Axanar meets legal resistence from CBS

Ryujin · Jan 1, 2016

Cor Azer said:
Precedent is set in courts and contracts.

Given that CBS has very deliberately avoided publicly presenting any terms of acceptable use, there is no precedent to be used legally. You cannot use someone's lack of action against them unless they had a duty to act in a timely manner (for which copyright and trademark infringement do not have).

Also, I'm not sure how you're trying to invoke implied consent. By Peters' own admission, CBS didn't offer any specific guidelines as to how they might make things work. To me, that sounds very much like a 'we're not going to give you a green light' that would prevent any thought of implied consent.

Precedent may be where this is going and giving someone nebulous guidelines, to which they adhere, could be ruled implied consent. We'll see.

Cor Azer said:
Where's the inconsistency? They have *never* publicly consented to fan films. That's pretty consistent.

Inconsistency is consistency. Hmmmm...... I'll have to puzzle that one over, given this one inconsistency

Cor Azer · Jan 1, 2016

Ryujin said:
Precedent may be where this is going and giving someone nebulous guidelines, to which they adhere, could be ruled implied consent. We'll see.

They didn't give nebulous guidelines. They gave *no* guidelines.

Ryujin said:
Inconsistency is consistency. Hmmmm...... I'll have to puzzle that one over, given this one inconsistency

Beyond recognizing you're trying (and possibly succeeding) to be witty, I have no idea what you're trying to imply here.

Ryujin · Jan 1, 2016

Cor Azer said:
They didn't give nebulous guidelines. They gave *no* guidelines.

Beyond recognizing you're trying (and possibly succeeding) to be witty, I have no idea what you're trying to imply here.

"Not for profit and not to use unpublished show material."

One inconsistency is all that there appears to be here. Apart from that, the fan productions have pretty much been ignored.

Cor Azer · Jan 1, 2016

Ryujin said:
"Not for profit and not to use unpublished show material."

One inconsistency is all that there appears to be here. Apart from that, the fan productions have pretty much been ignored.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I misinterpreted Peter's comment of "they gave us no specific guidelines" as "no guidelines", but apparently there are more details than that if there was some sort of "initial starting point".

I can see how a layperson such as us could infer inconsistency, but given the huge number of unknowns in any possible (if such exist) negotiations renders such an opinion uninformed and largely moot. I would expect better from a lawyer actually involved in such an industry than to proceed as we laypeople might.

And of course, I expect the debate hinges largely around whether or not Axanar can be considered "not-for-profit". I'm not trying to claim they are engaging in shenanigans with their books, but CBS may very well think how Axanar is doing things is decidedly different than Renegade or Continues or other previous fan films.

Ryujin · Jan 1, 2016

Cor Azer said:
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I misinterpreted Peter's comment of "they gave us no specific guidelines" as "no guidelines", but apparently there are more details than that if there was some sort of "initial starting point".

I can see how a layperson such as us could infer inconsistency, but given the huge number of unknowns in any possible (if such exist) negotiations renders such an opinion uninformed and largely moot. I would expect better from a lawyer actually involved in such an industry than to proceed as we laypeople might.

And of course, I expect the debate hinges largely around whether or not Axanar can be considered "not-for-profit". I'm not trying to claim they are engaging in shenanigans with their books, but CBS may very well think how Axanar is doing things is decidedly different than Renegade or Continues or other previous fan films.

Yes, as I said up-thread.

When CBS/Paramount won't give a more clear direction than that, and your production fits those gauzy guidelines, you've got the choice to proceed or to abandon the project. As enthusiasts themselves, they were unlikely to abandon the project.

Yes, Axanar is different from previous works but if it wasn't fresh, there would be no enticement to it. It is larger in scale and quality. It addresses a time in the Federation that no other production that I know of addresses ("Star Trek: Enterprise" should have, but tripped on its proverbial member). It makes me wonder if the upcoming Star Trek series on the CBS streaming service might not actually be aimed at this period in the life of the Federation, rather than post TNG as has been hinted.

Cor Azer · Jan 1, 2016

Ryujin said:
Yes, as I said up-thread.

When CBS/Paramount won't give a more clear direction than that, and your production fits those gauzy guidelines, you've got the choice to proceed or to abandon the project. As enthusiasts themselves, they were unlikely to abandon the project.

