test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Axanar draws lawsuit from Paramount and CBS

17810121346

Comments

  • bobbydazlersbobbydazlers Member Posts: 4,534 Arc User
    with all of the other fan made and crowdfunded star trek offerings out there it seems strange they should single out this one production, there must be some ulterior motive behind this action.

    When I think about everything we've been through together,

    maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,

     and if that journey takes a little longer,

    so we can do something we all believe in,

     I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.

  • rahmkota19rahmkota19 Member Posts: 1,929 Arc User
    with all of the other fan made and crowdfunded star trek offerings out there it seems strange they should single out this one production, there must be some ulterior motive behind this action.

    Yeah. We just spent an entire thread speaking about it, but to keep it short, possible motives according to the STOforumites:
    - Financial mismanagement, making a profit
    - Feeling threatened by Axanar's quality and popularity compared to the cold-received Beyond trailer
    - IP protection (as in either step in now or forget owning the copyrights)
    - A combination of the above.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    Paying the help is not the issue. The issue is that apparently their most recent earnings statement showed that Alex Peters was using some of the money provided by this Kickstarter, using the Star Trek intellectual property, to fund his own company, Ares Studios, with the idea that he'd be making for-profit movies with that studio later.

    This is a clear violation of both copyright and trademark law; had CBS and Paramount simply let it slide, they would have been in grave danger of losing the trademark altogether. That's how trademarks like Aspirin (trademark Bayer Pharmaceuticals) become generic names like aspirin; when the trademark was weakened by others making money from it, they failed to "vigorously defend" it, and so the courts ruled the trademark abandoned.

    This isn't CBS being "scumbags", this is simply sound business practice - without which we wouldn't be seeing any more movies or TV series ever. And the reason other fan productions aren't being hit becomes obvious - they're not using Star Trek to make money to spend on other endeavors. (Were, for example, Vic Mignogna to use the funds raised by his "Kirkstarters" to fund his non-Trek ventures, STC would be right next to Axanar on the docket.)​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • alexmakepeacealexmakepeace Member Posts: 10,633 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    This isn't CBS being "scumbags", this is simply sound business practice​​
    The two aren't mutually exclusive. Media corporations are legally entitled to defend their copyrights the way they do, but that doesn't mean it should to be that way. In my experience, such companies are very scumbaggy about defending their copyright, and the public suffers as a result.
    jonsills wrote: »
    without which we wouldn't be seeing any more movies or TV series ever.
    Why not? Think about Sherlock Holmes--the Doyle estate doesn't own the rights anymore. Does that mean there cannot be any more Sherlock Holmes films and TV shows? Obviously not, because there are a million of the things, including that super-popular one with B. Cucumberpatch.

    CBS can still make Star Trek movies even if they lose the trademark--they just can't stop other people from using the name "Star Trek" for other stuff. And if, for some reason, they lost copyright (joyous day!), then that just means that anyone can make Trek movies and TV shows, from minor fans to other media corporations.

    Trademark and copyright do not grant the right to produce a work, they grand the right to prevent others from producing a work. Excluding everybody else from the playground, so to speak. If those rights are lost, it just means everybody else can come in and play. Sturgeon's Law notwithstanding, I think this would be a good thing.
  • rahmkota19rahmkota19 Member Posts: 1,929 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    This isn't CBS being "scumbags", this is simply sound business practice​​
    The two aren't mutually exclusive. Media corporations are legally entitled to defend their copyrights the way they do, but that doesn't mean it should to be that way. In my experience, such companies are very scumbaggy about defending their copyright, and the public suffers as a result.
    jonsills wrote: »
    without which we wouldn't be seeing any more movies or TV series ever.
    Why not? Think about Sherlock Holmes--the Doyle estate doesn't own the rights anymore. Does that mean there cannot be any more Sherlock Holmes films and TV shows? Obviously not, because there are a million of the things, including that super-popular one with B. Cucumberpatch.

    CBS can still make Star Trek movies even if they lose the trademark--they just can't stop other people from using the name "Star Trek" for other stuff. And if, for some reason, they lost copyright (joyous day!), then that just means that anyone can make Trek movies and TV shows, from minor fans to other media corporations.

    Trademark and copyright do not grant the right to produce a work, they grand the right to prevent others from producing a work. Excluding everybody else from the playground, so to speak. If those rights are lost, it just means everybody else can come in and play. Sturgeon's Law notwithstanding, I think this would be a good thing.

    We'd also end up with the biggest mess ever when it comes to shows, films, being run simultaneously on concurring channels with different continuities.

    I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week. And this would happen were the copyright to disappear: first we'll get a clusterfuck of movies and series, and then the franchise dies out for a decade or more.

