As CBS/Paramount Continue Lawsuit Over Fan Film, It Releases Ridiculous & Impossible 'Fan Film Guidelines'
from the don't-count-your-eggs dept
We've been covering the still going lawsuit by CBS and Paramount against Axanar Productions for making a crowdfunded fan film that they claim is infringing because it's looking pretty good. Things got a little weird last month when the producer of the latest Star Trek film, JJ Abrams, and its director, Justin Lin, basically leaked a bit of news saying that after they had gone to Paramount, the studio was going to end the lawsuit. At the time, Paramount said that it was in "settlement discussions" and that it was "also working on a set of fan film guidelines."We pointed out that we were concerned about what those guidelines might entail, and worried that they would undermine fair use. In the meantime, as settlement talks continued, the case moved forward. I'm still a little surprised that the two sides didn't ask the court for more time to continue settlement talks, as that's not that uncommon, and it's something that a judge often is willing to grant if it looks like the two sides in a dispute can come to an agreement. But, without that, the case has continued to move forward with ongoing filings from each side.
In the meantime, however, the StarTrek.com website, run by CBS and Paramount, has now posted those "fan film guidelines" and they are absolutely ridiculous. The Axanar team sums it up nicely by saying that:
The CBS "Guidelines" for Fan Films basically make it impossible for fan films to continue as they have.The first item, for example, completely rules out Axanar's plan for a feature length fan film:
The fan production must be less than 15 minutes for a single self-contained story, or no more than 2 segments, episodes or parts, not to exceed 30 minutes total, with no additional seasons, episodes, parts, sequels or remakes.And there's another one that's clearly targeted at Axanar:
The fan production must be a real “fan” production, i.e., creators, actors and all other participants must be amateurs, cannot be compensated for their services, and cannot be currently or previously employed on any Star Trek series, films, production of DVDs or with any of CBS or Paramount Pictures’ licensees.I don't quite see how or where that fits into fair use's rules...
Another one clearly targeted at Axanar -- which raised over a million dollars in Kickstarter and IndieGoGo crowdfunding campaigns:
CBS and Paramount Pictures do not object to limited fundraising for the creation of a fan production, whether 1 or 2 segments and consistent with these guidelines, so long as the total amount does not exceed $50,000, including all platform fees, and when the $50,000 goal is reached, all fundraising must cease.That seems rather limiting.
Some of the other terms are more reasonable, but it seems clear that these guidelines are pretty specifically designed to cut off an Axanar style fan film, and seem to be trying to cut off a lot more than fair use almost certainly allows. While for the sake of the folks working on Axanar, I still hope that this settles amicably, it might be a lot nicer to have Axanar be able to win a fair use claim in court over this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: axanar, copyright, fair use, fan films, limitations, star trek
Companies: axanar productions, cbs, paramount
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Didn't Paramount watch their own film?
To paraphrase:The fair use rights of the many fans outweigh the needs of the few qur petaQ at Paramount.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't call this main film a fan film because it doesn't fit into that category. Otherwise, you'll have every idiot out there making multi-million budget Star Trek films and calling it "a fan film" just to get around the "copyright law". It's offensive to the people who own the rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course there is still the issue of Trademark that could cause some headaches!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This doesn't prevent trademarks on other things, like Starfleet or similar -- but you can route around it by saying things like "the Fleet" instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These fan film guidelines are largely divorced from any conceptions of Fair Use. Instead, it goes by the typical Hollywood notion that copyrighted cultural works have a finite maximum value and that anyone making expressions related to that work is using up some of that value. This conception of copyright utterly ignores the concept of how cultural works increase in value.
Grassroots excitement and energy is contagious. A fan film of this magnitude would've been a huge boost to the Star Trek franchise in terms of fan excitement.
Instead?
CBS's management has decided to replace the enthusiasm trekkies had of red shirts and phasers and space exploration with legal threats of ruination if they become the Wrong sort of fan that has crossed the Enthusiasm line into Ungoodthink.
