Star Trek vs Axanar Fan Film Lawsuit: Clarification, Ownership, and Dismissal Responses

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**warboss**

1/30/2016: Axanar Fan Film gets pro bono representation from the same firm (likely a different office though) who represented Chapterhouse pro bono against GW's lawsuit.

http://www.axanarproductions.com/axanar-signs-winston-strawn-to-defend-cbsparamount-lawsuit/

It seems that this particular firm is the defender of all things geek in the IP world. I'm glad to hear that they (like Chapterhouse) won't just get bullied out of defending their rights.

2/25/2016: It looks like the folks who defended Chapterhouse are using initially the same tactic and asking exactly which of the "innumerable" copyrights Axanar has violated and to prove exact ownership of each from amongst the various corporations with a hand in the Star Trek pot.

http://trekmovie.com/2016/02/25/axanar-pushes-back-in-cbsparamount-lawsuit/

**MeanGreenStompa**

I wish them all the luck in the world, I've been dying to see this movie and was really pissed off when it got the IP Hammer.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Prelude to Axanar was the best Trek in a decade*. I have my doubts about how well the actual movie will turn out, but I pledged money because I do want to see how it turns out. Not sure why the IP hammer came down so late. It certainly didn't do much to endear Paramount to the fans.

*ST09 was a decent Star Wars movie.

**Mr Morden**

Fantastic pre-qual film and was really looking forweard to this.

Crossed fingers they win!

**Ahtman**

It is hard to believe the owners of the IP are defending it against a feature film. This is truly shocking information. Don't they know that fans own and can do whatever they please whenever they please?

I really don't have strong feelings either way to be honest, I just don't see the merits of this as opposed to Chapterhouse Studios. If they win then good on them, if they lose they tried to make an IP they didn't own or have rights to.

**oldravenman3025**

The issue CBS/Paramount have is that Peters (in their view) crossed the line between a "fan production"/"fair use" project and a "for profit" venture, by using Prelude as a springboard for jump starting his for-profit production company. He also paid himself a salary with the kickstarter funds.

It's also very telling that Tony Todd left the project over more than the "personal changes" and "creative differences" originally reported:

Spoiler:

So, something amiss was going on. And I have a feeling that the suit will be proven to be more than a petty move when (or if) more info comes to light.

**ZergSmasher**

That's a shame. I was looking forward to the whole movie.

**Breotan**

If it were up to me, copyright would only last 50 years after authorship. But Disney can buy more Congressmen than I can so...

**Compel**

oldravenman3025 wrote:

He also paid himself a salary with the kickstarter funds.

Um, d'oh. I can see this being a big enough issue that will pretty much ensure Axanar is done for.

**Yodhrin**

Compel wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:

He also paid himself a salary with the kickstarter funds.

Um, d'oh. I can see this being a big enough issue that will pretty much ensure Axanar is done for.

Wait, how does that work? How is paying people to work on the project any different than paying to rent a studio or paying to rent/buy a camera - it's all just costs.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Compel wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:

He also paid himself a salary with the kickstarter funds.

Um, d'oh. I can see this being a big enough issue that will pretty much ensure Axanar is done for.

Well, tricky really. Paramount was adamant that no fan film could be a profit making venture, but paying yourself a salary through the time taken to create the film, in a specific role, could be argued to be no different than using funds raised to pay for a piece of equipment or pay a star's fee, as part of the creation process.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
It is hard to believe the owners of the IP are defending it against a feature film. This is truly shocking information. Don't they know that fans own and can do whatever they please whenever they please?

I really don't have strong feelings either way to be honest, I just don't see the merits of this as opposed to Chapterhouse Studios. If they win then good on them, if they lose they tried to make an IP they didn't own or have rights to.

Fan fluttering and wig adjusting aside...

1. Paramount were involved a great deal during the early stages of this and remained, so we are told, consulted all the way through. It reads very much like when the positive popularity of this project began to go mainstream, it finally crossed the desk of someone else who blew a fuse over it. They aren't panicking over a man paying himself and they aren't panicking over 'defending' the IP when they gave endorsement in the first place, they're panicking because someone outside is doing a better job with the IP than they have and they don't have control over it.