    I'd be all for expanding the copyright into a sort of centralized body, which can grant individual studies the right to produce a series or a film. But I definitely believe that somebody, preferably somebody who doesn't have a financial interest in Star Trek, should be keeping an eye on what is being made, to ensure we don't get oversaturated ever again. But removing the copyright on Trek completely? No thank you.
  • horridpersonhorridperson Member Posts: 665 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    I was disappointed to hear this announcement. Given policies surrounding intellectual property I had thought it a certainty but with Axanar's progression from internet pitch to post production I wondered why it hadn't happened earlier.

    I think there is more riding on this than JJ Trek vs. classic Trek. As the 50th anniversary of Star Trek nears and an unspecified new Trek series approaches I wonder if it might be based in a similar time frame with a retro vibe that picks at the nostalgia of fans. Rather than conducting marketing research CBS has effectively polled the fan base simply by watching Axanar unfold. I will be interested to see if there are any similarities between this yet undisclosed series and embattled production.

    If this were the case would we bear witness to a legal paradox? I feel strongly about creative endeavour and expression. Mark Twain discounted the notion of an original idea but I believe a creator should be rewarded for their iterations and they deserve compensation for sharing their imagined worlds with us. Who were the creators? Roddenberry has been dead for around thirty years. Lee Erwin and Jerry Sohl who co wrote, "Whom Gods Destroy" are no longer with us as well. That most of the licensed Star Trek material (books, recent films, superhero crossovers? :P ) must exist in out of canon metaverses pisses all over any integrity an IP should have. Why should anyone be paying for the privilege of using an imaginary location that they are not actually being allowed to use?

    The people who own and control Star Trek today are not the same ones who created it. I wonder if some of them might have made their careers in the 90s. I very much enjoyed DS9 but it seemed radically different than any Star Trek offering to that point and much more like Babylon 5.

    I couldn't care less about, Paramount and "Dirtbikes in Spaaaace". I'm watching what CBS releases from the wings. From a legal standpoint Peterson is likely in the wrong. If my shot in the dark concerning a possible new series premise is anywhere near the mark would ideas have been stolen? Is a story is more than creating identical props or stealing a brand? Ideas are bigger than the outfits and special effects in Star Trek, or they used to be. If Peterson stole Starfleet Logos who will anyone bat an eye if CBS adopts a similar story and does it have any intrinsic value? I have read comments made by David Gerrold recently but I would love to hear J. Michael Straczynski weigh in.

    My concern is what kind of shitstorm this creates for the coming year. Court cases of this nature can take a while in most cases a while is much further away than September 8, 2016. What effect does it have on the buzz surrounding the 50th anniversary of Trek? When it comes to fighting over money nobody looks good in court and certainly doesn't look like anyone from the imagined future other than a Ferengi.





    battlegroupad_zps8gon3ojt.jpg

  • alexmakepeacealexmakepeace Member Posts: 10,633 Arc User
    rahmkota19 wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    This isn't CBS being "scumbags", this is simply sound business practice​​
    The two aren't mutually exclusive. Media corporations are legally entitled to defend their copyrights the way they do, but that doesn't mean it should to be that way. In my experience, such companies are very scumbaggy about defending their copyright, and the public suffers as a result.
    jonsills wrote: »
    without which we wouldn't be seeing any more movies or TV series ever.
    Why not? Think about Sherlock Holmes--the Doyle estate doesn't own the rights anymore. Does that mean there cannot be any more Sherlock Holmes films and TV shows? Obviously not, because there are a million of the things, including that super-popular one with B. Cucumberpatch.

    CBS can still make Star Trek movies even if they lose the trademark--they just can't stop other people from using the name "Star Trek" for other stuff. And if, for some reason, they lost copyright (joyous day!), then that just means that anyone can make Trek movies and TV shows, from minor fans to other media corporations.

    Trademark and copyright do not grant the right to produce a work, they grand the right to prevent others from producing a work. Excluding everybody else from the playground, so to speak. If those rights are lost, it just means everybody else can come in and play. Sturgeon's Law notwithstanding, I think this would be a good thing.

    We'd also end up with the biggest mess ever when it comes to shows, films, being run simultaneously on concurring channels with different continuities.

    I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week. And this would happen were the copyright to disappear: first we'll get a clusterfuck of movies and series, and then the franchise dies out for a decade or more.

    I'd be all for expanding the copyright into a sort of centralized body, which can grant individual studies the right to produce a series or a film. But I definitely believe that somebody, preferably somebody who doesn't have a financial interest in Star Trek, should be keeping an eye on what is being made, to ensure we don't get oversaturated ever again. But removing the copyright on Trek completely? No thank you.
    Anarchy! Sweet, sweet anarchy!!! :tongue: :

    Would that really be such a bad thing? After all, it's not like the current system is giving us good-quality material now.

    Even if the market does become oversaturated with Trek, I don't think it'll kill off the franchise (though technically it wouldn't be a franchise anymore). Entertainment media is in the middle of a revolution, where content creation is being taken out of the hands of media companies and put into the hands of smaller companies or even individuals. A good example would be, um... uh... it's on the tip of my tongue... a certain popular fan-film that CBS recently stomped on. :tongue:

    There's always going to be somebody who wants to make a Trek story, regardless of whether the market was recently oversaturated.