CBS set their phasers to kill, and they aimed it at their brand ambassadors. This will hurt their bottom line in very substantial ways when customers just stop caring so much about the franchise. After all, there's now a line where caring too much becomes punishable by CBS. So why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then screw them. The idea that you can "own the rights" to culture itself is offensive on a far more fundamental level.
If Paramount said "we own Star Trek and so if you want to make a fan film, you have to pay us 5% and display a prominent notice that this is a fan work and not actually affiliated with Paramount," that would be one thing. But saying "no, you can't build on this, so shut the whole thing down" is crossing a line that no one should ever have the right to cross.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you ask for one million dollars in donations online from people so you can make a movie, it stops being a fan film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter if a fan film gets one dollar or one million. It is still a fan film if it comes out for free. Now if the Axanar team charged for people to see the movie, then it would give a good case for CBS to sue. But Axanar is free to everyone except the people making it. So no, Fair Use is on the side of the Axanar team.
If there's going to be a large segment of people making their own Star Trek fanfilms with million-dollar donations, then let them. It's a just cause. A protest against CBS and Paramount for not producing the kind of shit the fans want. They should get offended. They should get fucked over. If they're that bad at caring for the needs of their fanbase and their fanbase actually makes better shit than they do? Then they not only deserve to get fucked over like this, but they deserve to lose the Star Trek license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A common sense solution
When it's all about control, however, people are more willing to shoot themselves in both feet than take a walk on the wild side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't like referring to recent studies...
People surveyed were found that they'd rather be making $40,000 in a neighborhood where everyone else makes $30,000 rather than be making $100,000 in a neighborhood where everyone else makes $110,000. If the study is accurate and the results reproducible (important caveat), this may indicate that people find it difficult to differentiate the neighborhood for the whole economy.
And there's some line of thought that people don't want others making money off their work, even if their doing so makes them more money.
So yeah, using one of my favorite metaphors, some of us would really rather be ruling an impoverished banana republic than middle managers in a star-spanning empire.
However, this may all be wrong if future studies and tests can provide sufficient contrary evidence. Or we can convince people to have some perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give Up
If you supported Axanar you pretty much got what you asked for. Go ahead, keep supporting the IP MafiAA. Some folks never learn. I do mean NEVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 24th, 2016 @ 11:13am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely agree!
The only correct response for the fans is to support their feelings at the box-office!
Don't pay to see their shit, don't buy their expensive popcorn. Some day they might get the message. But probably not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to think some minister of tourism somewhere,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't Paramount watch their own film?
The fair use rights of the many fans outweigh the needs of the few qur petaQ at Paramount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't Paramount watch their own film?
Hab SoSli' Quch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W1_8IV8uhA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXgabMoWsAIngIM.jpg
Tony Todd is an excellent actor and he's a Star Trek Veteran. He's appeared on Star Trek: TNG, Voyager and Deep Space Nine. He's appeared in the second season of The Flash and I remember him from Candyman, that horror film. Alec Peters also used the bulk of the money his studio has generated to build "Area Studios", a for-profit movie studio that seeks to profit from making movies derived from other studios IP rights.
I suggest people actually do their research, like I have done, before running off with their comments. It took me all of five minutes to find this information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a bit of a dick move, but it doesn't sound like someone "this guy is literally unable to process written language," but rather, "this information is in plain sight; the fact that you don't see it leads me to conclude you can't read." It's the type of thing you see often in a comment thread when people respond to the OP with a criticism that is specifically addressed in the OP.
I'm not defending him for saying it; he does come across as a bit of a dick. I just don't know why it's worth "losing all respect" for someone.
If I lost all respect for anyone who was a bit of a dick on the Internet, I'd have no respect for anyone (including myself).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Axanar proposed to donors and executed on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a green screen and facilities for a permanent studio operation with the stated (in official podcasts) intent to seek further business investment to make first-in-class genre movies and more Trek in the future using these facilities owned by a for profit corporation, Axanar Productions. Axanar paid its fan film staff salaries (it doesn't matter if its not professional level, it was not coffee money). Axanar sold unlicensed Trek-IP merchandise (branded coffee, model kits), and had underway plans to sublicense a game using Trek-IP based pieces, even while stating openly they asked for studio licensing and were denied.
