Paramount and CBS File Lawsuit Against Crowdfunded, Indie Star Trek Movie (hollywoodreporter.com) 228
An anonymous reader writes: Back in August, an Indiegogo campaign raised $566,023 to produce Axanar, a Star Trek movie in development by an independent group of fans, who also happen to be film professionals. Now, unfortunately but predictably, Paramount and CBS have filed a lawsuit in California federal court claiming their intellectual property is being infringed upon. They are "demanding an injunction as well as damages for direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement." The guy running the crowdfunded film is a lawyer, and he said, "We've certainly been prepared for this and we certainly will defend this lawsuit. There are a lot of issues surrounding a fan film. These fan films have been around for 30 years, and others have raised a lot of money." He said CBS/Paramount weren't willing to provide guidelines on what types of fan productions would be tolerated (unlike Lucasfilm with Star Wars), because they worry about setting precedent.
Public Theft... (Score:5, Interesting)
And thanks to those same companies lobbying efforts they're still able to enforce copyright on something, which by all rights, should have entered the Public Domain 21 years ago.
So much for the continued progress of the arts and science, Axanar looked like an interesting project - it was the first "real" Trek I'd seen in years and I was looking forward to the feature.
Been wondering if we couldn't use corporate law against them in this case, by pushing for ever longer terms they're missing out on profits - corporations are mandated to maximize profits. Paramount, by lobbying to extend the term lengths, is missing out on that sweet sweet Star Wars money (which should also be in the public domain) and thereby depriving their shareholders of a potential revenue steam.
I'm not a lawyer but I'd have to wonder if these guys could get some Paramount shares and counter sue?
Re: (Score:2)
That's just not true. That theory was first floated by GE's CEO in 1978 to justify what he wanted to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they do have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, which is pretty close to the same thing.
And Linux desktops show content and applications in windows, so it and Windows are pretty close to the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, from the end user's point of view, they ARE the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Close enough to violate a design patent or dozen.
"Could have, should have, would have." (Score:2)
And thanks to those same companies lobbying efforts they're still able to enforce copyright on something, which by all rights, should have entered the Public Domain 21 years ago.
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, works were protected for 28 years, with the option to renew for 28 years. Duration of Copyright [google.com] There is no way that Star Trek: TOS enters the public domain before 2027 even under the rules in force over 100 years ago.
This ignores, of course, all licensed and copyrighted derivatives based on the original series in all media.
Been wondering if we couldn't use corporate law against them in this case, by pushing for ever longer terms they're missing out on profits - corporations are mandated to maximize profits. Paramount, by lobbying to extend the term lengths, is missing out on that sweet sweet Star Wars money (which should also be in the public domain) and thereby depriving their shareholders of a potential revenue steam.
The key to reviving a long-dormant genre, character or series, is distance and a healthy disrespect for your sources.
Re: (Score:3)
setting precedent (Score:5, Funny)
Paramount and CBS are just worried that a bunch of amateurs working weekends with iPhones will make a better, more original, movie than J.J. - perhaps with even more saucer-section rising from the clouds/mist/ocean shots! ( That last one was an awesome shot to be sure but, seriously, do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to hide a starship on the bottom of the ocean? Or so I think I heard someone ask. )
Khaaaaan!
Re: (Score:2)
It's more ridiculous than fighting zombies with vinyl records, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Admit it, you'd have suspended disbelief it if they were launched from a gravity gun.
Re: (Score:3)
If materials science advanced to the point where a starship could get close to the speed of light without the crew becoming a sticky goo on the side of the corridors, remain in geostationary orbit, remain pressurized at one atmosphere even when orbiting a large star, I'd be rather worried if it couldn't handle the pressure increase going deep into the ocean.
Re:setting precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
If materials science advanced to the point where a starship could get close to the speed of light without the crew becoming a sticky goo on the side of the corridors, remain in geostationary orbit, remain pressurized at one atmosphere even when orbiting a large star, I'd be rather worried if it couldn't handle the pressure increase going deep into the ocean.