    Or maybe it will kill off the franchise and people will stop making Trek movies. I'd be okay with that too (Whoa, whoa, put the gun down, please!). After all, the stuff that's been made before will still be around, and people will be able to take the Trek base and make something new. Maybe something better than Trek ever was. People are already doing it, putting Trek into the public domain will just expand their ability to do so, and to sell it.

    I'm inclined to trust in people's innate creativity. Given the ability to take Trek and run with it, some people will make stuff that's good. Even if, at first glance, it isn't "Trek" at all. That, in my opinion, is more important than the continued success of any individual franchise.

    tl;dr I think it's more important for people to be able to do things like Axanar than it is for there to be new Trek stuff.
  • rahmkota19rahmkota19 Member Posts: 1,929 Arc User
    rahmkota19 wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    This isn't CBS being "scumbags", this is simply sound business practice​​
    The two aren't mutually exclusive. Media corporations are legally entitled to defend their copyrights the way they do, but that doesn't mean it should to be that way. In my experience, such companies are very scumbaggy about defending their copyright, and the public suffers as a result.
    jonsills wrote: »
    without which we wouldn't be seeing any more movies or TV series ever.
    Why not? Think about Sherlock Holmes--the Doyle estate doesn't own the rights anymore. Does that mean there cannot be any more Sherlock Holmes films and TV shows? Obviously not, because there are a million of the things, including that super-popular one with B. Cucumberpatch.

    CBS can still make Star Trek movies even if they lose the trademark--they just can't stop other people from using the name "Star Trek" for other stuff. And if, for some reason, they lost copyright (joyous day!), then that just means that anyone can make Trek movies and TV shows, from minor fans to other media corporations.

    Trademark and copyright do not grant the right to produce a work, they grand the right to prevent others from producing a work. Excluding everybody else from the playground, so to speak. If those rights are lost, it just means everybody else can come in and play. Sturgeon's Law notwithstanding, I think this would be a good thing.

    We'd also end up with the biggest mess ever when it comes to shows, films, being run simultaneously on concurring channels with different continuities.

    I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week. And this would happen were the copyright to disappear: first we'll get a clusterfuck of movies and series, and then the franchise dies out for a decade or more.

    I'd be all for expanding the copyright into a sort of centralized body, which can grant individual studies the right to produce a series or a film. But I definitely believe that somebody, preferably somebody who doesn't have a financial interest in Star Trek, should be keeping an eye on what is being made, to ensure we don't get oversaturated ever again. But removing the copyright on Trek completely? No thank you.
    Anarchy! Sweet, sweet anarchy!!! :tongue: :

    Would that really be such a bad thing? After all, it's not like the current system is giving us good-quality material now.

    Even if the market does become oversaturated with Trek, I don't think it'll kill off the franchise (though technically it wouldn't be a franchise anymore). Entertainment media is in the middle of a revolution, where content creation is being taken out of the hands of media companies and put into the hands of smaller companies or even individuals. A good example would be, um... uh... it's on the tip of my tongue... a certain popular fan-film that CBS recently stomped on. :tongue:

    There's always going to be somebody who wants to make a Trek story, regardless of whether the market was recently oversaturated.

    Or maybe it will kill off the franchise and people will stop making Trek movies. I'd be okay with that too (Whoa, whoa, put the gun down, please!). After all, the stuff that's been made before will still be around, and people will be able to take the Trek base and make something new. Maybe something better than Trek ever was. People are already doing it, putting Trek into the public domain will just expand their ability to do so, and to sell it.

    I'm inclined to trust in people's innate creativity. Given the ability to take Trek and run with it, some people will make stuff that's good. Even if, at first glance, it isn't "Trek" at all. That, in my opinion, is more important than the continued success of any individual franchise.

    tl;dr I think it's more important for people to be able to do things like Axanar than it is for there to be new Trek stuff.

    WHAT!! NO NEW MOVIES!!!!!!!!!! *executes Alex on the most brutal medieval way imaginable*

    Jokes aside, and not to turn this thread into JJ debate #74656 (see what I did there, damnit I said jokes aside), I agree that the copyright should be taken away from CBS. But I do think that the copyright should belong to an instance, one filled with a pretty large amount of people, who have absolutely no financial interest in Trek. Because oversaturation destroyed a Trek series (one that I enjoyed from Broken Bow all they way to Terra Prime), and it can destroy more very good potential shows. Next to that I don't agree that Trek movies should be made just to make a buck from it. Once again, lets not make this JJ debate #74656.

    The reason I do want Trek to continue, is more than one. First of all, you know you're a kid from the nineties when you never got to watch a single Trek series while it was still airing. Second of all, Trek has lost nothing of its value. It never was just another science fiction series. It always had something that put it above other sci-fi series I watched AND enjoyed, such as Stargate. I think that a good developed Trek, just like what Axanar could very well become, is something that still makes a lot of sense.

