Iâm a little alarmed by the URL to the article, which seems to overstate things a bit:
âparamount-wants-to-kill-a-fan.htmlâ
Cory and Wil Wheaton are having a disagreement about this on TwitterâŚ
Heavens! Overstatement? On my BoingBoing?
Native speakers?
In the Wil camp with this one, myself.
long time reader, first time poster. Wil is right, this is not a fan-film. These guys used kickstarter to raise money for said âfan-filmâ but used it pay themselves a salary and open a movie production studio. Yes they are making the film as well but they are using the works of another for profit. Paramount is justified IMO.
If this is infringement, then itâs not infringement because of the use of Klingon. If the use of Klingon is the only peg theyâve got, then itâs probably not infringement.
Yeah, but heâs been in the pocket of Big Klingon for years.
He played a Romulan (in the 2009 movie). I think heâd object to your comment.
I hate to see it go down the memory hole like âThe Day the Clown Criedâ, but Paramount is in the right here.
Or as it was called in the original Klingon, âToday is a Good Day to Cryâ
Justified according to broken copyright laws and case law precedents maybe.
What exactly is wrong with fans making money off of a derivative story if other fans are willing to pay for it? I wouldnât have a problem with an obligatory licensing fee to Paramount for a small percentage of the gross.
Copyright was supposed to increase the production of creative works, not decrease them.
Theyâre arguing different parts of a âVâ and slowly converging
Itâs possible for BOTH Paramount and Axanar to be the bad guys here. The fact that we canât just have it say âThis is a fan film based on these other guysâ stuff. Theyâre not endorsing it or anythingâ at the beginning and the end and be done with it is kind of the root cause.
Itâs a stupid set of laws that creates bad behaviors and the fact that these arguments can happen is whatâs really a travesty.
All kinds of this.
Itâs not like everything isnât derivative in one way or another. Big copyright holders shouldnât get eternal profit, much less suppression rights, just because they happened to be both good and lucky on the way to fame. I say if the fans can make a Transformers movie that wonât suck then they should be allowed to, and I should be able to pay them instead of the forces behind that Bayhem.
Not just that, but they had merchandise.
You could get Axanar Coffee. And coffee mugs.
Now, I donât remember, and I think itâs since been pulled, but those may have been Kickstarter rewards.
But Axanar Coffee.
How could they think that was okay?
And I donât get how he thought heâd fly under the radar. AFAIK that photo is of an actual prop, because he worked for CBS as an archivist on one of the exhibit tours. Further, you can see not just him, but James Cawley as well, on the special features of the Wrath of Khan Blu-ray. Theyâre both collectors, and both responsible for fan productions. Only one of them is being sued, though Cawley did get a nastygram from CBS when they approached William Shatner about filming a fanfilm episode of a real, but unused, TOS script.
Itâs not like CBS is in a habit of suing fan productions out of existence, either; Enterprise used some of Cawleyâs props on the ENT mirror universe episodes, and Cawley was in the 2009 Star Trek.
I disagree, and Iâll use a counter-example: if I decided that I wanted to write Little Brother slashfic, I donât think I should be able to put it on Amazon for $5.99 and keep all the profits for myself. I donât feel like another personâs creative work should be everyoneâs playground to profit from. The thing is, CBS and Paramount have been pretty nice about the fanfilms so far.
First, this isnât a fan film. Itâs a commercial venture.
Second, imagine your solution applied the other way: Your little art-house film gets rave reviews for a wonderful story. And so a major Hollywood studio does their own version without consulting you.
And like many if not most movies and TV shows, even when wildly successful, Hollywood accounting shows that they never made a profit. The DVD release is wildly successful, but somehow never makes a profit. Streaming deals are made - and do amazingly well in the ratings - but somehow never make a profit. And so while they (in reality) make a fortune, you get squat.
And donât say that youâd sue. Thatâs been tried a great many times, and in the rare successes is by people who already have a fortune to spend on the fight.
I didnât say that I thought there shouldnât be some reasonable profit-sharing. Iâd be all for it, though not to the point of heirs milking the creative work of somebody they didnât knowâŚthatâs a bit extreme.
I was saying that they shouldnât have access to the sledgehammer against other creative works. Satire and parody are already okay, I just happen to believe that when a work has transcended itâs creators people should appreciate their lucky breaks and never have the temptation to be militant about things.