Take your average 300 foot tall starship. The water pressure difference form top to bottom is 10 atmospheres. That becomes a rather serious issue in diving.
Re:setting precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Take your average 300 foot tall starship. The water pressure difference form top to bottom is 10 atmospheres. That becomes a rather serious issue in diving.
Muffin-top starship?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since there are other examples of starships in the series diving into gas giants, what difference does it make where the pressure comes from?
Re: (Score:3)
Diving into an ocean: cleaning.
Diving into a gas giant: dry cleaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to that to get rid of all the barnacles, shellfish and limpets that collected in the cowls and nacelles during the dip into the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if *that* doesn't work, fire an inverse tachyon beam or a modified photon torpedo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to reverse the polarity.
Re: (Score:3)
... where a starship could ... remain in geostationary orbit, remain pressurized at one atmosphere even when orbiting a large star, I'd be rather worried if it couldn't handle the pressure increase going deep into the ocean.
The fact that it could remain in geostationary orbit negates the need to hide it in the ocean - at least as the scene unfolded in the movie. That's what makes it especially ridiculous. J.J. just wanted to do another "ship rising from the mist" scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of inside pressure. Watching those documentaries about how everything compressed in deep water. There are lifeforms at the far depths of the ocean that can only live at those pressures. Tryto extricate them back to the surface, and they basically dissolve as they consist of proteins that can only exist at those depths.
Re:setting precedent (Score:5, Informative)
If materials science advanced to the point where a starship could get close to the speed of light without the crew becoming a sticky goo on the side of the corridors, remain in geostationary orbit, remain pressurized at one atmosphere even when orbiting a large star, I'd be rather worried if it couldn't handle the pressure increase going deep into the ocean.
Professor Farnsworth explained it best:
Leela: Depth at 45 hundred feet, 48 hundred, 50 hundred! 5000 feet!
Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure.
Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?
Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the question there was... "Why was it underwater instead of in orbit? The natives clearly didn't have the capability to detect it in orbit."
Re: (Score:3)
Star Wars is a kid's fantasy, Star Trek is science fiction (they tried). JJ is of the "science fiction is made up, so science isn't necessary" school that we've been trying to kill for over seventy years. The SF readers of the 30s and 40s went on to make Apollo. After the 50's, the readers and watchers of SciFi instead made video games, because their science knowledge came from television and movie writers.
Idiots (Score:2, Interesting)
It's would be much smarter to Support the film and provide help from CBS's experience in producing films and take a cut of the sales, its also free advertising and you might even pick up some new talent.
Not only would you get paid, for doing little to nothing with no investment but you would also have no risk and all the reward.. If the movie is great than you can claim it was because of your support, if it's terrible no big deal it's an indie film...
And it would boost sales for the next "official" star tre
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since they have the option to just authorize the film instead of just suing. What would it hurt?
Re: Idiots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's would be much smarter
Being smart is not a requirement for running a business.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're afraid that a fan film will have far better cinematography than the two abortions Abram was responsible for. I think a ten year old with a couple of iPhones could produce better special effects than the meth-amphetamine inspired average shot lengths. I swear, the reboots seem designed to send epileptics into seizures.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply make it someplace where US IP laws mean nothing,
Trouble is, all such countries have "weapons of mass destruction". A little genocide is no big deal, but don't you dare trample on someone's government-granted monopoly.
RTFC (Score:2)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
CNS/Paramount, you are:
- Not promoting the Progress of the Arts [yes, I know the original meaning of Arts is different]
- Not respecting limited times [in any realistic sense]
All property is (theoretically) safe from the government and others (4th Amendment), so why was this clause included in the Constitution? Because i
Re: (Score:2)
A copyright or patent for a year is little incentive for new inventions, and a forever patent or copyright provides no return for society in return for that protection.
Where is the optimum? I believe it is 14 years.
The last Star Trek movie came out a year and a half ago, and the next one is due out in 7 months. I think they're well within your optimum range to be protecting their IP.