    I'm gonna press post now, before I get all sentimental :D
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    When Holmes went into the public domain, we got crappy radio shows and movie serials that brought Holmes into then-modern-day London to fight TRIBBLE. Things got so bad that the franchise sank into relative obscurity, aside from a smattering of devoted fan clubs (the Baker Street Irregulars), and remained below the radar until relatively recently.

    Do you think we really need a century off from Star Trek, only to have it revived as a drama series set in the then-modern-day and with characters changed around, like Elementary? Because I can assure you, no major corporation is going to sink money into something unless they can guarantee the revenue stream. (The reason the production values on the original Star Wars movie look so cheap is because they were - 20th Century-Fox saw the movie as just a low-budget sci-fi flick that might make back its budget if they were lucky. They even let Lucas keep merchandising rights, a decision for which they spent the next decade or so kicking themselves in the collective butt. And you can be sure that when the contracts for TESB were signed, the studio took the merchandising rights as well that time!) Oh, and if you need a reminder about what kind of TRIBBLE can be churned out when nobody really cares about the trademark, grab some of the Trek novels published in the '70s. Vonda McIntyre, John Ford, and and Diane Duane wrote some pretty good stuff - but then there's Marshak and Culbreath to contend with (big fans of K/S slashfics of the hurt/comfort variety, one might suppose based on their novels), and some other stuff so bad I've spent the ensuing decades trying to forget I read it.

    Why a suit now? Well, apparently there was nothing more than rumor to go on until that earnings statement was published. Once there was a paper trail proving that Peters was making money for himself off their trademarks, CBS/Paramount, legally speaking, had no choice but to institute a lawsuit.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • welcome2earfwelcome2earf Member Posts: 1,746 Arc User
    In the Hip Hop world, they pronounce this "Askanar".
    T93uSC8.jpg
  • minababeminababe Member Posts: 182 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    jonsills wrote: »
    This isn't CBS being "scumbags", this is simply sound business practice​​
    The two aren't mutually exclusive. Media corporations are legally entitled to defend their copyrights the way they do, but that doesn't mean it should to be that way.

    Of course it should be that way. People poured their sweat, blood and tears into an IP, shaping it into what it's become and having a clear, concise vision of how it should go. Why should every Tom, TRIBBLE and Hacky be entitled to produce a derivative work based on someone else's IP without consulting the copyright owner that owns it or even respecting its wishes?

    What if you had written a series of enchanting books about a 12 year old who befriends a talking toy robot, and they both go on a number of cute and innocent misadventures together? So then a talentless hack comes along and decides to do his own "version" of your characters, where the 12 year old is now a foul-mouthed brat, the robot an angry, cynical douche, and the "misadventures" filled with dumbed down plots and childish TRIBBLE and TRIBBLE jokes. Then that person's version becomes more popular than your stories?

    Okay--all's fair in love and war. Someone took your characters and stories and made them "more popular." But why should someone have the right to do that? It wasn't that person's "baby." It was yours.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Why not? Think about Sherlock Holmes--the Doyle estate doesn't own the rights anymore. Does that mean there cannot be any more Sherlock Holmes films and TV shows? Obviously not, because there are a million of the things, including that super-popular one with B. Cucumberpatch.

    You know what? I don't think there should be. Anyone can see what happens to a popular IP once it's out of the hands of the original creators. The original Smurfs were a series of charming comic book for kids; the recent movies were pure and utter garbage. Treasure Island was a fun kid's book filled with adventure; Black Sails turned the entire thing into a sleazy piece of trash. The Green Hornet was a popular crime fighting hero; the movie adaptation ruined the IP so much that it's practically become non-existent.

    As for Sherlock Holmes, both BBC Sherlock and Elementary are well-written shows--and the Guy Ritchie movies were well done--but they're Sherlock Holmes in name only. The characters are named the same as in the stories and some of the stories are adapted, but they don't even come close to capturing the characters themselves or the flavor of the books/stories. So what's happening is that there's a whole generation of young people who are preferring these bastardized versions of Sherlock Holmes to the original stories and characters. Are you okay with that? That all of these kids think that Sherlock Holmes was an angsty, socially awkward douchebag who annoyed and angered everyone he met, that Watson was just some lackey who he dragged along on his adventures, and that in some adaptations, he and Holmes were in some kind of "bromance" with homoerotic undertones? I'm not.

    So there is something to be said about keeping a tight leash on IPs. The average person is a hack and the few people out there who can write well rarely have the capability to pick up where the original author left off.
    Post edited by minababe on
    My Foundry Mission--Name: Falling Star | Mission ID: HQIH36HAW | Faction: FED
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,007 Arc User
    To catch up all the new comers:

    CBS/Paramount are suing Axanar because they broke the one rule they were told not to break. "DO NOT MAKE A PROFIT." Recently received documents show that they were using some of their gains to fund their studio.
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    khan5000 wrote: »
    To catch up all the new comers:

    CBS/Paramount are suing Axanar because they broke the one rule they were told not to break. "DO NOT MAKE A PROFIT." Recently received documents show that they were using some of their gains to fund their studio.