These business transgressions abruptly short circuit theoretical discussions about what fair use fans should have with Trek IP.
The transgressions can almost word for word be found responded to in subsequent guidelines restrictions, and in all likelihood are why Axanar was sued after decades of other fan films not committing these huge transgressions were not sued.
Finally, Axanar *demanded* guidelines while at the same time poking the bear as described above. What would *anyone* expect in these circumstances? Separate the business transgressions from fan concerns. It does no good to bury the former under discussion of the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only reason why Paramount elected to file a lawsuit against Alec Peters and Axanar Productions is because the minute they solicited one million dollars through social media platforms, the Star Trek: Axanar movie ceased to be a fan film and crossed over into professional film production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And what is wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is magic about one million dollars? Why not 500,000? Why not 50,000? Why not 500? Why not 5 cents, since you seem to feel that paying other people to do things you want done somehow dilutes the "fan" quality of the final product?
Corporations are legal bodies developed to coordinate individual ("investor") contributions in a common goal. In what ways does the Axanar fund raiser differ? Every single "investor" in Axanar through social media is by definition a fan. They do NOT get stock in Axanar. They don't get future profits (dividends) from Axanar. They cannot transfer their interest in Axanar to someone else. They (presumably) get a copy of the final product, if there is one.
You are, friend, narrowing the definition of "fan film" without the permission of the rest of the fan community. Your definition would cancel the "fan" status of a production if even one person involved in it was not personally a fan. Your view is rejected by fans who have voted with their dollars to have this film made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is when you consider what was done with it that the concern may arise. Setting aside the financially smaller but legally significant other issues like selling unlicensed merchandise for a moment, Axanar put hundreds of thousands of that money into building for its for profit corporation Hollwood's largest green screen, with stated intent to use it for non-Trek movies in the future.
So can anyone seriously believe that the "fan film unstated agreement to make no money" included doing this with money raised to make a Trek movie? Capturing hundreds of thousands of dollars of Trek derived money into a permanent asset for a for profit corporation is what this is. It isn't anything else.
So if you consider "one million dollars" as simply an expression of the scale of the project, but you focus *instead* on the specifics of what was done with that money, you get into why there is a problem.
I urge you to consider the proposition. What fan film has any implicit or explicit right to do this with so very much Trek money? Its over the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
- formed a true, legal nonprofit corporation with proper operation that assures the assets are held in trust for the nonprofit goals rather than exploited for profit
- declared themselves to have a goal, say, to be a performing arts resource center for fan films
- gone to crowdfunding and asked for money to build a studio and operate it under these management parameters and goals
- incidentally said one of their first clients is another organization that wants to make a Trek fan film
Then you know, I believe I would agree with you.
But Axanar clearly stated they had long term business goals, intended to keep the assets to seed their for profit corporation, while selling it to crowdfunding first and foremost as funding to make a Trek film - trading on the goodwill value of the Trek IP.
Axanar repeatedly insisted that "not for profit" is defined as "has no money left after spending all incoming revenues on assets and salaries for the for profit corporation". The IRS among others might have an issue with that, and clearly what they were trying to do was make a case that they were following the informal guidelines to "not make money" while giving the general world the impression they were equivalent to being a nonprofit. They had more than a year to actually do it, but they didn't.
And they went on to sell Trek IP without licenses, to boot.
If you have no problem with the above, sure that's fine, but the law says the IP owners *can* have a problem with it and stop the trading on the value of their IP if they wish.
I do wish Axanar had been about making a resource for fan films, instead about building a business off of the fan film loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"not for profit" is defined as "has no money left after spending all incoming revenues on assets and salaries for the for profit corporation".
Isn't this what "non-profit" hospitals do all the time? They take in millions of dollars, but then spend all of it on their CEO and new "research" wings just so they don't show a profit.
