Guest Posted November 1, 2017 Report Share Posted November 1, 2017 So apparently, a bunch of star trek fans put together a crowd funded full length (90 minutes) star trek film. CBS + Paramount pictures, waiting until after the film was completed, decided to file a lawsuit against their fans to shut down this film. They cited claims like the use of Klingon, to be their copyrighted language (didn't know you could own a language). Furthermore, CBS + Paramount have set up some legal requirements for fandom, basically shutting down their entire star trek fanbase (and not just for the film, the entire fanbase). Apparently sewing custom star trek uniforms is now regarded as a violation of copyright, for even casual use. Yeah.... Torches and Pitchforks and a march to CBS + Paramount seems like a reasonable response here, and I don't even regard myself as a star trek fan. This is the sort of behaviour that needs to be corrected early on, or it will just get worse and harder to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2017 Report Share Posted November 1, 2017 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_Axanar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2017 Report Share Posted November 1, 2017 https://www.geek.com/tech/cbs-and-paramount-release-official-star-trek-fan-film-guidelines-1659271/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2017 Report Share Posted November 1, 2017 http://higbee.cots.net/Holtej/klingon/faq.htm#2.12 Apparently Klingon is owned by Paramount and that's legal.... Though does sound like it's never been contested in court. I guess ownership of language cases come up often with regard to programming languages. https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/13/5998273/who-owns-a-language-wikipedia-palawa-kani-raises-old-debate apparently Oracle lost the case that Java was their own owned language. So I kinda wonder if paramount would be able to retain their copyright on Klingon if it were actually contested. And it's referenced on TV a lot, and I question if it's mentioned with permission, so I kinda wonder if this entire thing is about quashing the advancements of people that can't defend themselves in court, rather than actually adhering to the law (like when GW attacked chapter house and we learned that GW has no clue what USA copyright law is....hence the many changes to their product since). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blustorm Posted November 1, 2017 Report Share Posted November 1, 2017 It's dumb, because the people behind Axanar are giving old Trek fans what they want, and CBS/Paramount don't want Axanar competing with Discovery (the new Trek series), which is what the company execs think/hope will attract new Trek fans. The funny thing is I've heard more people are watching (and liking) the Orville (which is kind of an homage/satire of TNG/DS9/VOY-eraTrek) than are watching Discovery. I haven't seen either show, as I'm currently hooked on The Expanse. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckman Posted November 1, 2017 Report Share Posted November 1, 2017 Well, here's the deal... Copyright allows the owner of the property to control how it is accessed and, where relevant, produced. Originally this was about profitability and it has, over time, expanded to include product image and production quality. These all make sense and as someone who produces material that is copyrighted I totally support the use of the law in this context. Unfortunately, this does not give the consumer any leverage when a product goes in a direction that they don't like. For example, those of us who hate Windows 10 do not have any legal right to take a copy of Windows 7 and offer it as an alternative to the new Microsoft product (even if it is what people want). It doesn't matter whether we're doing this for profit or not. We also do not have the right to build a clone of Windows 7 and market it as such although we could market it independently under a completely different brand, name and logo. When it comes to intellectual property like Start Trek, there is no difference. We can all argue about whether or not it is good for the franchise or is morally right or not but the truth is that this has nothing to do with the legal reality. And while we can vote with our feet or our money, in the end if CBS and Paramount decide to go this route then you've got two options... Walk away from the product or give in to whatever the company has planned. Paramount is banking on not only the need but also their ability to pull in a whole new era of followers for the product with the new series. I won't be one of them, but as the holder of the copyright, it is their choice to make. Fanfic has never been protected. It's just been ignored or even encouraged (e.g. Supernatural). Worse, what a company ignores today, they can just as easily take notice of tomorrow and you still have no legal justification to stop them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2017 Report Share Posted November 1, 2017 Not just no leverage for the consumer, it also grants the company no ability adapt. They either fail or succeed with copyright, there is no middleground. If I don't like windows 10, I can either not buy it, or buy it. I can't have them adapt to my level of need. Not a good system for them at all. Additionally, I don't think it's intention of the copyright law (or perhaps even the written law) to use copyright as a way of denying people the right to create products that don't exist on the open market. Fans only create things because they can't buy them. When demand doesn't meet supply, capitalism is supposed to resolve this. Instead, we have copyright saying we need to reduce demand....that cannot be within the intention of copyright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted November 2, 2017 Report Share Posted November 2, 2017 1 hour ago, paxmiles said: Not just no leverage for the consumer, it also grants the company no ability adapt. They either fail or succeed with copyright, there is no middleground. If I don't like windows 10, I can either not buy it, or buy it. I can't have them adapt to my level of need. Not a good system for them at all. Additionally, I don't think it's intention of the copyright law (or perhaps even the written law) to use copyright as a way of denying people the right to create products that don't exist on the open market. Fans only create things because they can't buy them. When demand doesn't meet supply, capitalism is supposed to resolve this. Instead, we have copyright saying we need to reduce demand....that cannot be within the intention of copyright. The actual (as opposed to stated intention, which remains protecting creators' interests) intention of Copyright (and other IP protections, like Trademarks and Patents) has varied over the years as different interested parties have gained or lost influence with lawmakers. As much as anything now, it's a tool for large corporations to use to stifle competition. Free Culture, by Lawrence Lessig, is a fascinating read on the topic, by a lawyer who has argued IP cases in the US Supreme Court. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckman Posted November 2, 2017 Report Share Posted November 2, 2017 18 hours ago, paxmiles said: Not just no leverage for the consumer, it also grants the company no ability adapt. They either fail or succeed with copyright, there is no middleground. If I don't like windows 10, I can either not buy it, or buy it. I can't have them adapt to my level of need. Not a good system for them at all. Make no mistake... The company has every opportunity to adapt and provide multiple products. Don't mistake the choice by many companies *not* to produce something as a case of their inability (legal or logistically) to do so. Microsoft could very easily support older versions of their software but they choose not to. Paramount could very easily license and profit from the immense amounts of fanfic out there but they choose not to. There's risk to opening up and allowing all that stuff as diversity comes with its own problems whether it is support logistics or something like the X-files universe which is so fragmented as to be impossible to tie back into a coherent whole. This is a conscious choice by the owners of the IP. It's not one that I think is smart but since I have no interest in being a CEO I am not going to change things that way. The only way I have of interacting with this system is to vote with my $s. It's easy for me to look at products out there and point out examples where being good to your fans has been beneficial (e.g. Supernatural, who actually give a nod to their fanfic every once in a while) vs. IPs that have been closely controlled to the point of stifling (e.g. Star Wars). I have a clear opinion what is the best approach for fiction IPs. Programming is different in terms of requiring support mechanisms and so I understand why Microsoft retires products rather than try to continue to support them. Regardless, in the end it is a company making a choice and if you don't like the choice that they are making then your only option is to vote with your feet. No different from you choices in purchasing gasoline or groceries or watching football games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yarbicus Posted November 5, 2017 Report Share Posted November 5, 2017 Don't forget that copyrighted material MUST be protected by the owner or they could lose the copyright. US law actually takes this into account. If they pursue protection against one party but not another, the court could conclude that the material is no longer copyrighted. This is a big issue in the guitar world right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.