    Alec Peters also grabbed 38k for himself, which he used on personal expenses. The reason we know they are personal is because if they were on the project they would have been shown along with all the other project expenses. And here is the key: he never would have had this 38k if he were not using the Trek IP for his project. So he raises money using the Trek IP, then keeps 38k for himself. Big problem.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    @minababe, after a certain reasonable time period yes, I think things SHOULD fall into the public domain. That's how it was for the majority of human history, and while yes, that means there was a lot of professional fanfiction out there with some of it being complete TRIBBLE (and some of it being good--Shakespeare was essentially a fanficcer of the highest order), ultimately the ability to do derivative works is needed to allow the creative process to move forward. The situation was not good during the era when you could not retain ANY copyright and you had artists having to rely on the patronage system to even keep food on the table, but if it were me, a moderated version of the copyright law we have today would be acceptable.

    You'd get the longer of the these two options, IMO:

    --The ORIGINAL author's lifetime (meaning NO infinite corporate/estate extensions of the copyright...lookin' at YOU, Disney!)
    --50 years, should the author not survive this long after the work's creation, entitling the estate to however much remains of this 50 year period. In Star Trek's case, for example, this would have the IP coming out into the public domain this year.

    Yes, that means TRIBBLE will happen. Yes, it could mean "the franchise dies." But as far as I am concerned, after your lifetime or 50 years, you've had your fun. If you couldn't capitalize on it during that period, then that is one's own failure and the public shouldn't be punished for it.

    However, if a stunt like Axanar occurred inside that window (assuming the allegations are correct), then I would say they should still get punished.

    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.
  • alexmakepeacealexmakepeace Member Posts: 10,633 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    When Holmes went into the public domain, we got crappy radio shows and movie serials that brought Holmes into then-modern-day London to fight TRIBBLE. Things got so bad that the franchise sank into relative obscurity, aside from a smattering of devoted fan clubs (the Baker Street Irregulars), and remained below the radar until relatively recently.

    Do you think we really need a century off from Star Trek, only to have it revived as a drama series set in the then-modern-day and with characters changed around, like Elementary?
    Sure. See, I think that the pool of stories to draw from is more important than any given franchise. If "sacrificing" Trek means some guy with an idea can take it and mutate it into something new and wonderful, I'm all for it, even if it's not the Trek I know.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Because I can assure you, no major corporation is going to sink money into something unless they can guarantee the revenue stream.
    Doesn't have to be a major corporation anymore. We can do things like Axanar without them, and I think that's a good thing. Heck, it might be better if they're not: IMO the best video games of 2015 weren't made by the big studios. They might have been published by big studios, but they were made by small ones.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Oh, and if you need a reminder about what kind of TRIBBLE can be churned out when nobody really cares about the trademark, grab some of the Trek novels published in the '70s. Vonda McIntyre, John Ford, and and Diane Duane wrote some pretty good stuff - but then there's Marshak and Culbreath to contend with (big fans of K/S slashfics of the hurt/comfort variety, one might suppose based on their novels), and some other stuff so bad I've spent the ensuing decades trying to forget I read it.
    Yeah, Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is TRIBBLE. Corollary: the remaining 10% is not TRIBBLE, and IMO is worth the mountains of junk.
    minababe wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    This isn't CBS being "scumbags", this is simply sound business practice​​
    The two aren't mutually exclusive. Media corporations are legally entitled to defend their copyrights the way they do, but that doesn't mean it should to be that way.

    Of course it should be that way. People poured their sweat, blood and tears into an IP, shaping it into what it's become and having a clear, concise vision of how it should go. Why should every Tom, TRIBBLE and Hacky be entitled to produce a derivative work based on someone else's IP without consulting the copyright owner that owns it or even respecting its wishes?
    Because that's the purpose of copyright law. Copyright law is not about protecting the creators--if it were, copyright would be eternal. Copyright is a carrot to dangle in front of creators to encourage them to create things that then become common property. The end goal is to generate work which the public can consume, reference, and build upon freely.
    minababe wrote: »
    What if you had written a series of enchanting books about a 12 year old who befriends a talking toy robot, and they both go on a number of cute and innocent misadventures together? So then a talentless hack comes along and decides to do his own "version" of your characters, where the 12 year old is now a foul-mouthed brat, the robot an angry, cynical douche, and the "misadventures" filled with dumbed down plots and childish TRIBBLE and TRIBBLE jokes. Then that person's version becomes more popular than your stories?