In this case, I think Peters was learning from the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The IRS makes the distinction like this: a "not for profit" is an organization whose main purpose is not commerce, but might make money anyway. The classic example is a hobby. A nonprofit is an organization whose main purpose is commerce, but not to actually make a profit.
Note that both a "not for profit" and a "nonprofit" are allowed to make a profit. The difference between the two (and other kinds of companies) essentially boil down to the tax ramifications if/when profit is made.
Practically speaking, there are few meaningful differences between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I left out qualifiers here that might be important -- they are allowed to make a profit within limited circumstances. For example, the last time I bones up on this stuff, a "not for profit" could only show a profit two years out of any five. If it exceeded that, then it could lose its status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the arrogant attitude of old school cultural gatekeepers who are seriously butthurt that we've reached a point where technology has allowed true fans to make the films they want rather than hoping film studios, who are not fans, will make them.
Paramount are not suing to protect their rights, they're suing to protect their position of power, which is being eroded by the rapidly dropping cost of high-quality movie production and the ability to effectively crowdfund.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dysfunctional Human Psychology
I can't quote the specific study I'm thinking of off the top of my head, but it generally involved asking people something like whether they'd rather receive a salary of $40k/year if all of their neighbors made only $30k/year, or whether they'd rather receive $100k/year if their neighbors received $110k/year. (Ballpark numbers; as I said, I don't have the specifics.)
While relative compensation can definitely be important when it comes to something society-wide like cost of products and services, this study focused on a narrow perceived social area for the respondents.
Copyright issues aside, it seems that Paramount is willing to lose out on a huge amount of valuable, free publicity for their Star Trek franchise, simply because someone else might make a little profit from it. I would say this seems like typically short-sighted MBA behavior if it wasn't so consistent with humans as a species.
Of course, the usual pro-Copyright answer to this kind of situation is usually filtered through creators of franchises, who lament that fans or other creators might somehow damage or deface their creations. (J.K. Rowling is a famous example.) Clearly Paramount can't trot out this thin excuse, but even if it could, the real answer to unpleasant alternative fan products is simple and beneficial to society as a whole: create new, better-made, more authentic stories that wash the typically weak fan productions out of public consciousness.
But that's another problem in this case: even a short preview like "Prelude To Axanar" was ridiculously superior to any Star Trek Paramount has issued in over a decade. It has to be more than a little embarrassing to anyone responsible for shepherding this franchise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dysfunctional Human Psychology
The situation isn't really as simple as "a rising tide lifts all boats". Imagine every one of the top 50 movie franchises and TV shows had 20 "fan film" studios putting out additional stories for those franchises, and soliciting "donations" for it.
This would lead to the stories being worn out in consumers' minds (dilution of commercial value to the IP holder), and significant diversion of revenues into the "fan" productions.
Don't think it can happen? How many spam email senders write to you? How many companies write apps for phones? Not 10. Not even a million. There is vast capacity for the world to exploit an economic opportunity in the electronic realm.
The entertainment business is one of the main revenue streams in the world. If it allows a barn door like the one Axanar pried open to remain open, this is exactly what will happen.
So while a small increment of fan films may seem safe, wholesale freedom of "professional independent [franchise] production companies" collecting money directly from franchise fans is a whole different thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dysfunctional Human Psychology
The only dilution that actually occurs is copyright holders long term destruction of cultural artefacts.
As someone who has intimate knowledge of IP "theft", I have come to the conclusion that copyright is the least effective way of engendering the distribution and recognition of authorship. Resting on one's laurel's says one thing only - you are useless as a creator of works and if someone else does a better job, then kudos to the someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dysfunctional Human Psychology
But third party consumers of works do not have the legal authority to declare "so be it" dismissal of copyright privileges for the originators of a creative work.
If the new works were sufficiently creative, then sure I would agree that it might complement rather than wear out the original works.
But the reality is that if economic opportunity is left on the table wrt/ a hot entertainment property, it won't be the creatives who fill the gap, so much as the producers of the mediocre, the flashy, whatever can grab some eyeballs and clickstream revenue.
