Paramount DMCAs 'Star Trek' Fan Project (techdirt.com) 173
Timothy Geigner writes via Techdirt: Paramount has gone after fan-made works playing off of the franchise for years and years. Even Paramount's release of guidelines by which fans could create fan films served mostly as a giant middle finger to the fandom, so stringent were the rules. This apparently represents the owners of Star Trek's IP being completely deaf to the history of Star Trek and the internet and what the fans have meant to the franchise. And this all continued into the present day.
Recently, a fan-made project called Wolf 359 Project suffered a DMCA takedown from Paramount. If you're a Next Generation fan, that name will likely sound familiar: "The Battle of Wolf 359 hearkens to a classic The Next Generation two-episode event called 'The Best of Both Worlds.' Captain Picard is assimilated by the Borg, and before the Enterprise crew rescues him, the relentless Borg forces fight a battle that kills 11,000 people. Star Trek: Picard Season 3 dealt with this, specifically through the character of Captain Liam Shaw. It was the first time someone described the Starfleet experience during one of the costliest battles in Star Trek history. Star Trek fans are never one to let a good idea go to waste, and The Wolf 359 Project is a fan-written oral history of the battle. The 'book' ran over 500 pages long, and its authors were giving it away for free. However, Paramount issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act strike against it."
So here's what this essentially is: fans who love TNG filling in the gaps of the original story they love with the unexplored rest of the universe of people who would have been impacted by that storyline. That's important for two reasons. First and foremost, this doesn't take anything away from Paramount's Star Trek production, and in fact does the opposite. The project doesn't replace the original episodes, but rather builds upon them. In other words, this project could only possibly serve to draw more interest to Paramount's product, since the book isn't going to make much sense to anyone who hasn't seen the original episodes. Second, this is a work being done for free, given away for free, all by fans that are doing what Star Trek fans have always done: create. [...] ]
Recently, a fan-made project called Wolf 359 Project suffered a DMCA takedown from Paramount. If you're a Next Generation fan, that name will likely sound familiar: "The Battle of Wolf 359 hearkens to a classic The Next Generation two-episode event called 'The Best of Both Worlds.' Captain Picard is assimilated by the Borg, and before the Enterprise crew rescues him, the relentless Borg forces fight a battle that kills 11,000 people. Star Trek: Picard Season 3 dealt with this, specifically through the character of Captain Liam Shaw. It was the first time someone described the Starfleet experience during one of the costliest battles in Star Trek history. Star Trek fans are never one to let a good idea go to waste, and The Wolf 359 Project is a fan-written oral history of the battle. The 'book' ran over 500 pages long, and its authors were giving it away for free. However, Paramount issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act strike against it."
So here's what this essentially is: fans who love TNG filling in the gaps of the original story they love with the unexplored rest of the universe of people who would have been impacted by that storyline. That's important for two reasons. First and foremost, this doesn't take anything away from Paramount's Star Trek production, and in fact does the opposite. The project doesn't replace the original episodes, but rather builds upon them. In other words, this project could only possibly serve to draw more interest to Paramount's product, since the book isn't going to make much sense to anyone who hasn't seen the original episodes. Second, this is a work being done for free, given away for free, all by fans that are doing what Star Trek fans have always done: create. [...] ]
Not the first time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to point out exactly that! DS9 was kicked off with a gritty depiction of Commander Sisco losing his shipmates, ship, and his wife during that attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Came to say exactly this.
Re: (Score:3)
Add my voice to the chorus of people replying to you saying that they came here to point out the same thing.
It was rather important to Sisko's backstory and the character arc he went through with Picard.
Re: (Score:2)
Testify brother and glad to meet (as it were) a true Star Trek fan!
Damn nerds.
Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Trek. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck Paramount directly in the ear.
Re:Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tre (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck Paramount, but Strange New Worlds does respect and build on the canon in a way that really adds to the whole Star Trek franchise. Arguably Lower Decks does too.
We should be careful to separate Paramount Corporate and their lawyers, who are also currently trying to screw over the writers and actors, and the people producing Star Trek at the moment who clearly have a lot of love and respect for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery has been a bit of a mixed bag over the years. Sometimes it's great, other times not so much. I still really enjoy it though, and it's definitely got the core of what Trek is nailed down.
Strange New Worlds can't seem to put a foot wrong. Great takes on the characters, managing to capture their essence while not having the actors do a simple impression of the originals. It's extremely well written too. If you didn't like Discovery then I highly recommend checking out SNW anyway.