What about the hundreds of hours of other ST fan (Score:2)
There is literally hundreds of hours of fan films and webisodes. Why go after this one in particular?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A wall is a boundary...
Re: (Score:2)
A wall is a boundary...
But not all boundaries are walls...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the fan movie makers are making a lot of money off the Star Trek trademark and marketing. Making money of someone else's intellectual assets is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Then sue for fucking trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
In many places in the US, spitting on the sidewalk, and disturbing the peace as defined arbitrarily by an asshole cop, are crimes. In Thailand, insulting the King's dog is a crime.
The term "intellectual asset" is an absurdity. It leads to "I thought of X, no one else can use X, even thinking of it completely independently, without clearing it with me".
Re: (Score:2)
For the record (Score:3, Insightful)
Under the original copyright terms [wikipedia.org] the founders instituted in 1790, TOS would have been out of copyright since 1996 (20 years ago). Under the 1831 extension, it would have been out of copyright since 2010 (6 years ago). It wasn't until the 20th Century that the term got extended so far past the founder's intent that a 47 year old work is still under copyright. And even then, it would have been out of copyright only 8 years from now. It wasn't until 1976 (within my memory) that the current march toward virtual perpetuity really started.
Next question: Would a world where people can make and sell Trek TOS fanfic (both crappy and masterful) really be that bad? Are we, the public, better off this way? We only get new material once a decade or so, and it is almost completely immune to the natural market forces that rule media in general.
TRANSLATION (Score:2)
TRANSLATION: "Someone is making money and it's not us!"
Yeah, yeah....I know, they own the rights, etc etc etc. What good are the rights if you don't do anything with them?
Why not let the dedicated fans have some fun? It's keeping the franchise alive, what's so horrible about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Screw Paramount and CBS (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Recall in The Original Series:
-The galaxy seems to be about the size of North Dakota, and has a mysterious force field around it that prevents ships from leaving - the ENTIRE GALAXY. The galaxy is divided into four quadrants, whatever that means. We seem to have covered over a trillion star system in less than two hundred years, and have a bureaucracy and navy large enough to cover it all.
-Most aliens are essentially college educated humans, sometimes British, that somehow we can have a common basis of und
Dear CBS/Paramount (Score:2)
If you can't put together a good story, get the fuck out of the way. You would do a lot better if you used the lawsuit money as a contribution to the fan film. All it does is build a bigger fanbase from star trek.
But you gotta own something that isn't yours in the first place - it's they fans who own star trek.
Hard to tell what the real problem is (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come now. You can't Shield yourself from appearing McCoy; they'll Book you for it anyway. They know who you are, Zepherus.
Did I play the Obscure References game right?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you think Star Wars, Doctor Who, Farscape and Firefly are obscure.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh, I guess. I did get all his references and turned them back to things in the Star Trek canon.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "Book"? And nothing comes out about Star Trek when searching for Zepherus apart from a Star Trek game which is kinda cheating. :p
Re: (Score:3)
There's a book in the Star Trek 'verse called The Peacekeepers, and Zepherus B was a toxin that caused a series of mutations that resulted in Reavers.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/... [wikia.com]
http://memory-gamma.wikia.com/... [wikia.com] (incidentally they look a LOT like wraiths in Stargate Atlantis)
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Informative)
Only if you think Star Wars, Doctor Who, Farscape and Firefly are obscure.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Whoosh, I guess. I did get all his references and turned them back to things in the Star Trek canon.
In case anyone doesn't know the Farscape, "obscure" and "I have no idea what you're talking about" references...
In the 200th episode of Stargate SG-1, Vala (played by Claudia Black, who also played Aeryn Sun in Farscape) keeps coming up with story lines obviously ripped-off from other TV shows. Martin Lloyd says, "Here's some advice: if you're gonna rip something off, pick something a bit more obscure." Vala then imagines/describes a scene with SG-1 characters as Farscape characters:
After the cutaway, Martin Lloyd says, "I have no idea what you're talking about." Vala, clenches her fist and says, "Yes!"