There needs to be some solution that finds a place for creatives to flourish without their space being taken over by a thousand Axanar green screen minings of the space.
If you know what that could be, then after a bit I would hope that the ever evolving world of new media might have some takers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dysfunctional Human Psychology
So, the existing studios are quite capable of mining and idea until the carcass has been sucked dry and the dust has blown away on the winds. Further, where is it written down than economic opportunities should be limited to entrenched businesses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it hilarious that JJ Abrams got suckered into defending these idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No wonder Tony Todd left the project, because there was no accountability regarding the finances for the movie, most likely, because Peters used the bulk of that money to establish the movie studio. Peters also makes reference that they would be producing even more Star Trek movies?
Just who the fuck does Peters think he is? The Peters Paramount Movie Studios?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's tack on a few 'exceptions' to the law shall we?
Declaring that no-one involved is allowed to be paid for their involvement?
Declaring that no-one with any actual skill in the field is allowed to be involved?
Declaring that the amount raised to create a work can only reach a certain limit(and I guarantee that if someone was able to make an amazing work for less that limit would be shrunk accordingly) before any fundraising must be stopped, essentially telling people they are not allowed to fund work beyond a limit?
The rules handed out by Paramount can basically be summed up in a single line:
Any fan creation is not allowed to be good enough to compete with the 'official' version.
Paramount's 'guidelines' are essentially an attempt to make sure that no fan creation is good enough to compete with the 'official' product, as well as being an attempt to re-write Fair Use by placing limits that flat out aren't there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's tack on a few 'exceptions' to the law shall we?
WRITERS who do not rely on pewpew are what is required to create quality.
Yes, the length restriction does block direct competition. But why should an IP holder allow direct competition at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's tack on a few 'exceptions' to the law shall we?
Not really, as while a decent budget(and the ability of fans to be able to fund a project past a certain point), skilled people involved and the ability to create a work that's longer than some arbitrary cut-off point isn't necessarily required for a quality piece, they certainly help. Only so much you can do if you don't have the skills and/or experience in the field, you're only allowed so much time to work with and you can only spend so much to make something.
Yes, the length restriction does block direct competition. But why should an IP holder allow direct competition at all?
To which my counter-question would be 'Why should they be allowed to block competition, direct or not?' So long as a work falls under fair use I don't see why the original creator(or in this and many other cases the owner of the rights, rather than the creator of the work) should be allowed any veto power. If someone comes up with something new that's better than their version that may suck for them, but it certainly is a boost to the public who get a new work to enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
out of my asshole than any payment to watch their pay walled garden shit shows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CBS Rules
And it kills even the very fan productions that CBS themselves have praised like Phase II and Continues. Who are the people who helped the production staff on Enterprise when they were filming the TOS Defiant Bridge. Some thanks...
Then there is the rules saying Trek Alumni or Professionals can't be associated with these fan productions. They are Star Trek fans as well and they aren't allowed to have fun themselves? It's thanks to their engagement with the fan community that kept Star Trek alive! Not to mention it effectively kills non-Trek actors from even having fun, for instance James Crowley (who pretty much started the Trek Fan series) is an actor, so with these rules he wouldn't even be allowed to even be involved!
Honestly CBS, this is just going too far. I understand you wanting to protect your property, but come on. Use that clause of you allowing yourself to change the rules and loosen the grip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CBS Rules
Fan films almost unanimously hold him accountable for the draconian restrictions.
If you feel that these productions were a beautiful thing that deserved preservation, why wouldn't you give complete credit to their analysis of the cause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CBS Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are NOT legally enforceable since there is NO contract to abide by these so called 'rules' and only a court can say whether fair use has been breached or not.
This is both a PR exercise and petulant intimidation tactic by Paramount s that they can point to these guidelines and say to the world at large.. "Oh but we had these guidelines that these fans agreed to - by silence or whatever uniquely wrong in law thing they think of saying - so we require obedience".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The guidelines are not a substitute to be enforced in place of copyright law, or specifically, for fair use exemptions within copyright law, as you seem to be suggesting.