2. Is it hard to believe, given the drivel we have been presented with pretty much after DS9 finished, that fans of the IP wanted someone, anyone to do something good with the IP and aren't overly concerned with how that is achieved, so long as we get an intelligent, elegant ST movie? Is that 'truly shocking'?

**Ahtman**

Yodhrin wrote:
Wait, how does that work? How is paying people to work on the project any different than paying to rent a studio or paying to rent/buy a camera - it's all just costs.

You can't take money for things you don't own or have the rights to use. Fan films typically skirt this because there is no salary or profit, just some people making something out of passion. Here, on the other hand, the guy took money and paid himself. Some one else's stuff isn't something one can get paid for or typically profit off of.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
fans of the IP wanted someone, anyone to do something good with the IP and aren't overly concerned with how that is achieved, so long as we get an intelligent, elegant ST movie? Is that 'truly shocking'?

Well (some) fans don't get to hijack other peoples things just because they are unhappy, nor do they get to (most likely) break the law because of fandom either. They don't own the IP so, yes, it does matter how they get it.

**warboss**

2/25/2016: It looks like the folks who defended Chapterhouse are using initially the same tactic and asking exactly which of the "innumerable" copyrights Axanar has violated and to prove exact ownership of each from amongst the various corporations with a hand in the Star Trek pot over the past 30 years. They're also responding that it is premature to sue about something that is yet to be released (the Axanar episode, not the prelude) since they don't actually know what they'll end up doing and the court can't figure out what, if anything, has been potentially infringed without a final work.

http://trekmovie.com/2016/02/25/axanar-pushes-back-in-cbsparamount-lawsuit/

**Breotan**

I just find it sad when a fan project that actually looks good and is written well enough to be interesting winds up melting down because of poor decision making.

**warboss**

Breotan wrote:
I just find it sad when a fan project that actually looks good and is written well enough to be interesting winds up melting down because of poor decision making.

I'm a bit mixed myself on this one. I think that there is no reason that they should go after them about the actual fan film personally since dozens of other fan films (including recently crowdfunded ones with professional collaborators and actors) have been allowed without any issue. Despite my interest in actually buying some of the items, I do find the for profit production and licensing of officially branded Axanar products (both full sized model kits as well as scale minis) to be a step too far. I really would love an Ares and a D-6 scale model but I can see how selling them for profit whether directly or through a third party (as opposed to a free to watch film even if there is an at cost DVD option) violates the spirit of the not for profit fan film/IP owner understanding.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Wait. They were selling model kits?

**warboss**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wait. They were selling model kits?

Yup, both larger ones like the old AMT/Ertyl/Revell ones but resin as well as FASA/STAW sized metal minis. The later are hard to find and not really advertised publicly as you apparently have to be a backer to order them and they're out of stock for months at a time even if you do. Rewards like some buttons, shirts, pins, dvds, models, whatever during a very short limited fundraising time like a kickstarter campaign is one thing and already a grey area frankly but officially partnering with other companies and having branded models effectively permanently on sale is stepping over the IP line IMO... no matter how much I want the minis personally...and I do!

If anyone is a backer with access, pm me please.

http://modelgeek.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18409

http://www.axanarproductions.com/captains-log-feb-2nd-2016/

**BobtheInquisitor**

I pledged $25 in the Axanar campaign. I didn't keep up with all the updates, though, so I don't know if that counts.

**hotsauceman1**

Fan stuff has always existed in this weird legal/moral gray area.

**warboss**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I pledged $25 in the Axanar campaign. I didn't keep up with all the updates, though, so I don't know if that counts.

It should but don't quote me on that. You'd have to go their website and try to log in. I don't know if they granted access to only the latest campaign or all of them but the latter seems more likely IMO.

**Orlanth**

t looks to me that paramount had to act because the producers of Axanar were producing merchandising and thus 'profiting' from the production.
even if the proceeds of merchandising went back entirely to the production of fan film, I can see how his crosses the line.