Re: (Score:2)
Why did my post get converted to anonymous?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has been randomly logging me out today.
Re: (Score:2)
It is so nice to hear others are having the same issue. I assumed it was on my end.
For me, it only seems to log me out when I go to reply to replies to my comments from: http://slashdot.org/~Coren22/c... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's partially broken on my desktop, but completely fucked on Chrome on my Android devices.On my phone, it just keeps redirecting me to the mobile site (which, so far as I can tell, is that shitty v2 interface that no one uses).
Re: (Score:2)
I did this because you pissed me off.
I sincerely regret any inconvenience you may have caused me and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been going on for several days.
I have been getting logged out since Monday.
The problem is intermittent. Sometimes I will be logged in, sometimes I won't. It makes me suspect a load balancer issue on their federation servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try deleting cookies associated with slashdot.org and all its subdomains to see if that clears it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they sue GalaxyQuest?
No because Paramount was involved in that production.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the latest 'official' Star Trek installments are parody as well.
Re:no probz (Score:5, Funny)
"Science Officer Sock gleamed down the to surface of vacation planet Rizoff to investigate a disturbance between Klunkons and Anfloorians. Sock will take DNA samples from site of disturbance to analyze back in the science lab of the Fudderation ship, Boobyprize. However, fluffy creatures knows as 'Bebbles' have taken over the science lab. Sock asked Captain Kreck for additional resources to remove the Bebbles, but only Lieutenant Ohnono was available..."
Re:no probz (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck me, they cast LaBeouf?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the only work that alcoholic can get any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that is where we should be putting all the crowdfunding.
Re: (Score:3)
And it must be named "Star Track"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who at CBS and Paramount is trying so avidly to destroy the Star Trek canon? After all, they released rights to J J Abrams and crew for their completely disruptive "reboot" of the franchise (complete with lens flares [youtube.com]). And now that the creators of that canon have decided to try and continue the tradition of Gene Roddenberry, they decide to file suit. Clearly, Dr. Watson [youtube.com] the game is a foot.
if you don't defend your patents, you lose them. Ask Bayer about aspirin sometime. Or Xerox.
Re: (Score:3)
Defend your trademark you mean. Aspirin was a trademark, but the drug would have been able to be produced genirically either way by now (as acetylsalicylic acid).
Meanwhile, Xerox is not a genericized trademark, though some think it is. Escalator, cellophane, kerosene, and others are generic trademarks.
Though the sentiment is correct, failure to protect trademark risks forfeit of the protection. Patents do not have that feature, a company is free to submarine a patent all day long (though waiting until it
Re:Rules of fan films: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's how copyright works. You don't have to justify why you treat derivative project A differently from derivative project B; unlike trademarks you aren't required to defend copyrights to maintain your monopoly on the material.
In fact I can think of one big advantage to not having a publicly announced policy as to why you are allowing project A: I'm thinking that a publicly announced policy might be construed as a kind of general license. You don't have to write that policy in away that anticipates all the ways that someone could harm your economic interests; if you think project B harms your bottom line in a way that project A does not, you can simply demand they stop and drop the legal hammer on them if they don't. Granted this leaves fan filmmakers in an uncertain situation, but that isn't Paramount's problem. Is that really more dickish than just going after everyone regardless of whether they hurt your interests?
In this case I think it's the combination of the people involved and the amount of money raised that has Paramount spooked. As long as a fan film is no better than amazingly good for an amateur production on a shoestring, that film is a net benefit to them; it amounts to free advertising for the franchise. But film pros with even a modest budget could potentially put out a product good enough to contest Paramount's control of what fans consider "canon".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's how copyright works. You don't have to justify why you treat derivative project A differently from derivative project B; unlike trademarks you aren't required to defend copyrights to maintain your monopoly on the material.
