STAR TREK - AXENAR: Why I'm Bothered by Dropped Copyright Lawsuit Over Fan Film

I want to preface by saying that I'm not totally against fan films. As I wrote on my personal homepage (click on "Fan Attic" Link), I believe that studios with similarly iconic and lucrative franchises are going to have to settle on a better and more effective way of protecting their intellectual property rights without alienating so many of the fans, who in this case are probably right to feel some sense of collective ownership. According to AXENAR's web page, CBS is, in fact, in the process of drawing up "guidelines" for future fan films right now. (AXENAR Homepage - JJ Abrams Announces That Paramount To Drop Lawsuit)  Still, something about this feels way off. Granted, the timing on Paramount's part was suspicious given they HAVE been extremely lenient and tolerant up to now, which just happens to coincide with both STAR TREK BEYOND's release and the franchise's 50th anniversary, but not only did it have the makings of a legitimate case, but this wasn't AXENAR's only problem.

All told, Producer Alec Peters and his team actually raised about a million dollars or more on both Kickstarter AND IndieGoGo, which is relevant given that part of what dictates enforcement of copyright law is how similar the infringing production, in this case, resembles the works of the owner(s). Since it is based on money and the ability of the owners to compete in the market as is their legal right, the closer the production gets to the production value of the owners' productions, the more likely it is seen as being competitive. In December, Variety quoted Peters as using the usual defense that he and his team were never going to actually sell the film for profit, but in his crowdfunding campaign, he did go so far as to suggest that AXENAR heralded or was part of some sort of system in which fans could get the content they wanted so long as they paid for it. To me, that sounds like the collective purchasing of a product rather than donations in exchange for separate and smaller gifts. As someone that has supposedly worked for CBS (which owns Trek's TV legacy and was also in on the lawsuit), he should have known better. Being labeled as "competitive" doesn't require that the fans turn a profit or even sell a single copy, either. All it means is that the fan production is of a quality so indistinguishable or even superior to those of the owners that it could conceivably convince audiences to stay away from the "legitimate" works while they can get the fan productions for free. (The WRAP - "Why Star Trek Fan Film Producers Should Have Seen CBS/Paramount's Lawsuit Coming") While I'm sure that sounds incredibly greedy given how much money has been made on TREK already, I think if more people actually owned businesses and had to be responsible for the kind of money that studios like Paramount put into movies and shows like this, they might be a little more sympathetic and even grateful that when it comes to STAR TREK, at least, this was a rare if not isolated case of Paramount putting its proverbial foot down.

Besides that, Peters' money management also came into question, precipitating the pre-lawsuit departure of at least one important member of the cast: Franchise veteran Tony Todd ("Tony Todd Exits AXENAR"), who is also famous for the CANDYMAN movies and has provided (one of) the voice(s) for the villain Zoom in the soon-to-be-ending 2nd season of THE FLASH. As I recall, one or more other cast members left, too, but I don't have the links to confirm it. While Todd may still return, the official reason for Todd's departure is said to be salary. For those sympathetic to Peters, bear in mind that Todd had already participated in the short film "PRELUDE TO AXENAR," so if Peters is as professional as he claims to be in the crowdfunding campaigns, why didn't he anticipate what would seem to be an easily foreseeable issue and negotiate earlier?

The bottom line is that whether intentionally or otherwise, I don't think we're being told the whole story here - even given that the "whole story" hasn't yet concluded. The AXENAR site says that both sides' lawyers are still working on resolving this mess, but the request that Paramount drop the lawsuit is reported to have first come from Justin Lin, who directed the upcoming STAR TREK BEYOND. Apparently, Executive Producer JJ Abrams backed him up and the lawsuit is no more, but is this really a victory for AXENAR? Peters didn't get the lawsuit dropped, himself, and given the lawsuit is about six months old already and the money was raised about a year ago, is this really the greenlight for AXENAR that it appears to be? Frankly, I think this is a PR stunt with more to it than we're being told. Paramount was only asking for $150,000 in damages per copyrighted element, of which there were only a few listed in the original suit. That's a lot of money to most readers of this site, but with someone like Abrams backing him up, I wouldn't be surprised if Lin and Abrams paid Paramount off so they could be seen as having the fans' back in time for the new film. After all, Abrams isn't exactly the most popular man among hardcore STAR TREK fans given his lucrative, yet still flashy and rather shallow film reboot in 2009. Also, STAR TREK BEYOND is said to have added a cast member at the last minute for "additional photography" earlier this year. That sort of thing doesn't generally portend a really good movie in the minds of most of today's audiences, and even though the most recent trailer makes the film look quite good, the initial teaser released around the same time as the lawsuit's announcement had some fans groaning in disappointment. Even if Abrams and Lin are sincere in what they're doing and the lawyers are still working out the terms, that doesn't mean that money hasn't changed or will not change hands on behalf of Peters and the AXENAR team.

