Proper
Well-Known Member
I would think that they've "spent" most or all of it? Maybe Chapter 15. Like a car-chase perpetrator, what the hell were they thinking?
Axanar - Crowdfunded 'Star Trek' Movie Draws Lawsuit from Paramount, CBS
- Thread starter mkstewartesq
- Start date
I would think that they've "spent" most or all of it? Maybe Chapter 15. Like a car-chase perpetrator, what the hell were they thinking?
Dessa
Sr Member
Kickstarter releases funds if the project is funded to its goal, when it finishes the donation period. In this case, since they reached their goal, it would have released the funds as soon as the Kickstarter closed.
Yes and no. Not every Kickstarter project ends up going into production. And since a lot are seeking funds to develop their product, that's understandable, if it turns out they can't do it for that amount. What they do have to do is provide what they promised for your donation level, or refund. If you donated at a level that said you would receive the product, then you have to receive the product. But if the donation was just for swag, they only have to make the swag and send it to you, they don't have to make the actual product.
Lord Boron
Sr Member
Technically, per Kickstarter rules They are suppose to refund if they don't compleat the project. But there is no legal mechanism to enforce that. Kickstarter themselves consider the transaction to be between the donators and the project creators, with Kickstarter only being the middleman. Sort of like eBay. There are plenty examples of kickstarters where the projects just vanished along the money.
Solo4114
Master Member
I would've thought so, but as discussed below, it looks like there's no way to enforce.
As a practical matter, there's also always that "Can't get blood from a stone" issue.
There might also be an opportunity for tax write-offs, although I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other. I don't know if you can write off pro bono work as some kind of charitable deduction.
Interesting. I guess I understand that to some degree, but I think that crowdfunding sites will likely end up facing the sharp end of a lawsuit one of these days, if some big project (bigger than this) falls through. Something high profile or whathaveyou, like the various films created by folks like Zach Braff and Rob Thomas.
I agree. Right now, it seems you only need to follow through on the "incentives" you promised people who donate. So down the road scammers will start projects and promise posters and scripts to the people who provide funding, then they will print them off and ship them out with no true intention of completing anything. A couple hundred dollars in prints and tens of thousands in their pockets. Sooner or later the "middle man" that provided the platform for the scams will be sued.
YenChih Lin
Master Member
Damn! I'm so late in the game and didn't watch much of the Trek fan film stuff, because… it's cringeworthy mostly. But Axanar, wow! that's a whole new different level of fan film, I've never seen. My 2 cents: for CBS it's threatening. They are seeing, that what they put out is "crap" or at least serving the common denominator. And since the timing is somewhat jeopardizing because of the 3rd NuTrek installement, which they blew on the marketing side and wanting to push a new series in 2017, the gaining view on YT has given them cold feet. Someone must have thought "Crap! They are doing it for less and better than us…" That says a lot.
The legal update was recently on 3-8-16:
which I guess is a half-a** pulled infringement attempt to shut up Axanar…
The legal update was recently on 3-8-16:
which I guess is a half-a** pulled infringement attempt to shut up Axanar…
Last edited by a moderator:
Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
Agreed. There may have been some liberties taken with donations, and their response to the legal action was nothing short of poking the bear... But I'd rather be watching fan films with this level of love for the history and heart of the franchise than the "pew-pew, 'splosions, 2Fast/Spock-furious, warp-transport and super-blood" drek that we've been getting.
It's the scale & details of this one that raise the problems.
I agree with CBS/Paramount.
Wherever "the line" is, this Axanar project sounds way over it. The intentions are past the benign stage and the financial framework is too close to the real thing as well.
Having said that, IMO it's not wrong for fan films to cost millions of dollars & look professional. The problem is the Axanar people were doing everything they possibly could off-screen to step into legit movie territory. Fan films have traditionally been allowed on the premise that they are small-audience projects getting passed around by the diehards.
Last edited:
Yes, some of the others comply with Paramounts requests so all is fine with them.
Once you start making a profit off of them all bets are off.