And since the guy making the film is (allegedly) a lawyer, he's supposed to know that. He seems to be operating under the old "it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission" philosophy, which unfortunately rarely works with copyright issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use. But I could definitely see some trademark issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use.
How in the world could you consider this fair use?
The three top items on "opposing fair use" are
*Commercial activity
*Profiting from the use
*Entertainment
https://copyright.columbia.edu... [columbia.edu]
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ov... [stanford.edu]
Re:Rules of fan films: (Score:4, Informative)
That defense works if they're making something like Galaxy Quest.
If they are calling the film Star Trek, though, they've already shot down the defense that it's not Star Trek.
fair use is criticism, not competition (Score:2)
Any derivative work (copying) that competes commercially with the original is unlikely to be fair use under US law.
Primary categories that -can- be fair use include:
Criticism and comment -- quoting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
News reporting -- summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for clarification of the author's obs
#4 effect on market for original author (Score:2)
I posted the above before including the fourth test, competition with the original. Does the new work effect the market for the original work or derivative works by the author?
A professionally produced "Star Trek" film certainly COULD compete with Paramount's 2016 Star Trek Film, "Star Trek Beyond". In fact, if it's available on Amazon, consider someone tells their spouse or parents they want the Star Trek DVD for Christmas. It's entirely possible the gift-giver (who isn't a Star Trek fan) would buy the w
Re: (Score:2)
professionally produced "Star Trek" film certainly COULD compete with Paramount's 2016 Star Trek Film ....
If they want to argue their market for the work is affected adversly, they'll need to show that it Already is affected, not that it might be in the future ---- If it is affected in the future, they can then always go and drag the case back into the courts, and argue that Indie's continued Fair Use stopped being fair use at time X.....
It's entirely possible the gift-giver (who isn't a Star Tre
SCOTUS unanimously says otherwise, Congress (Score:3)
You make a fair point regarding substitution.
>> Primary categories that -can- be fair use include
> Your list is bogus.
Let's have a look at the statute. It's half a page, not too hard to read. Quoting 17 U.S. Code  107:
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research
That list looks familiar. You may not like the list, but it's the list that Congress put in the law
Re: (Score:2)
It is of Paramount importance to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a Ferengi saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at your prices, then they try to bargain, then you profit."
Re:Rules of fan films: (Score:4, Interesting)
Call me skeptical but this sounds more like a lawyer who is going to intentionally cause some disruption, get sued, and then use the donations to pay for legal fees (providing an income) and maybe get them some fame (providing an income) even if they don't actually win their case.
"Oh, hi! I was doing this thing and I knew damned well that doing this was going to get me sued. If each of you help donate then we can fight this miscarriage of justice! We can thwart this hydra known as Paramount and the IP-cartels. All I need now, I just happen to be a lawyer, is some money to help keep this project afloat. You can send money by PayPal, BitCoin, Check, Money Order, or wire it directly to this account! Thank you for helping to keep this project alive and, keep in mind, if you donate this much money - we'll even try to ship a product and you'll get some bonus material if you help by donating even more money to our legal defense team!"
Yeah, I'm cynical, skeptical, jaded, disillusioned, disenfranchised, disgusted, pragmatic, and grouchy. However, it's rather convenient to have a lawyer on-board and one who mentions that they anticipated the lawsuit ahead of time. Perhaps there's some altruism, some shred of dignity, some actual intent to create...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if the fanbois were to come up with something original ...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame, but probably true. Time to stick a fork in the whole franchise. There is no congruent way to continue the TNG, DS9, Voyager timeline.
The world has voted with their box office dollars and they prefer a reboot over original character development.
Re: (Score:3)
CBS is clearly in the right in this case (at least, I can't defend Axanar as fair use).
I can. 7 year copyright, plus 7 year extension makes the copyright of TOS quite expired. As such, a derivative work of TOS is legal use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different." - T.S. Eliot
Re: (Score:2)
When lame brainers can not think up original material they resort to theft.
We're talking about CBS here, not Disney.