They are a statement that CBS/Paramount will *overlook* copyright enforcement within certain parameters -- essentially, a nonrequired extension over and above fair use, for works that do not qualify for the fair use exemption.
These are not some sort of taking away of fair use. As you pointed out, you can still go to court and win your fair use case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can still go to court and win your fair use case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"As you pointed out, you can still go to court and win your fair use case."
Essentially you're endorsing a norm in which moneyed groups can bully those with budget constraints to ruin their efforts, even if what they are doing would qualify under fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End the ridiculous length of this sort of IP ownership !
The claims of movie studios and other licensees that they couldn't make films or other content featuring the characters that fans love is nonsense. The difference is that both those studios and others would be able to create that content. They would have to compete in terms of cost and quality. That's really what they don't want.
I heard this "the end of licensing would be the end of the character" argument over and over when the various licensing agreements meant that Warner / DC Comics gets another basically unending years of exclusive licensing of Superman. The company line was that, without those deals, they couldn't put out Superman comics and would not be able to make Superman movies. Of course, that is kryptonian baloney. They could perfectly well continue to publish Superman comics and produce Superman movies without exclusivity. They would just be competing with others who could also put out their own Superman comics and movies. The threat (and the lie) is that without the exclusive licensing, Superman would disappear. But, the reality is that Superman fans would likely have way more Superman content without those licensing deals, just not all from Warner / DC. And, quite frankly, lots of the non-Warner stuff would likely be better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and that right there is why the guidelines are bogus. They are creating specificity of what they say is or isn't fair use, when in fact most of these guidelines where they restrict based on arbitrary figures and other caveats. "though must not go above xyz amount etc etc" are absolutely allowed under current fair use in certain circumstances, and unless legislation states otherwise can ONLY found by a court.
They are trying to create a arbitration/tribunal structure where they are the trier of facts first and foremost and no one shall do what they do not want. Paramount nor fans do NOT have a contract with each other, though thinking more, Paramount here might find themselves estopped if they go after a supposed fan based work that actually meets with these guidelines though is absolutely not fair use.
Guidelines are a waste of space/paper/air unless they are enforceable. These are not enforceable and therefore I stand by what I called them. A PR exercise and a Petulant ego trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they could win that, then yes, I could see the guidelines as something that might conflict with some hypothetical expanded definition of fair use.
But really, Axanar has probably undermined its legal credibility to the point that they could never win in court. That's just a personal opinion, but look at all the financial shenanigans on the table that argue against any purist intent to have simply exercised fair use. A jury would look at intent, as I understand it.
And Axanar was the one who pushed the limits wildly on these financial issues, all the time protesting that "no one would give them guidelines".
So the idea of "unfairness wrt/ [hypothetical changes to] fair use" really seems to be a lost cause for Trek fans for the moment.
What the future brings, who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's intimidatory and setting themselves up as the arbiter of what can and cannot be allowed for those without the wherewithal to understand how much bullshit (legally and otherwise) is inherent in the guidelines as presented.
They are trying to preempt by intimidation, propoganda, and "social conscience of the fan base towards the work - 'can no-one think of the work'" or anyone doing anything they deign unlawful beforehand.
What has or is about to happen to Axanar is irrelevant with these guidelines because these guidelines are for EVERYONE to either kowtow or be outcasts form the community of fans that supposedly paramount think they control. Oh and if paramount do this, they wont be the last Publisher/Owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect for the high quality of the Prelude should be sufficient motivation to not dismiss his views without personally hearing him out.
It is not a diatribe. It is worth the time.
href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K1m7SSOQC6o"Interview on June 23 2016 with Christian Gossett
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Affairs like this one make me want to consider the whole "Cats In Space" solution
I'm reminded of Chimamanda Adichie's concept that the cure for prejudice and stereotyping is more and diverse tales. A handful of stories showing (say) stereotypical angry Muslim terrorists will present as less bigoted when there are twenty more stories showing other kinds of Muslims (or other kinds of terrorists, or even other kinds of anger).