Lower Decks... At fir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nurse Chapel was in love with Spock in TOS, that's where they get it from. It makes more sense than Uhura.
Not sure I want that pursued, but there you go.
Re: Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the slightly serious episodes of Lower Decks aren't bad, but yeah a lot of them are a bit juvenile for my sense of humour sometimes. I get the basic joke - if Star Trek was real then people would be experiencing these ridiculous kinds of things all the time. It's just a bit manic and a lot of the jokes miss because I don't have instant recall of every random reference they are making.
Re: (Score:2)
The cadence and sound of the voice actors on Lower Decks just annoys me. Like everyone is coked up and paid by the word.
Re: (Score:2)
Prodigy was *weirdly* good ,once you get past the "This sort of looks like star wars?" animation style.
I got bad news though. Paramount axed it.
And yeah much like the originals a lot of the new trek is hit and miss. They've really only had one season I could say was *truly* bad, and that was the second season of Picard. The first was.... meh, not good but i could watch it, and the third and final season was .... why couldnt they just do THIS from the outset?! Goofy and fanservicey, but I thoroughly enjoyed
Re: (Score:2)
Paramount axed season 2 of Prodigy, but it was nearly complete and they have decided to finish it. It will almost certainly air somewhere, and then after that I understand their contract allows them to sell it to other networks. Maybe if the numbers are good they can even get Paramount back.
Re: Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And finally, it gave them room to throw in a fun (if pointless) tie-back to In A Mirror Darkly.
Doing something for fun is rarely pointless. Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Season 3 of Picard AKA Next Gen season 8, bah. I didn't want that at all. It felt like watching Laurel & Hardy in Utopia, too much sad reminder they're getting old. And that was on top of it being nostalgia fan service, get back to something mildly new.
Re: Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Star Trek shows were free for half a century, dumbshit. It's called ads.
That makes me the product, no?
Or does it mean they were not actually free, but instead were paid for by someone else (i.e. the "ads")?
Why call someone else a name like that when you clearly missed a rather large detail?
Re: (Score:2)
And what are you claiming I missed in that clown's comment? The part where he forgot (or never knew) that the overwhelming majority of Star Trek content was free, or the part where he implied that fre
Re: (Score:2)
Criticism of the ad-supported format is beside the point. The core mythology and fanbase of Star Trek was created in that format and flourished for generations. Now we're supposed to be unsatisfied with that because the soulless corporation that owns its carcass on paper decided to change business models?
And what are you claiming I missed in that clown's comment? The part where he forgot (or never knew) that the overwhelming majority of Star Trek content was free, or the part where he implied that free content is Communism? LMAO
So you admit that your criticism is beside the point? They why did you argue it at all?
Indeed, Star Trek has a devoted following, and Paramount isn't catering. That's their prerogative.... whether I like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Holding the fanbase in contempt is Paramount's legal right, but not any other kind of right.
Re: (Score:2)
What? I said criticism of the ad-supported format is beside the point, because the bulk of Star Trek lore was created in it.
Holding the fanbase in contempt is Paramount's legal right, but not any other kind of right.
You called other posted a name for no good reason, and when I point it out to you dance around the issue. Stop - just stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So now you shoot your flamethrower my direction? Reread the thread and consider how vile you're being...
No wonder Slashdot teeters on circling the toilet....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep digging, fella. First you defend an indefensible comment, then you try to deflect and project, now you try to change the subject.
If I'm a troll, stop feeding me. But you don't because you know I'm right:
My position is not indefensible. Y'all don't like Paramount - so be it. Y'all think Star Trek is publicly owned - it's not. Y'all think you are forced to love Star Trek to your own peril instead of drafting your own content. If you value your time, you'll pay Paramount for the content you love so much... else you will spend your time and save your money by doing it yourselves.
Re: Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tr (Score:2)
No. Slavery makes you the product. Ads are just ads, they suck but they don't exploit you.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Slavery makes you the product. Ads are just ads, they suck but they don't exploit you.
Fair point, especially considering I control both the FF and MUTE buttons....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tre (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate this too. But this is a problem with copyright rules. I believe there is a clause that states to the effect of "f you do not enforce your copyright restrictions, it becomes unenforceable.
Re:Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tre (Score:4, Informative)
I hate this too. But this is a problem with copyright rules. I believe there is a clause that states to the effect of "f you do not enforce your copyright restrictions, it becomes unenforceable.
