CBS/Paramount v Axanar? Some broad thoughts

So, everyone has been buzzing about the joint CBS/Paramount lawsuit filed Dec. 29 against Alec Peters and the "Axanar Works" "fan film" crowdfunded movie. There's been no similar action made against any other fan film that we have heard of—not Star Trek Continues, Farragut, Renegades or New Voyages/Phase II, at least. All of whom, and several more, I've been happy to help promote in the name of a passion fix for fans over this decade-long fallow time for pro Trek—ever since the "gray area" for them to exist as no-income projects was hashed out by New Voyages back in 2004.

But no, this legal action is specific. 

I'm not going to wade into the mushrooming detail points or the back-and-forth here—that's been all over the Interwebs and, five days on, cooler heads are starting to prevail...at least in public comments and posts. Still, there are issues: Some point to the lawsuit as the answer to a threat perceived by the corporate rightsholders re: the scope or quality of Axanar as crossing the line (at least as has been promised)—but the legal issues, if that broad, would point to shutting down everyone. Some guess this is merely the first salvo against the biggest budget of fan films, and that either the owners enforce their property or they lose it—no middle ground. I hope there's no later, broader action—but, as I have always suspected, this is definitely not a typical mass Cease & Desist or broad-brush campaign (this legal action with outside attorneys is reportedly a second step from the owners after sending Axanar an earlier C&D, despite some direct contact). This is a step up: We've already seen the post-"Viacom divorce" split franchise parents actually act together for once in the lawsuit filing, making the "series or movie?" question moot on this. We'll just have to see where this goes.

I hope it goes quickly.... but as corporations, CBS and Paramount will be notoriously slow to offer any more details that would amount to "fighting it in the press"—although there have been follow-up statements. So we are going to be reduced to reading between the lines, and retconning for past clues and quotes, and a mostly one-sided "he said/they didn't" ... so far. The Intertubes were pretty hot the first day... and there are obviously a *ton* of Axanar donors and supporters out there who are not taking kindly to the action. But I have to know this is not 1996, and the big boxes are not blind to that blowback and the potential impact on fandom—and mainstream PR buzz— with a film and series enroute (especially the latter). Thus, the stakes go higher.  There were quick catcalls against big bad CBS, and hoots over the modern nature of franchise ownership vs. fans served after 50 years ... but within a couple days even some online observers started to look at both sides: the immediate hashtag #IStandWithAxanar has now been met with #IStandWithCBS a couple days later... and a host of memes that do not see the production as a martyr, in part in reaction to varied takes on Axanar's public business plan online. And beyond all that, don't make the mistake of thinking that all the world—even all fandom—hangs out on Facebook and blogs 24/7.


As observers, it's also a time to be mindful of who's words we are reading: Who are legitimate journalists versus wannabe bloggers on this, as the "media reports" come out. But it sure has gotten fandom talking—even the mainstream and trade media. And as my buddy John Champion has Facebooked after New Year's Day:  "Congratulations to the 87% of people I follow who have all become experts in the intricacies of federal copyright law in the last four days!"


There's a maxim I learned real early in Hollywood and the Trek business for whenever you try to push the envelope: Just don't do anything to make anyone say "no." A second would be: Don't make anyone ask their lawyer. The fan films exist at all due to the tangle of the legal "divorce" agreements, Paramount and CBS as Hollywood union/guild signatories, etc. … and yet simultaneously their acknowledged obvious value in the pop-culture conversation, especially in a fallow, non-series time. (FREE PROMO! How many tentpole-wannabes would kill for that?)

This is the last way anyone wanted to kick off the big 50th Trek anniversary year, with a movie and streaming series both on the way for summer and then spring—no matter what you may think of them now, sight unseen. So let's hope this gets settled quickly, quietly, and with as little damage to either fandom creativity or the corporate brand as possible.

I've said for a long time that the coming of new Trek weekly adventures, especially, may be what takes a lot of the air out of the fan-film balloon of the last decade, just from the lack of newly diverted attention and dollars among the masses—without "CBS & Para" having done a thing. It's just human nature... even by fans.

I do know one thing. That filing and the frou-frou sure put me behind on my writing during the mid-holiday "dead week."

And you can bet this will be a deep-dive topic at our Portal 47 Ask Dr. Trek Roundtable in January!

Fake visor: The new look of MSM Trek legal reporting

I'm not sure what to make of this story, except that the mainstream media couldn't figure out how to handle it either—but that didn't keep them from blathering on about it beyond its purely news angle.

NEW YORK (AP)— A "Star Trek" fan isn't entitled to millions of dollars in damages for buying memorabilia that he says wasn't as out-of-this-world as it seemed, a court said Tuesday.

Ted Moustakis wasn't promised he was getting a one-of-a-kind plum when he paid $11,400 for a uniform for "Star Trek: The Next Generation" character Data at a 2006 auction, an appeals court said.

The court also said Moustakis is due at most a refund for two other purchases he says were fakes: a $6,000 poker visor supposedly worn by Data and a $6,600 table from the show's set.

Is it just me, or does this AP story's no-nonsense, geekdom-is-mainstream tone just scream with barely concealed regret at its restraint from the cheap "pointed ears" and "basement-dweller" jokes that used to color all mainstream news stories with a Trek angle?

To my knowledge I never got to meet the plaintiff, Mr. Moustakis, but I know I was at the Vegas con when word spread there that Brent told him the Data green-shade visor he'd bid on was not authentic. I still think of the Christies' and It's a Wrap auctions as the new Paramount regime's effort to further show how the "new generation" of Trek had taken over, as if all those items from ST—TMP forward were now obviously useless; it was also a good way to save a lot of monthly warehouse rental, of course.

Now, there has been more than one Data visor—including those used for set decoration in the TNG movies, which were dressing and not props, and thus not actually worn by the regulars; Data never played poker in the four films, for instance. Veteran set dresser John Dwyer tried to echo the regulars' beloved personal effects from the series in those on display in their big-screen quarters even if he didn't have access to those original pieces. And then, for the Nemesis swan song, a lot of his routine work was undone by director Stuart Baird—so even more variations crept in.

Not having access to the piece Moustrakis won, this is all guesswork, to be sure—aside from its pic in the Christies auction catalog. But my point is, there may be lots of wiggle room for everyone to be right. Let's see how this plays out, even as it is out of the courts now.

Q it up: The Continuum vs. Sweden

No overt sign in the reporting that this is a parental reference to those pesky Continuum dwellers—or even to MI-5's weapons lab chief—but geez, just name him "Kyu" ... or even "Cue" ... or something....

OSTERSUND, Sweden, Jan. 22 (UPI) --The letter Q may not be used as a boy's name, a Swedish administrative appeals court ruled.

The parents of a boy in northwestern Sweden's Jamtland province had argued they'd been calling their son Q since he was born. ... The parents said that since this is what they consider his name, what he considers himself and what he is known as, he should be allowed to keep Q as his name.

However, [a] lower court had ruled the name failed to satisfy basic linguistic requirements. The higher court said Q is a letter of the alphabet not typically used as a first name, so it should not be allowed.

It cited "relevant case law" that holds that letters are not considered appropriate for names if the letters aren't already considered a name.

Yeah, well tell that to Mrs. Q. Or even M.