Once you start making a profit off of them all bets are off.
Sakura1618
Active Member
I am not sure what to make of this situation. While it is a myth that copyright holders need to defend it against infringement or risk losing it, there is still the fact that the copyright holder has the right to control the creation of derivative works based upon its intellectual property.
On the other hand it does look shady that a group of fans are willing to put more effort into creating a passion project than the actual IP holders are.
On the other hand it does look shady that a group of fans are willing to put more effort into creating a passion project than the actual IP holders are.
Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
Here's how I see it:
Most of the others have been very respectful of the franchise (as you'd expect), and very clear on making no profit. In fact until very recently, with crowdfunding, fan productions like Phase 2, Continues, etc have run at a loss. They've only been possible because of the time, costumes/props and equipment, people will willing to give for free. I recall reading back at the start, the New Voyages (as it was then) was largely paid for out of James Cawley's own pocket with the money he made as a professional Elvis act.
When these things started getting wide audiences, inevitably people wanted to contribute who couldn't physically turn up and build a transporter room, or hold a boom mic, so the rules were that you could donate funds, but only for specific needs such as renting the filming space, or buying new lights.
What Axanar have done, is take the crowdfunding pot, decide that they want to be 'pro' and paid (some of) their team a wage so they can work on the production more. That's what takes it across the line from enthusiastic amateurs to 'competing with the official brand'. Then, in a move that some have considered arrogant, they say that they want to produce something 'better' than the official because they don't think it's good enough, and when called on it they say that the big Goliath is only going after little David because "they know we're giving fans what they want".
Look, I don't like the new stuff, but then I'm not producing fan-films at the same time as saying "the official stuff is rubbish and we're better than you" right to their face!.
Sakura1618
Active Member
Although I think technically the "control of derivative works" thing means we could all potentially be on the hook for the stuff we make.
That go's without saying.
As has been repeated over and over here, Simply put, we are all at the mercy of the IP holder
As has been repeated over and over here, Simply put, we are all at the mercy of the IP holder
asalaw
Master Member
Yes, and no. Depends on what you're making, and whether you overreach and awaken the dragon. Right now, for instance, the US Supreme Court has a case before it that will decide whether costumes are protectable by copyright (up till now, under previously well-settled case law, the answer has been no). The guy who used to make Batmobile replicas and kits is out of business now, because DC sued for copyright and trademark infringement and won.
When it comes to replicas, the issue of copyright protection is fairly complex, depending on whether the original can be said to be a "useful article," which isn't protected, or a creative work, which is, or a bit of both, in which case the court has to test for "separability," or whether the creative part can be separated from the useful article. For example, a chair would just be a useful article, but an intricate hand-carved filligree on the back of the chair would be a separetely protected sculptural work. So you can copy the chair itself freely, but you'd better get a license for the carving.
Point is, it's just not that simple when it comes to replicas. And don't even get me started on whether the original can be considered a character in itself, like the Batmobile, KITT, or the Enterprise. Seriously, just don't. Michael's has 50% coupons today, so I'm outta here.
Solo4114
Master Member
It's not a myth. Well, not exactly.
What it is is a conflation of two separate concepts, one from copyright law, one from trademark law.
Failure to stop trademark infringement absolutely can result in the mark being considered "abandoned." Meaning you lose the mark.
In copyright, it's a little different. You don't lose the copyright itself if you fail to defend it. What can happen, however, is that you file suit against a specific infringer, and they use an affirmative defense of laches, meaning basically that you knew about the infringement and waited too long to do anything about it. If the infringer succeeds, typically what'll happen in that case is that the infringer won't have to pay penalties for the past infringement, but the copyright holder gets an injunction to prevent future infringement. And none of this affects the validity of the copyright going forward with respect to other people.
The thing is that most copyrighted materials held by major studios are also trademarked out the wazoo, so the two concepts can get mixed up in the public's mind.