Paramount aren't in the wrong here IMHO. they have a legal obligation to defend their IP or risk genericity. It's also plain that given reasonable safeguards they are more than willing to accommodate fanfilm.

**Ahtman**

Paramount lawyers call Star Trek fan film’s bluff in nerdiest lawsuit ever

Last month, after receiving a lawsuit from Paramount and CBS for allegedly infringing on “innumerable copyrighted elements of Star Trek,” the team behind Star Trek fan film Axanar responded by demanding that Paramount specify which elements were being infringed on. The idea was that Paramount’s lawyers would have a hard time untangling the web of Star Trek mythology that has been spread out across decades of movies, TV shows, and comic books, so they’d be unable to actually define—let alone copyright—the entire Star Trek universe. However, like the biggest nerd in the comic book store, Paramount has responded to this challenge by pushing up its glasses, clearing its throat, and rattling off a list of Star Trek facts that would make Wil Wheaton himself shake with fear.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, CBS and Paramount have now amended the original lawsuit with an absolutely vicious 28 pages of copyrighted items that the Axanar team have taken from Stark Trek, ranging from minor things like United Federation Of Planets logos all the way to the general “mood and theme” of your average Star Trek story. Other highlights include every costume ever, specific Stardates that have significance in the Star Trek universe, a Vulcan’s pointy ears, and even generic-ish sci-fi things like phasers, warp drives, and the idea of “beaming up.” One particularly noteworthy entry is the Klingon language itself, which THR notes has been involved in copyright disputes in the past.

The most brutal part of CBS and Paramount’s amendment comes from the Axanar team itself, though. Apparently, in an interview back in February, Axanar producer Alec Peters said that his film “[violates] CBS copyright less than any other fan film,” which the lawyers argue might as well be an admission of guilt. Basically, CBS and Paramount have called the Axanar team’s bluff in the most epic/obsessively dorky way possible. But really, for a lawsuit that relies on Star Trek lore as much as this one, is there really any other way to do it?

You can read the full amended lawsuit here.

Starting to get a bit spicy.

**Yodhrin**

"general mood and theme...pointy ears" - and that, right there, is why corporations will always struggle to get normal people to sympathise with their constant attempts to crush fan projects; even when they might, possibly, potentially have some kernel of a point, they can't resist peeling off the latex mask to reveal their inner soulless lizard-people.

**warboss**

Yodhrin wrote:
"general mood and theme...pointy ears" - and that, right there, is why corporations will always struggle to get normal people to sympathise with their constant attempts to crush fan projects; even when they might, possibly, potentially have some kernel of a point, they can't resist peeling off the latex mask to reveal their inner soulless lizard-people.

I'm curious to see how they'll tackle the question of why they didn't sue every fan film that used fake goblety guk as klingon language, elven ear prosthetics, warp drives, etc. for over the past two decades of modern fans. My impression was that unless they went after those individual items coherently over the years then they lose that protection.

**Ouze**

warboss wrote:
I'm curious to see how they'll tackle the question of why they didn't sue every fan film that used fake goblety guk as klingon language, elven ear prosthetics, warp drives, etc. for over the past two decades of modern fans. My impression was that unless they went after those individual items coherently over the years then they lose that protection.

I think that applies to trademark, not copyright.

**Ahtman**

Yodhrin wrote:
"general mood and theme...pointy ears" - and that, right there, is why corporations will always struggle to get normal people to sympathize with their constant attempts to crush fan projects; even when they might, possibly, potentially have some kernel of a point, they can't resist peeling off the latex mask to reveal their inner soulless lizard-people.

Did you not read the article? They did it as a response to being asked to do that under the idea that they wouldn't. Seems odd to blame the studios for something someone else did.

**warboss**

Ahtman wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
"general mood and theme...pointy ears" - and that, right there, is why corporations will always struggle to get normal people to sympathize with their constant attempts to crush fan projects; even when they might, possibly, potentially have some kernel of a point, they can't resist peeling off the latex mask to reveal their inner soulless lizard-people.