IANAL but I think you're referring to trademark, not copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright can be like that too. Basically if you dont enforce it you open up a defence for others to violate it. If you let fans do movies without permission, then when Fox does ITS star trek folk they can say "Well Judge, they let Axanar do it, how are we different?" and since the law doesnt dipastinguish between fan and professional , the judge is likely going to agree and decide theres unclean hands going on here.
There IS a simple solution to this though. And fan media creators pay close attention here;-
Re: (Score:3)
Or the other side of the solution is for Paramount to have a process for this kind of thing. They really should not be discouraging fans in any way, even as they need to protect their copyrights and trademarks legally. This isn't an either/or kind of thing, both can be done at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tre (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a misconception that enforcing copyright (and trademark) means the holder must shut down any potential violation. That is not so. They do need to respond, but they don't have to shut it down. Paramount could have sent a letter saying "We authorize this, here are some conditions, sign here." or even "This does not violate our copyright because [fair use or parody or whatever reason]." The action they took was their decision, not something they are required to do.
Trademark holders can do that too. My favorite example of this is: Tim Langdell (*former* head of the International Game Developers Assocation, the IGDA) held a trademark for his gaming magazine "Edge." He sued an indie developer who made a game called Edge. (Which is the opposite of what he was supposd to do in his role in the IGDA) The defense was that the law required him to defend his trademark, otherwise it risks becoming a generic term (like "Kleenex"). But trademark law did not force him to shut down the developer - he could have either 1) licensed to them, or 2) written a legal opinion stating that a video game named Edge does not violate a trademark on a publication named Edge. Langdell was forced to resign his position - not because what he did was legally wrong, but because it violated the spirit of his position and put a black mark on the IGDA.
Another example of this is The Pokemon Corporation who shuts down events at conventions, instead of licensing them. Everybody says "Oh, that's a trademark violation" or "oh, that's a copyright violation." But it is only a violation if the fans don't follow the rules! If The Pokemon Corporation sent a marketing person down who said "Hey, you owe us $10, and you have to display the trademark in accordance with our trademark rules" then the everybody would win.
TLDR: The law does not require IP holders to be jerkwads.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't understand it, have never respected anything about it, and consider people who like it to be sheep for shearing rather than members of a community they share. Fuck Paramount directly in the ear.
This is how Paramount views all legacy properties they get to make movies for. They don't seem to get that contempt for the fans isn't the brightest move, nor is it a money-making strategy long-term.
Gee. I wonder why they keep having financial difficulties?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Tre (Score:4)
Because greed isn't about measured responses and reasonable actions that are likely to be profitable in the long term. It's about shouting "MINE! MINE! MINE!" at the slightest hint that anyone else might pick up a penny.
Re: (Score:2)
Abuse of DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What specifically do you think they abused? Was this not a derivative work that used copyrighted elements of the Star Trek fictional universe?
If someone believes they were wrongfully DMCA'ed, they just have to provide a DMCA counter-notice [websitepolicies.com] and wait a couple of weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I was wondering how they were getting away with it, but it's interesting to note there are zero ads on YouTube, on their website or anywhere. All the episodes are free-to-download as torrents. So I suspect they are truly making zero money from it.
I can't help but wonder if the Wolf 359 Project is some how making money and that's the issue?
Re: Abuse of DMCA (Score:2)
Re: Abuse of DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't happen today.
But if that is true, how is Star Trek Continues being allowed?
Re:Abuse of DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
What does this even refer to? Is there a copyright on the character of Warf??? I don't think that's how that works.
Actually it does work like that.
This protection extends to any copyrightable pictorial or written expression contained in the work. Thus a drawing, picture, depiction, or written description of a character can be registered for copyright. Protection does not, however, extend to the title or general theme for a cartoon or comic strip, the general idea or name for characters depicted, or their intangible attributes. Although the copy right law does not provide such protection, a character may be protected under aspects of state, common, or trademark laws, and titles and names may some times be protected under state law doctrines or state and federal trademark laws.
https://www.copyright.gov/circ... [copyright.gov]
This was the basis of all the lawsuits over Sherlock Holmes before it went public domain, and even then they pushed to keep the copyright on certain traits of the character from later books that had not fallen into public domain yet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this provides a hilarious counterpoint to yesterday's discussion of works produced by LLMs. A bunch of people claiming that "if a human did it it wouldn't violate copyright" yet somehow fan fiction - pretty much a perfect example of a creative "transformative work" - is effectively forbidden by copyright. Some owners choose to allow fan fiction that is given away instead of sold, but commercial fan fiction simply does not exist, and non-commercial can be halted at any moment. Why should LLMs be a
Re: Abuse of DMCA (Score:3)
Those arguments depend on the idea that you can copyright a STYLE which is not the case. Anyone is free to make works in the same style as anyone else.