    Okay--all's fair in love and war. Someone took your characters and stories and made them "more popular." But why should someone have the right to do that? It wasn't that person's "baby." It was yours.
    Yeah, I might be annoyed if someone took my masterpiece and walked all over it. If I decide to retain copyright, I might even take it down, but not without serious thought. But I'm already creating things and releasing them into the wild: I have a machinima on my YouTube channel. I dunno if it's any good, but I have explicitly granted blanket permission for people to take what I've done and build on it. After all, I built my machinima on the work of other people who opened up their creative playgrounds, so it's only fair that I do the same.

    Maybe people will take my stuff and turn out garbage. Probably they'll do that and turn out garbage (assuming anyone does anything with it at all). But maybe someone will take what I've done and build it into something more wonderful and meaningful than anything I could do. The important thing is that I give them the chance.
    minababe wrote: »
    As for Sherlock Holmes, both BBC Sherlock and Elementary are well-written shows--and the Guy Ritchie movies were well done--but they're Sherlock Holmes in name only. The characters are named the same as in the stories and some of the stories are adapted, but they don't even come close to capturing the characters themselves or the flavor of the books/stories. So what's happening is that there's a whole generation of young people who are preferring these bastardized versions of Sherlock Holmes to the original stories and characters. Are you okay with that? That all of these kids think that Sherlock Holmes was an angsty, socially awkward douchebag who annoyed and angered everyone he met, that Watson was just some lackey who he dragged along on his adventures, and that in some adaptations, he and Holmes were in some kind of "bromance" with homoerotic undertones? I'm not.
    I am okay with that. I don't expect stories to stay the same: our species is changing, and our stories change with us. I want the next round of stories to have the biggest pool of creative material to draw from as we can give it, in the hope that it will increase the likelihood of something great coming out of it. It may not be the Holmes or Trek we know, but if it's good than I want people to make it, and I'm willing to wade through the garbage to find it. Heck, we all do that already.

    And with regard to the "bastardized" attributes you mention, the show might be closer to the mark than you think. I'm no expert on Holmes, but I'm fairly certain that he did have a certain social awkwardness and annoying aura, and I seem to recall that there might indeed have been homoerotic undertext in the original stories. I know Holmes was an opium addict.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    gulberat wrote: »
    @minababe, after a certain reasonable time period yes, I think things SHOULD fall into the public domain. That's how it was for the majority of human history, and while yes, that means there was a lot of professional fanfiction out there with some of it being complete TRIBBLE (and some of it being good--Shakespeare was essentially a fanficcer of the highest order), ultimately the ability to do derivative works is needed to allow the creative process to move forward. The situation was not good during the era when you could not retain ANY copyright and you had artists having to rely on the patronage system to even keep food on the table, but if it were me, a moderated version of the copyright law we have today would be acceptable.

    You'd get the longer of the these two options, IMO:

    --The ORIGINAL author's lifetime (meaning NO infinite corporate/estate extensions of the copyright...lookin' at YOU, Disney!)
    --50 years, should the author not survive this long after the work's creation, entitling the estate to however much remains of this 50 year period. In Star Trek's case, for example, this would have the IP coming out into the public domain this year.

    Yes, that means TRIBBLE will happen. Yes, it could mean "the franchise dies." But as far as I am concerned, after your lifetime or 50 years, you've had your fun. If you couldn't capitalize on it during that period, then that is one's own failure and the public shouldn't be punished for it.

    However, if a stunt like Axanar occurred inside that window (assuming the allegations are correct), then I would say they should still get punished.
    I actually think 50 years of the lifetime of an author is exaggerated. Patents don't hold that long!
    If 20 years are sufficient there, why not also for copyright?
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    I would say the difference is that unlike with a patent for, say, a drug, a creative work is likely to continue to grow and change over time, whereas a drug formulation stays the absolute same. I am okay with the author having ownership for their lifetime. After that, I want to see it limited stricter than it is now since the current term is extended so far past the author's death.

    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.
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    Isn't it fascinating that we're talking about an author's rights... and Gene Roddenberry lost the rights to Star Trek in the 60s? 70s, maybe? It's why the studio was able to remove him from season 3 of TOS, the TOS movie franchise, and how they almost started a series without him (but instead, approached him to do TNG, according to Shatner's Chaos on the Bridge documentary).

    And I still don't get this "CBS is the devil" nonsense... yes, corporations are heartless, but I don't hear too many complaining about Disney at the moment...
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    Why not? Think about Sherlock Holmes--the Doyle estate doesn't own the rights anymore. Does that mean there cannot be any more Sherlock Holmes films and TV shows? Obviously not, because there are a million of the things, including that super-popular one with B. Cucumberpatch.