Yes, and no. Depends on what you're making, and whether you overreach and awaken the dragon. Right now, for instance, the US Supreme Court has a case before it that will decide whether costumes are protectable by copyright (up till now, under previously well-settled case law, the answer has been no). The guy who used to make Batmobile replicas and kits is out of business now, because DC sued for copyright and trademark infringement and won.
When it comes to replicas, the issue of copyright protection is fairly complex, depending on whether the original can be said to be a "useful article," which isn't protected, or a creative work, which is, or a bit of both, in which case the court has to test for "separability," or whether the creative part can be separated from the useful article. For example, a chair would just be a useful article, but an intricate hand-carved filligree on the back of the chair would be a separetely protected sculptural work. So you can copy the chair itself freely, but you'd better get a license for the carving.
Point is, it's just not that simple when it comes to replicas. And don't even get me started on whether the original can be considered a character in itself, like the Batmobile, KITT, or the Enterprise. Seriously, just don't. Michael's has 50% coupons today, so I'm outta here.
I haven't followed the S.Ct. case, but I'll be curious to see how it develops. Personally, I side with rights holders on this matter, at least in terms of legal analysis. The implications for licensing rights are way too big for the Court to just say "Eh, whatevs. Go ahead and make replica costumes if you want. It's legal." The non-useful-article design features are ultimately the only point of making the prop. I mean, it's not like anyone's stormtrooper armor is actually going to stop a blaster round, ya know?
At any rate, it's ultimately meaningless in a practical sense. Nobody here has the cash to fight a studio, so the smart move is to simply close up shop and stick to personal creations, which would likely be protected as fair use.
Even if the Court rules that it's not infringement, I'd just expect studios to shift to infringement theories under trademark, specifically "trade dress." Although that, too, could prompt a legal challenge as to how far that extends.
asalaw
Master Member
Well, storm trooper armor also has arguably sculptural elements all over it. A Star Trek mini-dress, not so much. And the latter (sadly) does a decent job covering one's naughty bits. Same for Jedi robes, which arguably lack any unique creative elements at all.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
Close. Laches won't remove all liability for money damages - you're still liable for damages for infringements in the last three years (i.e., within the statute of limitations, as well as injunctive relief against future infringement. This was the holding of the Supreme Court in the recent case of MGM v. Petrella (arising out of the film Raging Bull), a good analysis of which can be found here.
Re: Axanar - frankly, I thought people around here had forgotten about it. We're actually having a pretty lively and informative discussion on it on TrekBBS (almost 600 pages to date - take that, SofaKing's "1:1 Millennium Falcon Cockpit" thread!) :lol
In any event, I think there are several things that one can point to as ways in which Axanar “crossed the line” that other fan films haven’t (and likely won’t). So I don’t see this case as any harbinger of a crackdown on fan-films generally or even crowd-funded fan-films. Some examples:
- yes, the paying of salaries;
- leasing of studio space with Kickstarter money (money raised on Star Trek IP) with the apparent intent to leverage Axanar’s success (based on Star Trek IP) into an operational studio for use in other non-Star Trek productions;
- touting their product as a “fully-professional independent film”;
- basically going beyond creating a “labor of love fan film” and engaging in a “merchandising tie-in” operation akin to a commercial film (except Axanar didn’t have either the film rights or the merchandising rights - whoops) - including selling Axanar coffee (with ST-derivative graphics, including pictures of Klingon ships), patches and other promotional items, and model kits showing Star Trek designs and trademarks (yours for only $89.95 per model);
and then
- crying and stamping their feet when told to stop - and then refusing to do so and claiming they had a right to make their film because fans don’t like what CBS/Paramount is doing with the property. (Even Vic from Star Trek: New Voyages recently went on record as saying, if asked by CBS/Paramount to stop his production, his response would be “sure, absolutely - and thank you for letting me play in your playground for as long as you did.”)
So, yeah, tell me another fan film that did all of those things, and I’ll point out a fan film that’s likely to get sued in the future. But since most other fan films remain respectful and don’t try to get greedy, I’m not terribly worried about CBS/Paramount coming down on them anytime soon.
M
Similar threads