If your llm manages to reproduce trademarked elements then the result may well not be redistributable, but that's not the usual argument
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huh (Score:2)
The project doesn't replace the original episodes, but rather builds upon them. In other words, this project could only possibly serve to draw more interest to Paramount's product, since the book isn't going to make much sense to anyone who hasn't seen the original episodes.
Huh ... almost sounds like it "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts"!
And the same evil old white men who wrote that also thought that 7 years, renewable one time for a total of 14, was enough for copyright. They would have been fine with this fan project.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
> that used copyrighted elements
The Constitutional copyright system prevents unauthorized duplication, not building on a mythos.
In 1789 that would have been called 'Storytellng'. There is zero chance the Founders intended to outlaw Storytelling.
Modern wrong fascist "interpretations" should be delt with harshly.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitutional copyright system prevents unauthorized duplication, not building on a mythos.
Even if we assume that the original constitutional intent for copyright did not involve the exclusive rights to create derivative works of an original copyrighted work (which seems unlikely to me), the current law of the land in the U.S. reserves that right to the copyright holder.
https://www.copyright.gov/circ... [copyright.gov] (page 2)
As a consumer, I like free stuff. As a producer, I like getting paid for my work. Regardless of our personal stances on copyright, Paramount owns the right to create, and authorize or deny
Re: (Score:2)
People cannot take a hint (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean that they can't take a hint; the people have spoken and they're going to fan.
Free Culture (Score:2)
We clearly need a storytelling universe that is free of the fascist copyright regime.
Unfortunately due to /Byrne/ it would need a permissive license in many juridictions.
Has such a project already begun?
Re: (Score:2)
Some license options for such a project:
https://creativecommons.org/ [creativecommons.org]
https://creativecommons.org/li... [creativecommons.org]
Example of use of CC-by-nc-sa, Cory Doctorow: https://craphound.com/littlebr... [craphound.com]
https://copyleft.org/ [copyleft.org]
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/l... [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA only applies to the USA.
This is probably why this [youtube.com] can exist.
You can't buy that kind of fan dedication. (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek Fan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disco Ninja noted:
The pilot episode of DS9 via flashbacks explores the personal experience of Captain Sisko (though he was a commander in the pilot) during the battle of Wolf 359.
The captain of a naval vessel is always referred to as "Captain," regardless of his actual rank. Likewise, a visitor or passenger whose actual rank is captain on a naval vessel is accorded a courtesy promotion to admiral for the duration of his/her visit, so as to remove any possibility of confusion over who is in command of the ship.
This is one of the many, MANY points of military culture that every Star Trek iteration since TOS reliably gets wrong.
As for Amimojo's praise of SNW's "faithf
So they can dish up their own drivel instead (Score:2)
No doubt they did it so they can take the idea and turn it into some malnourishing gruel not even Krusty the Clown would put his name to.
Re: (Score:2)
Worst Star Trek series ever! I'm a fan of Star Trek but Discovery is absolute shit. Strange New Worlds is fun. At least someone pulled their head out of their ass.
Seems legit to me. (Score:2)
The parody laws should easily cover this as fair-use. Who can claim grievance from harm, or standing, including loss of profits or dilution of IP? (I am not a lawyer). This is like bothering to sue kids that make their own Halloween Star Trek costumes instead of buying cheap, imported plastic stuff at Wal-Mart. Judges don't take kindly to frivolous lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe you should look up the definition of parody
Get a life, nerds! (Score:2)
Re: Get a life, nerds! (Score:2)
Nice novelty account
Re: (Score:2)
Stop giving them money (Score:2)
We have Paramount+ right now only because they begged us to stay when our free trial ended. They gave us three more months for free.
What we learned from the trial was that it wasn't worth paying for. Not only is the amount of interesting content pretty much limited to Trek, but they play unskippable commercials for shows I don't want to watch at the beginning of episodes. Thankfully they mostly only play once, so if you stop them and then restart the episode you can effectively skip them. Every so often the
Why? (Score:2)
Did they have better scripts, plots, acting and storylines than Paramount's next installment of Star Trek?
They Can't Compete With Fan Fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek as a franchise has gotten so bad in recent years that they fear that fan fiction will completely out-compete them. And they're not wrong. Literally ANYTHING is better than the garbage they have put out since 2009. They might as well sell the property to Disney at this point. It can't get any worse.