No matter who you are, I think you can agree that we live in some pretty paranoid times - especially in America. Some of that paranoia might have been pretty well-earned, particularly in the area of government and politics. Unfortunately, I think some of the same anti-establishment and quasi-bolshevik attitudes driving voters on both sides in the upcoming Presidential election are also driving people like Alec Peters and the fans that have supported him despite what SHOULD be seen as a clear and intentional breach of copyright law. One can argue over the extent to which it is a breach and even whether or not it's worthwhile for Paramount and/or CBS to take action, but I think the fact remains. Not that he was the first or will be the last, but Peters has broken the law. Also, the idea that he and his team will never personally benefit from their production does not hold-up considering the project's built-in appeal and thus its visibility in the general media. Not all benefits need to be monetary - not even the most valuable. Even if they make the film and never sell a single copy, I can't imagine that participants haven't at least considered what this might do for existing or future careers in the industry by showing off their handiwork.

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about this. While I do hope CBS and hopefully Paramount, as well, can come up with those guidelines for future fan productions, I'm not sure I want Peters to win the day and complete his movie. Call me old-fashioned or narrow-minded, but it seems to me that someone of Peters' age, experience, and skill could do a lot better than to launch even the best of fan films. STAR TREK is all about the future... the new... so if his intention is to really honor STAR TREK and all that it stands for, I think he should have put that time and energy into something original that contains a nod to STAR TREK's influence without actually being STAR TREK. Sure, it would have been more a LOT more difficult. Good luck raising over a million bucks in donations for an independent film with material that nobody has ever heard of before. Then again, that's kind of my point here. If nothing else, STAR TREK already has numerous fan films to honor its legacy, so to speak - maybe more than any other commercial or franchise property of its kind. Regardless of fan appeal, it does not actually need something like AXENAR. In my eyes, this whole AXENAR business actually threatens to cheapen STAR TREK and both its legacy and that of its creator Gene Roddenberry.

After all, one of anything is rare and potentially valuable, but copy after copy by everyone in town renders it less so.  

Why The NY Times' Article on Trump & Women Is As Disgraceful As It Is Probably Futile

I'm sick over the apparent nomination and possible election of Donald Trump to the presidency, but today's New York Times article about Trump's treatment of women is a travesty that VALIDATES people's notion about most of the American media being owned and controlled by liberals.

Even if everything in the article is fact, Trump is no Johnny-come-lately. His marriages and divorces are public knowledge, his spat with Fox's Megyn Kelly made headlines for weeks, and his generally aggressive behavior should be no surprise to anyone by now whether they are for or against him. Besides the fact that the GOP's usual objection to abortion and contraception has long since given it a bad name with many female voters, one candidate's history of alleged indiscretions with women should hardly be newsworthy. That Trump is being singled out in this way belies the fact that Bill Clinton, Gary Condit and other Democrats have had similar if not worse histories with women while in office - including John F. Kennedy, whose affairs are notorious now, and even Franklin Roosevelt, who had rendezvous with a number of women while married, including another cousin. Many such indiscretions on the part of those like Clinton and Kennedy, however, have even been turned into endearments of a sort and construed by many Democrats nowadays as nothing more than the political witch-hunting of Christian conservatives... this in spite of the fact that Clinton's impeachment was over the charge of perjury, not his sexual indiscretions, and an instance of perjury to which Clinton all but outright admitted on live television.

That said, none of it would be very noteworthy except that after news of the Washington Post getting ready to put no fewer than 20 reporters to work dissecting Trump's life, this seems to be just one example of the way in which at least two major newpapers now have taken it upon themselves to topple Trump. Candidates get slammed in papers all the time, but this is in the Politics section and includes quotes from a number of interviews, thus making it something more than just some pundit's daily or weekly commentary. Were it about an actual crime Trump had committed, it would be justifiable, as it would be if the New York Times were a more overtly bias publication like Salon or The Weekly Standard. Yet neither the publication nor its article is either of those things. The article isn't even directly relevant to matters of policy because not only has Trump been vague up to now about most of the specifics of his intended policies (except his defense of Planned Parenthood, for which even pro-abortion liberals seem loathe to give him any credit), he hasn't been elected to ANY political office and has thus had no opportunity to influence or initiate any public policy, good or bad. In short, the New York Times and Washington Post appear to be dedicated to the probably futile, yet still excessively libelous treatment of a candidate with a historically high level of support among GOP voters - including, I would think, at least a few of their own readers. Regardless of one's opinions of Trump, these national publications should be better than this, and since Democrats seem to be so obsessed with private sector accountability to the federal government, that government should condemn the very notion of the New York Times publishing articles like this and of the Washington Post even being rumored to be going to such lengths to slam a candidate chosen by "the people." Instead, President Obama is using occasions like a recent commencement speech to more or less do the same thing, albeit without mentioning Trump by name. It cannot even be justified as aid to another Democrat's campaign because I don't think he directly mentioned either Hillary or Bernie... then or on any other occasion that I am aware of.

If the political left, in particular, is serious about taking down Trump, they should know by now that the best way to do that is to shut-up, quit giving this billionaire FREE PUBLICITY, and unite behind one of their own candidates so that he or she will have a better chance of defeating Trump in the November election! If they don't, the not only does the country face a probable Trump presidency, but the Democrats could face the same kind of long-term division in their own ranks that currently threatens to send the GOP on the same path as their Whig predecessors.