    Yes and no. Under British law it's public domain (70 years after an author’s death and Conan Doyle died in 1930) but in the US some copyrights extend for 95 years and the last Holmes books were published in 1927.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    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!
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,007 Arc User
    Sometimes an IP is better in someone else's hands than the creator. Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek but IMO Nicholas Meyer really made it sing. Stan Lee may have created the X-Men but Chris Claremont made them what they are today.
    The flip side of that is that what happens when a creator sells/gives the rights to a corporation? Should WB/DC lose Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman and any other characters that they now own that are over 50 years old? Does Marvel lose Captain America?
    It's easy to say give up the rights now because the majority of fans don't care about what CBS/Paramount is putting out but what would have happened if the right to Star Trek went public (hypothetically) in the middle of Star Trek The Next Generation?
    The copyright law, while flawed, is fine as is.
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • minababeminababe Member Posts: 182 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    gulberat wrote: »
    @minababe, after a certain reasonable time period yes, I think things SHOULD fall into the public domain.

    Why? So hacks who lack creativity can just ruin an IP, like what @jonsills was talking about regarding Sherlock Holmes fighting TRIBBLE?
    gulberat wrote: »
    Shakespeare was essentially a fanficcer of the highest order

    It is not "fanfiction" to do a dramatic adaptation based on pre-existing folk tales, tales, and legends, with the intent of trying to be as faithful to the original as possible. If Shakespeare was a fan fiction writer, we might as well start calling every screenwriter, broadway composer and filmmaker who faithfully adapted a story into a different medium a fan fictioner--Alfred Hitchcock, Walt Disney, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Stanley Kubrick, etc.
    gulberat wrote: »
    I don't expect stories to stay the same: our species is changing, and our stories change with us.

    When our species "change", we don't piggyback onto old ideas. We use the old ideas as inspiration to create new ones.

    You can do the same. If Star Trek no longer works for you because of how times have changed, why not make your "own" stories that speak to your era using a similar concept as the IP you love so much, rather than just taking it and distorting the original author's intent? It worked for the creators of The X Files (who based the show on Kolchak: The Night Stalker). It worked for the creators of House, a show inspired by Sherlock Holmes. It worked for the creators of Battlestar Galactica (Star Wars), Hogan's Heroes (Stalag 17), for a host of other shows and movies that took an IP, said, "Let's create something new based on this idea."
    My Foundry Mission--Name: Falling Star | Mission ID: HQIH36HAW | Faction: FED
  • minababeminababe Member Posts: 182 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    Because that's the purpose of copyright law. Copyright law is not about protecting the creators--if it were, copyright would be eternal. Copyright is a carrot to dangle in front of creators to encourage them to create things that then become common property. The end goal is to generate work which the public can consume, reference, and build upon freely.

    As someone who used to freelance and was an aspiring writer (and so had to learn this topic backwards and forwards), I'd like to know where you got this idea that this is the "purpose of copyright law"? It's not based in any truth whatsoever of why copyright law was created. If anything, it's a complete and total distortion of what it means, like when people argue, "Free speech means that I have the right to say whatever I want without consequences."

    The entire point of copyright law *is* to:
    1. Protect creators from having their works appropriated by others and not getting proper credit for it
    2. Grant creators complete and total creative control over their work in the way they see fit
    3. Prevent others from financially exploiting their works

    The reason why works fall into the public domain is that after an author dies, there's literally no reason for copyright to exist anymore. A dead author can't be financially exploited if someone decides to make a profit off his work because he's...wait for it...dead.

    A dead author doesn't need copyright protection from plagiarism/IP theft, because by the time copyright has expired, usually the author and his work is so well known by that point that it's impossible for someone to rip his ideas off and take credit. For example, if someone ripped off Oliver Twist, everyone would know that it was Oliver Twist and that Dickens had written it, since it's been in the public consciousness for so long. There would be no danger of the public going, "Wow, this new author who just created this story about a little orphan boy is such a genius!" Everyone would say, "Oh, this is Oliver Twist, and Dickens wrote it." So this is, once again, why copyright law isn't "forever."

    Another reason why works are allowed to fall into the public domain is that it allows everyone the freedom to do adaptations/translations of stories in a different medium, without having to go through hurdles to do so. If a person wants to do a musical version of Oliver Twist, they can do it. If someone wants to do a stage play based on The Grapes of Wrath, they can do it. Key word being adaptation, not "expanded universe" stuff, not fan fiction nonsense, not "reboots", none of that stuff.

    So there's no basis whatsoever to your comment that copyright law "is a carrot to dangle in front of creators to encourage them to create things that then become common property, with the end goal is to generate work which the public can consume, reference, and build upon freely." This is just spin that a lot of people often use to justify derivative works or flat out plagiarism.