Antitrustworthy (Score:2)
[Paramount] might as well sell the [Star Trek] property to Disney at this point. It can't get any worse.
Having Star Trek and Star Wars under the same ownership would raise eyebrows at any competent antitrust agency.
Re:They Can't Compete With Fan Fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Strange New Worlds is fantastic. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. It's well written, well acted, looks and sounds fantastic. Unless you just don't like sci-fi there's no reasonable complaint to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange New Worlds is fantastic. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. It's well written, well acted, looks and sounds fantastic. Unless you just don't like sci-fi there's no reasonable complaint to be made.
I like how they've tied in TOS storylines, such as Pike’s accident and a Spock from The Cage that is not yet the cold logical one in TOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Is “woke” the word you’re looking for?
The only reason we still have Star Trek today... (Score:5, Interesting)
...is that after TOS was cancelled in 1969, the fandom kept it alive. They just kept on writing fan-fic, publishing fanzines, and holding conventions. (The first big Star Trek convention was held in 1972, even though there was absolutely zippo happening with Star Trek back then). According to people like David Gerrold, this was something new and unprecedented; usually if a show got cancelled, the fan base moved on.
I have fond memories of reading Star Trek fanfic in my teens/twenties. The highlight was "Star Trek: Door Repair Guy", which was a sort of Terry Pratchett-like series about (you guessed it) the guy who does maintenance on all of those sliding doors. There was also a pretty good series called "Only Human", which took place in an alternate universe where Q never got his powers back after "Deja Q".
I'd stack either of those fanfics up against the "official" Star Trek novels, even though some of those were written by established and semi-well-known authors like James Blish.
Paramount and executive IQs (Score:2)
And now we have a short IQ test.
Paramount is to Star Trek fan support as:
a. Bud Light is to falling off a cliff
b. Target is to children's adustable clothing sales
c. Disney is to remaking Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with non-offensive dwarves of color
Choose a, b, or c, or oh hell, all three above.
It's alleged they shot themselves in the foot (Score:3)
So why would Paramount go after this "free" book? It's being alleged on Reddit that the website had a Google form asking people if they would be interested in paying for a print copy of the book. That is what got them the takedown notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I think this isn't the whole story (Score:2)
Screw Paramount ... (Score:2)
and the horse they rode in on. This tempts me to start writing some fanfic :-( I certainly won't be the first. Do a search for "Star Trek fanfic" for a huge list of archives. Like https://www.fanfiction.net/tv/... [fanfiction.net]
Possible legal reason? (Score:2)
Not that I support the action, but could their reason be that *if* hypothetically they created a wolf 359 miniseries and it sounded a lot like a fanfic, they could get sued by the fans?
Not a justification, still stupid, but I'm searching for the why.
What did they copy? (Score:2)
Keeping in mind that ideas and names cannot be copyrighted (names can be trademarked though) — what exactly is Paramount claiming has been copied? It seems unlikely that anything of a copyrightable length/nature would be in a fan-fic book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What did they copy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Paramount claimed that the screen captures taken directly from scenes of the shows were copied. Paramount did not object to the text of the book. Nobody else commenting here seems to have noticed that. The project is commissioning artwork to replace the screen captures.
Who'd they quote? (Score:2)
As Yoda would say .... :-)
Paramount didn't DMCA the text of the book (Score:5, Insightful)
They only objected to the book's use of direct screen captures/images that are Paramount copyrights. They did not have any objections to the text content of the book.
Don't let reality stand in the way of your righteous indignation, though, please continue.
Re:Cultural Marxism (Score:4, Interesting)
"The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory"
Get the fuck off Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I defer to your PhD from google university. Perhaps for your next degree you can write about how the government listening to your phone calls and recording your emails is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory
Re:Cultural Marxism (Score:4)
Oh come on. You're the one claiming a conspiracy of cultural elite is putting out shitty Star Trek episodes. It's a totally bizarre claim that requires some kind of extraordinary proof.
I'm not an expert in your weird conspiracy theory that "they" are in a secret cultural take over war, and that you are one of an elite "Few can understand that Star Wars, Star Trek, and Dr. Who have been targeted for corruption and destruction." But it's obviously the product of an unbalanced mind, and a simple top google result of "Cultural Marxism" shows a link to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you want a serious debate now? You're functionally retarded with a micropenis
Re: (Score:2)
All of us know that if you got four Star Wars or Star Trek fans together in a room we would put together a better movie than the steaming rat-shit that has been produced by Hollywood et al.
Nah, you wind up with 5 story lines and endless arguments why *my* story wss the only one that followed the canon