When franchises inform popular culture, strict legal control of them becomes a chilling effect on what narratives we can exchange with each other, which presents a perverse effect contrary to the Constitutional intent of copyright. Talking about Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise are useful devices for communication much the way that Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox and Brer Bear were useful in tribal Africa. And Paramount's control, in tying up these narrative devices, chills the stories that people want to tell with them.
This raises a question for which there is no agency, no voice of advocacy: How does allowing Paramount and CBS to continue to lock down the Star Trek franchise serve the people of the United states? No one is asking this question.
My fear is that IP maximalism will continue to push us towards a world with less culture. Possibly to an extreme where a few rich moguls are the only ones allowed to make media or tell stories. (And there will be a fierce black market since no-one else can legally publish.) Considering that Paramount claimed ownership of space action-adventure as a genre, it might actually attempt to litigate against any other small project in that genre that might see some success just because they can.
Maybe we need to start making creative commons franchises, to allow anyone who's not a big Hollywood mogul to be able to tell a myth using figures and tropes that other people can relate to. Other than modernizing mostly-public-domain franchises, a la House.
Every time someone copyrights a story or a character or an idea, that is one less story that the rest of us cannot tell without paid permission. Who speaks for the trees? Who speaks for the trees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the creation of a derivative work, using a budget inferior to a major motion picture studio, using lessor know actors and sub par special effects could easily dilute and or turn off a new fan of this multi million dollar franchise. Selling unlicensed merchandise, I'm sure, did not sway CBS/Paramount into viewing this remotely as fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"[A shoddy fanwork] could easily dilute and or turn off a new fan of this multi million dollar franchise."
I'd say It's been deteriorating since Voyager in which the the themes of Socratic speculations and social challenges was diluted with a hefty dose of Lost In Space whimsy.
But Abrams contributions reduced the series down to basic space opera. We're no longer exploring strange new worlds and civilizations and raising questions that challenge our social presumptions, but just shooting space-banditos this time, and space-in'juns last time.
I'd rather see for Star Trek what we have for Robin Hood, a dozen or so different interpretations where the quality is considered a reflection not on the quality of the franchise, but the choices of the developer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So no drugs means no sick bay and no hypo-sprays, depending on your definition of drugs.
Does no alcohol mean no synthehol? At the very least that illegal Romulan ale is truly illegal now.
No harmful activity rules out any fights with the Klingons. Firing a phasor is awfully harmful. So is punching out a Klingon for calling the Enterprise a garbage scow. I wonder if wearing uniforms that set you apart from the rest of society and carrying weapons will be considered harmful by the people who wrote these rules?
No illegal activity would rule out the time Kirk stole a starship. It would rule out that time (in the new timeline) that he stole that classic car as a kit. It would probably rule out cheating on the Kobayashi Maru simulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There have been several "fan" feature length films that even used actors from the older series (several different ones).
They didn't complain then..
Take them on... you've got a precident to work with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Axanar law suit
It seems to me that one could make the defense that CBS no longer owns the full rights to Star Trek because the existence of Star Trek has a history of partially depending on the roll-playing fans. The fact that Star Trek conventions across the globe have created a space where fans are invited to 'live' in the Star Trek world demonstrates that legal expectation of fans to imagine the star trek world in their own forms of expression. The history of fan support for Star Trek is well documented and historic in its nature. Eventually the Star Trek franchise became an enormous success, but that success historically came as the result of fan activity. I think one could make the rather (radical) legal argument, that because of those circumstances, and the fostering support of the Star Trek franchise ownership, that the studio had, in effect, granted to Star Trek creatorship rights to fans under the provision of not profiting or competing with the studio. Today technology has allowed wide spread use of free speech. We all have the technological capacity to inform an entire world of people at a professional level for little cost.
We are entering a new era of copyright in which eventually all forms of created expression regardless of their duplicability, will be protected forms of free speech. #Kropotkin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]