original art that imitates it.
"Decaf-6"
The name is a reference to the D-6 model of Klingon cruiser, also it has a picture of one.
"Izarian Gold"
Technically it's a new ship design, but it's obviously derivative. Also... Garth of Izar...
"Ramirez"
No idea... but it was discontinued.
Also, it's technically not illegal to carry knives in the US. It's illegal to bring them into certain public buildings, but that's a special thing. Carrying it is not considered intent since it's not officially considered a "weapon" any more than a kitchen knife is. Now, if you start talking about how you're planning to stab someone.... THAT is intent. It's also not illegal to carry a gun if you have the right licenses. Most people don't, but it IS legal to wear a pistol(unless visiting govt buildings).
My character Tsin'xing
Knives below a certain size I believe, and I think a switchblade is considered a weapon. But something like my leatherman multitool or a swiss army knife is acceptable I believe.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode