Fan-Funded Star Trek Film Claims Fair Use as Defense

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Nov 23, 2016.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    I am not a lawyer but I don't think a fair use defense is the way to go in this case. The "free promotional value to the plaintiffs" angle is a serious stretch too.

    The lawsuit between Paramount Pictures and the crowdfunded Star Trek spin-off "Prelude to Axanar" is heating up again. With a trial scheduled for early next year, both parties have submitted motions for summary judgment. The defendants argue, among other things, that their fan-film clearly falls under fair use.
     
  2. VooDooPC

    VooDooPC n00b

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Why do they even bother? If their movie NEEDS the Star Trek name to attract any interest, it must not be a very good movie on its own. They are using the Star Trek name for the sole purpose of marketing it to people. I don't see any judge looking at that favorably.
     
  3. thesmokingman

    thesmokingman [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,887
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    It's pretty sad, even JJ Abrahams couldn't stop Parafail from going after a fan film. Hell even Justin Lin is against Parafail.
     
  4. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,385
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    So what does Paramount and CBS want? Money? The rights to the movie? Them to just plain stop?
     
  5. Stiler

    Stiler [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,538
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    For those who don't know, Star Trek has long allowed MANY a fan-films to be made that make ample use of the Star Trek name/characters and many that even used actors/actresses that had been in official Star Trek movies or tv shows.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions

    On top of this there are even some that made use of Kickstarter (Just like Axanar) to raise money to make said fan projects, like Star Trek: Horizon.

    The real problem with Axanar imo is that the quality, rather then being a cheaper more "amateur" style fan-made movie it looked like a well done tv production. On top of this it raised more then other kickstarted Star Trek projects.

    However they were never going to charge for the movie and it was intended to be free, just like the other fan made projects.

    It seems really shitty imo that they came down hard on this one project after they allowed sooooooooo many over the years and embraced that in the past.

    Also I'd like to point out, Star Trek has actually taken things, like the language for Klingon (which makes use of real world languages) and tried to use that as copyright, now that's just plain wrong imo.
     
    tunatime, jtm55, Wizard220 and 2 others like this.
  6. TheBuzzer

    TheBuzzer HACK THE WORLD!

    Messages:
    12,482
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    The main problem is they were getting paid for their work using kickstarter. So it was a form of income and thus breaking copyright.
     
  7. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    54,439
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    This is my understanding as well. If it had been a simple fan film with no monetary gain they probably could get away with a defense like that.
     
  8. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,385
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    So the people who made the movie are super rich? So if they lose, Paramount and CBS will make a boatload?
    The lawyer fee has to be a bit high. :)
     
  9. xX_Jack_Carver_Xx

    xX_Jack_Carver_Xx 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,542
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Just stick with 'Parody" provision of Fair Use.
     
  10. thesmokingman

    thesmokingman [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,887
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    No they're not rich, that's why its crowd funded. They are industry ppl so it looks very pro and that is the problem. It's distasteful because it is made by pros giving their time for free and they are getting screwed for it. There can be no money made from it obviously, they can't charge to show it etc. So what is Parafail doing but flexing their muscles? The ironic part is that the director and producer of the reboots both support this film. smh
     
  11. Stiler

    Stiler [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,538
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    I don't think some of you understand, Axanar, like most fan projects, isn't "free" to make. It cost money to make even low-quaity fan projects. Especially if you are using actors/actresses that are in unions where they have minimum salary requirements and things.

    Axanar wasn't going to be a for profit movie, they didn't intend to sell the movie or charge for it to be seen.

    This is just like npo or "not for profit" businesses/charities do. It does not mean that they don't spend ANY money or pay their workers (many do).

    The point of kickstarter was to fund the development/shooting of the film, which anyone would have to do , even making a cheap indie movie takes money/time. Blair Witcher for example, which is probably the most well known "cheap" movie cost 60,000 to make for the salaries and equipment cost.
     
  12. STrAYeR

    STrAYeR Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Would love to see a part 2 of Anaxar. Better than the Beyond POS.
     
    Wizard220 likes this.
  13. Exavior

    Exavior [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,658
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    I don't understand people not getting that you can't claim no for profit if they funded the movie and made money already. People can try to twist stuff around so hard it is funny at times. Had a disagreement with one of our sales guys yesterday about on the same page as this. He wanted me to buy a $13,000 people of software to provide a new service for a customer and to do it free of charge. His arguement was that we were not doing it for free or with us eating the cost as we were just using the profit from other things to pay for it so we were just going to make less from them. I argued that making 10% of normal profit from a customer is us eating the cost because we aren't making 100% of our normal profit. He disagreed because the fact that we were not breaking even on the deal means that we are still making money and so that means that we aren't giving anything away for free since we aren't giving away more than the full value of the monthly payment from the customer. In my case there not making 100% normal profit is the same as giving somebody a break in cost and giving something for nothing. In this case making more money than it cost to make a movie is making it for profit. Because at the end of the day you have an extra dollar that you didn't have when you started.

    not that any of that matters. If the IP owner says you can't use the IP then you can't use it. Just like just because I let somebody borrow my car doesn't mean everyone is welcome to come take it when they want. I can let one person borrow it but tell the next person to fuck off.
     
  14. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,297
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Who defines "simple"? This argument can be thrown out in court in a second.

    The only reason they're pursuing this is because the production value is too high. There were fan films before that were crowdfunded so they made money off it. They didn't lift a finger. This has the potential to rival official products, which would make them look bad, hence the lawsuit. They're within their rights of course, but it's a dick move nonetheless.
     
  15. MongGrel

    MongGrel [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,998
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    The Team Negative1 revamp of the original Star Wars was pretty slick, but of course they will go after anyone doing the same in most cases.

    They remade that into the original, unedited version basically.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2016
  16. rsaotome

    rsaotome Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    167
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    For those that think this is crap getting by on using the Star Trek name, just check it out, you might be pleasantly surprised. :)
     
  17. DPI

    DPI Nitpick Police

    Messages:
    10,956
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    None of that is the copyright holder's problem.

    A fan movie or otherwise doesnt NEED to get made, any more than a mountain needs climbing. .
     
  18. Master_shake_

    Master_shake_ [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,129
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    can't wait for Deep space 7 of 9
     
  19. I do support Axanar and I don't. There's a couple of questions they really need to answer here.
    1) Do they intend to turn this into a full time production company after Axanar is done? It would seem so. (Extremely questionable since they are all getting paid.)
    2) Will they continue to offer limited licensed items for doners that bear a star trek name? (Also questionable)

    It was actually invented by James Dohan (AKA Scotty) for the Star Trek Movies

    On a side note I can see why Paramount is afraid. This undermines their entire model of doing business and it supplies fans with something they have been really craving for: Another Star Trek timeline that fits in the original universe. No reboot crap. It would be a tremendous egg in the face scenario if Axanar was more popular than the big productions. Investors/Producers might start to question paramount's usefulness if a shoe string budget can do better.
     
  20. A high end law firm is representing them pro-bono.
     
  21. If an IP owner fails to enforce an IP uniformally, they endanger that right in the eyes of the court.