Did you not read the article? They did it as a response to being asked to do that under the idea that they wouldn't. Seems odd to blame the studios for something someone else did.

"Someone else" didn't force the studios to include the exact claims they included. That overreach was 100% the studios' decision. Yodhrim is likely responding to those exact claims of ownership including nebulously generic ones like "general mood and theme" common to plenty of scifi.

As for the article...

The most brutal part of CBS and Paramount’s amendment comes from the Axanar team itself, though. Apparently, in an interview back in February, Axanar producer Alec Peters said that his film “[violates] CBS copyright less than any other fan film,” which the lawyers argue might as well be an admission of guilt.

A lawyer could also argue that a work that violates no copyright mathematically violates less than any other fan film and isn't an admission of guilt. 0 < any positive number of violations.

**Breotan**

Mood and theme are essentially covered under "Trade Dress". And I read somewhere that the Klingon language is also being claimed as copyright. How do you copyright a language, even a made up one? I remember hearing that there are college courses teaching Klingon. Did they all get the proper licensing to do so? If not then I think this may be a pretty weak claim.

**Ahtman**

warboss wrote:
"Someone else" didn't force the studios to include the exact claims they included. That overreach was 100% the studios' decision. Yodhrim is likely responding to those exact claims of ownership including nebulously generic ones like "general mood and theme" common to plenty of scifi.

The guy taking money for merchandising a fan film explicitly and legally asked for a list of things they violated. Paramount didn't create a list for fun, though I imagine they did have fun creating it.

warboss wrote:
The most brutal part of CBS and Paramount’s amendment comes from the Axanar team itself, though. Apparently, in an interview back in February, Axanar producer Alec Peters said that his film “[violates] CBS copyright less than any other fan film,” which the lawyers argue might as well be an admission of guilt.

A lawyer could also argue that a work that violates no copyright mathematically violates less than any other fan film and isn't an admission of guilt. 0 < any positive number of violations.

He didn't say that they didn't violate copyright at all, just that they violated it less than others. "My client murdered less people than other murderers so you must acquit."

**Yodhrin**

Ahtman wrote:
warboss wrote:
"Someone else" didn't force the studios to include the exact claims they included. That overreach was 100% the studios' decision. Yodhrim is likely responding to those exact claims of ownership including nebulously generic ones like "general mood and theme" common to plenty of scifi.

The guy taking money for merchandising a fan film explicitly and legally asked for a list of things they violated. Paramount didn't create a list for fun, though I imagine they did have fun creating it.

Is the image of a bunch of corporate lawyers gleefully indulging in petty spite in response to a fairly common legal tactic in IP law cases supposed to make them more sympathetic?

They alleged general infringement, were asked to be specific, and responded by generating a list that attempts to claim ownership over pointy ears and the entire basic concept of utopian sci-fi. Only one side of that exchange comes out of it looking like unreasonable bullies, and it ain't the defendant.

As for the merchandising, out of interest, did Paramount request they stop doing that and that request was refused?

warboss wrote:
The most brutal part of CBS and Paramount’s amendment comes from the Axanar team itself, though. Apparently, in an interview back in February, Axanar producer Alec Peters said that his film “[violates] CBS copyright less than any other fan film,” which the lawyers argue might as well be an admission of guilt.

A lawyer could also argue that a work that violates no copyright mathematically violates less than any other fan film and isn't an admission of guilt. 0 < any positive number of violations.

He didn't say that they didn't violate copyright at all, just that they violated it less than others. "My client murdered less people than other murderers so you must acquit."

Which, as was explicitly pointed out, is entirely valid. Zero is less than any number greater than zero, so while "less times" implies some times, it is not "an admission of guilt" because the phrase can contain both meanings. Whether one or the other meaning is more plausible given the specifics of this case is another matter, but the point, indeed the point in general of this thread, is that it's nowhere near as clear-cut as Paramount's lawyers are claiming.