Yes, Axanar is different from previous works but if it wasn't fresh, there would be no enticement to it. It is larger in scale and quality. It addresses a time in the Federation that no other production that I know of addresses ("Star Trek: Enterprise" should have, but tripped on its proverbial member). It makes me wonder if the upcoming Star Trek series on the CBS streaming service might not actually be aimed at this period in the life of the Federation, rather than post TNG as has been hinted.

I would suspect their issue has little to do with the setting details of Axanar, and is more about the "not-for-profit" debate - if the only guidelines given were "not for profit and don't use unpublished material" and you know you're not using unpublished material, then the sticking point is the "not for profit". The movies, even if in an alternate universe, are covering the "past" of Star Trek. They'd be far better served at going into the "future" to allow themselves room to breath narratively.

Umbran · Jan 1, 2016

Ryujin said:
And yet "Axanar" has former Star Trek actors and people otherwise well known to CBS, from the production side. It's all a little higgledy-piggledy.

People from the production side are not a particular PR issue for the studio. And, to be honest, the actors in Axanar are not all that big in terms of Trek History - Renegades has Tim Russ, Robert Picardo, and, for goodness sake, Walter Koenig. The last of whom will be stepping away, and maybe it won't last long after that.

Ultimately, you still seem to be discussing from the point of view that they somehow *owe* a consistent policy. They don't. They don't need to have any policy at all - all such could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

MechaPilot · Jan 3, 2016

Umbran said:
Ultimately, you still seem to be discussing from the point of view that they somehow *owe* a consistent policy. They don't. They don't need to have any policy at all - all such could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

It's not so much that a consistent policy is owed as it is that inconsistency could be legally relevant.

I realize IP is not the same thing as taxation, but in taxation if a regulation is inconsistent with the Internal Revenue Code or other regulations then the regulation is no longer given the deference of being considered law like other final regs are. I haven't studied IP law, but it's certainly possible that a statute or judicial opinion may make consistency relevant to IP issues, as it is for deference to tax regs.

Umbran · Jan 3, 2016

MechaPilot said:
It's not so much that a consistent policy is owed as it is that inconsistency could be legally relevant.

I am not a lawyer - I am speaking only from my understanding.

If we were talking trademark, you'd be correct - consistency there matters.

But for copyright, lack of a clear policy or enforcement thereof does not lose the holder's rights - they can be selective as they wish. Lack of consistent policy becomes a defense - a consistent policy might imply a license or contract, while being inconsistent about policy and enforcement works against any such claim.

Quite simply - legally speaking, I don't think Axanar has a leg to stand on. Their only real defense is the PR issue - to try it in the court of public opinion so that CBS/Paramount can't afford to shut them down. And they went directly to a lawsuit, bypassing a polite C&D, so I don't think they're worried about the PR side of it.

Ryujin · Jan 3, 2016

Umbran said:
I am not a lawyer - I am speaking only from my understanding.

If we were talking trademark, you'd be correct - consistency there matters.

But for copyright, lack of a clear policy or enforcement thereof does not lose the holder's rights - they can be selective as they wish. Lack of consistent policy becomes a defense - a consistent policy might imply a license or contract, while being inconsistent about policy and enforcement works against any such claim.

Quite simply - legally speaking, I don't think Axanar has a leg to stand on. Their only real defense is the PR issue - to try it in the court of public opinion so that CBS/Paramount can't afford to shut them down. And they went directly to a lawsuit, bypassing a polite C&D, so I don't think they're worried about the PR side of it.

No, they definitely aren't worried about the PR side of things. I've looked, but haven't found a statement by either CBS or Paramount Studios. They went straight to moving for an injunction rather than talking to people with whom they were well acquainted, on a professional level. No fanfare at all; just out came the axes.

As to having a leg to stand on I think they've got a three legged stool, missing one leg. They've got a shot, but it'll be a rather delicate balancing act.

Axanar meets legal resistence from CBS

Ryujin

Legend

Cor Azer

First Post

Ryujin

Legend

Cor Azer

First Post

Ryujin

Legend

Cor Azer

First Post

Umbran

Mod Squad

MechaPilot

Explorer

Umbran

Mod Squad

Ryujin

Legend

Similar Threads