    I've also heard it said in musical circles, too, that innovative musicians and composers have no right to complain about copyright infringement, because music is about "sharing." In other words, musicians are supposed to come up with these highly innovative, unique, personal compositions and not care if some two-bit rapper or auto-tuned pop singer with zero talent samples their music and gets all the money, accolades and credit for coming up with "good music." With this attitude, we're getting this close to returning to the days when broke-TRIBBLE blues musicians were out panhandling while Elvis Presley was making bank on their hard work.
    My Foundry Mission--Name: Falling Star | Mission ID: HQIH36HAW | Faction: FED
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    mhall85 wrote: »
    It's why the studio was able to remove him from season 3 of TOS, the TOS movie franchise, and how they almost started a series without him (but instead, approached him to do TNG, according to Shatner's Chaos on the Bridge documentary).
    Point of order - in all those cases, Roddenberry removed himself from the production. Season 3 of TOS was promised a good timeslot, but put on late Friday nights, popularly known at the time as the "death slot"; Roddenberry quit in protest (and was replaced by Fred Frieberger, who by that time had acquired a reputation as the man to hire in just such a situation). When nobody wanted to make the second movie be one about Kirk and Spock going back in time to prevent Kennedy's assassination, he bailed again. And he had to be persuaded to work on TNG, especially when they didn't like his idea about the ship being run by a committee (because he saw having a captain as being "autocratic", which is exactly what a ship has to be; you can't hold a vote every time you want to change the course heading).

    Your main point, that Gene signed the standard contract that gave IP rights to the production company rather than keeping them himself (thus avoiding copyright issues with the other scriptwriters), still stands, however.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    jonsills wrote: »
    mhall85 wrote: »
    It's why the studio was able to remove him from season 3 of TOS, the TOS movie franchise, and how they almost started a series without him (but instead, approached him to do TNG, according to Shatner's Chaos on the Bridge documentary).
    Point of order - in all those cases, Roddenberry removed himself from the production. Season 3 of TOS was promised a good timeslot, but put on late Friday nights, popularly known at the time as the "death slot"; Roddenberry quit in protest (and was replaced by Fred Frieberger, who by that time had acquired a reputation as the man to hire in just such a situation). When nobody wanted to make the second movie be one about Kirk and Spock going back in time to prevent Kennedy's assassination, he bailed again. And he had to be persuaded to work on TNG, especially when they didn't like his idea about the ship being run by a committee (because he saw having a captain as being "autocratic", which is exactly what a ship has to be; you can't hold a vote every time you want to change the course heading).

    Your main point, that Gene signed the standard contract that gave IP rights to the production company rather than keeping them himself (thus avoiding copyright issues with the other scriptwriters), still stands, however.

    Ah, fair points, all... but, as you realize, I'm just trying to point out that the IP has always rested with Desilu/Paramount/Viacom/CBS, and not the Roddenberry estate.

    In other words, I don't think the comparison to Sherlock Holmes is apples-to-apples... it's closer to properties like Mickey, Bugs Bunny, etc...
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • jam3s1701jam3s1701 Member Posts: 1,825 Arc User
    Who ever started that petition on that site linked above is going to need to get more than 5000 signatures for it to even be looked at.

    Also is that link even permitted on here?
    JtaDmwW.png
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    Whether or not you agree with the way copyright law works or think it should be changed is irrelevant to the fact that people still have to follow whatever the current law is. If you think the speed limit on a certain road in your city is too low, you can lobby your local politicians to try to get it changed. But you don't get to ignore the current limit just because you don't like it. Regardless of whether Alec Peters agrees with how copyright law works or thinks it needs to be changed, he still broke the current rules, which means he is the one in the wrong.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • lordrezeonlordrezeon Member Posts: 399 Arc User
    edited January 2016
    jonsills wrote: »
    And he had to be persuaded to work on TNG, especially when they didn't like his idea about the ship being run by a committee (because he saw having a captain as being "autocratic", which is exactly what a ship has to be; you can't hold a vote every time you want to change the course heading).

    Wow, this explains so much about early TNG, with how indecisive Picard tended to be when under pressure. Such as how he held a conference meeting in the middle of battle during "Q Who".

    ----

    Copyrights are an odd thing, as I agree that an author should be able to protect his work to avoid having it exploited and abused by others. Imagine how big corporate studios would trample over smaller indie studios if their works became popular.

    On the other hand we wind up with situations like Star Trek is in, where the creator is long gone and a corporation is sitting on the IP for 120 years after its creation which is just plain overkill.


    ----

    This info about the Axanar staff using the donated money for personal use is pretty much the nail in the coffin. They don't have any viable defense and are plainly in the wrong.
  • hartzillahartzilla Member Posts: 1,177 Arc User
    rahmkota19 wrote: »
    - Feeling threatened by Axanar's quality and popularity compared to the cold-received Beyond trailer

    I doubt this has anything to do with this at all.
  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    rahmkota19 wrote: »
    I believe that the only reason Enterprise failed in the end was oversaturation. Trek had continuously been on TV since the eighties, and people were kind of done with Star Trek every week.

    Yes I am totally sure that's the reason, not that the show sucked from the first episode and pissed off tons of fans with that same episode. Nor that it spent its entire career rewriting existing canon, and making things worse more often than not. I'm totally sure it was just over-saturation. Because I wasn't at a specially rigged up party with about a hundred people so we could watch the pilot and all of them were disgusted by the pilot. It surely must have been just too much Trek, nothing to do with the new show being garbage.

This discussion has been closed.