Use this space to cheer the creator along, ask questions, and talk to your fellow backers. Please remember to be respectful and considerate. Thanks!
A lot have been able to work with the guidelines set upon them, with little to no issues. You can check out Melbourne, Starbase, and other studios as to what they are doing. Also, 1701News and others may have articles on who all has been working well with the studios.
That article is I believe nearly a year old and some of the info is no longer relevant.
I'd be interested in a update on the state of fan films as I believe some of them have been able to work with CBS/Paramount to continue production.
Below is a great article on Axanar and what it's doing to fan films: http://1701news.com/node/980/axanar-will-ruin-fan-trek-everyone.html
There always was a slippery slope when it came to what I always felt was a generous move by Paramount Pictures and CBS Corp. to turn a blind eye not just to Star Trek fan fiction but Star Trek fan productions as well.
Some of the early attempts were very low budget. It was more about good writing and some extreme technical know-how to make some of those early fan-produced episodes, and it seemed there was nothing for CBS/Paramount to worry about. Then James Cawley turned the entire fan production industry on its head with an elaborate continuation of the original "Star Trek" series, complete with sets and professional crew, that I felt would finally end CBS/Paramount's reluctant allowance of fan productions.
Yet, the studios remained remained quiet, and didn't say much. In fact, the only time the owners of the Star Trek properties spoke up was when some fans tried to create their own fifth season of "Star Trek: Enterprise" a decade ago, collecting more than $100,000 in actual cash from fans. That money was supposedly going to be sent to CBS/Paramount to help fund a new season of "Enterprise," money the studio said it could never accept.
It's been nearly 15 years since Star Trek fan productions came about, and it took nearly 15 years for one production to cross the line so much it forced the hand of CBS/Paramount to stop it. And sadly, "Star Trek: Axanar" is going to ruin it for everyone else.
I've read some of the commentary from fans, journalists and such, angry at CBS/Paramount for filing suit against a production that has raised something like $1 million in crowdfunding to create their production. But I am just completely lost on where this anger is coming from. What justifies it? And why can't CBS/Paramount decide to defend its copyright whenever it feels like it?
I know that many of us have grown up on Star Trek, and we feel like we own it. But here's the thing: We don't. It's not ours. It belongs to someone else. Well, two someone elses. Not even my friend Rod Roddenberry has an ownership stake in the franchise despite it being created by his father.
The move to allow fan productions of Star Trek was an unprecedented one. But then again, CBS/Paramount always has looked to break the mold when it comes to Star Trek, giving more than an inch to fans and then only watching them take a mile. Remember the unsolicited script policy Paramount had back in the day? A policy that launched the careers of many writers, like Ronald D. Moore? That lasted far longer than lawyers would've liked, but it was so successful in bringing fresh blood into Star Trek that Paramount had to be dragged away from it kicking and screaming. Now, the studio is like anyone else, not accepting unsolicited scripts. How many Bryan Fullers are being lost because of that policy?
Whether you like what CBS/Paramount is doing or not, the companies have every right to defend their copyrights. They have every right to give some leeway to whomever they want, and no leeway to others. They own Star Trek, and they have every right to set the rules.
And the rules always have been well-defined. The biggest one? It can't be a commercial venture. In the beginning, that was well-understood by everyone. But as some productions pushed the envelope a little, others did it too. It went from an interpretation no one can make money on to where the person at the top can't make a profit. That's an amazing leap, don't you think?
If you were giving money to a charity and you found out that while they are nonprofit, the CEO makes $10 million a year, you'd be a little angry, right? Then how is this different? Sure, there is no profit planned for "Axanar," but you've just raised more money than most independent films get (and those films pay crew quite well, if not cast). How is this not a commercial enterprise? "Axanar" raised $1 million. Instead of doing it through purchases and tickets, they did it through fundraising. Instead of distributing ticket sales to its cast and crew and producers, it distributed fundraising money. What's the difference?
I'm not saying "Axanar" is guilty of anything. But the move was enough to get CBS/Paramount to say, "Wait, hold up." And CBS/Paramount has every right to do this. It doesn't even have to fire a warning shot first — anyone who takes on a production using someone else's property runs the risk of having it yanked away without warning.
Think about it this way. You want to put on a concert with a local band, and you know that this farmer in town has allowed people to use some of his vacant land for events as long as they clean up and don't make a profit. You don't need a contract with him or anything, you can just come and use it. Well, you start selling tickets, and the farmer decides he doesn't like someone in the band, so even though you've already sold 500 tickets, the farmer yanks your venue. Is he allowed to do that? Yes. Does he have to give any warning? No.
There is no contract between CBS/Paramount and the producers of "Axanar" that I am aware of. The producers run the same risk every other fan production in the past have run when it comes to doing a Star Trek production. The only difference this time is that these producers are holding $1 million of your money.
I sincerely hope that what "Axanar" has done doesn't hurt the future of Star Trek fan films. Some of my favorite people active in the film industry got their start in fan productions, and they told wonderful stories on limited budgets, never making a dime for their work.
But because "Axanar" thought it could be different, that it could create profit and not call it profit and CBS/Paramount would turn a blind eye, it might mean that great Star Trek fan productions will soon be a product of the past. Don't blame CBS/Paramount — they never had to allow it in the first place. Blame those who couldn't just leave well enough alone.
Below is the latest in "Films never getting made" and "world's worst camera bump."
I want a refund. I will gladly ship back the $.07 patches.
I would like a refund. Thanks.
Alec, that is spam.
Stop reposting what your buddy has written. Write your own updates and put them in the update section.
Below is the latest from Jonathan Lane's Fan Film Factor Blog on the lawsuit. Make sure you follow his blog, the only objective look at the lawsuit which consults with actual lawyers.
A closer look at the OPPOSITION BRIEFS in the AXANAR LAWSUIT (Part 1)
Yes, it’s that magical time again! Jonathan is going to play tour guide to take anyone who is interested on a journey through the latest two major filings in the AXANAR lawsuit, each submitted to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court this past Monday.
For a better idea of what is going on at the moment, check out my (not so brief!) four-part blog on the motions for summary judgment (start here). In that analysis, I flipped a coin and began with the defense. This time, to be polite, I’m going to begin with the plaintiffs.
Before we begin, just a quick word about the two potential strategies of the opposition briefs. Initially, each side wants the judge to rule in their favor BEFORE the trial even begins. In the best of all scenarios, the judge rules on the entire case, awarding it to either the plaintiffs or the defense, and then there’s never a trial at all (this is rare but not unheard of).
There are also pre-trial rulings the judge can make that can severely hurt the chances of one side or the other to ultimately win. For example, if the judge rules that Alec Peters should be enjoined (forbidden) from making any more Star Trek fan films because of the potential financial harm to the studios, then that pretty much means the judge has already accepted that the studios will face real monetary damages from the Axanar works…and that’ll put the ball in the red zone for plaintiffs (sorry, football season here in America) and make it much easier for them to win a big judgment.
If the judge rules instead that it is too early to determine anything about the full Axanar feature film because it hasn’t been finished yet, then the plaintiffs are stuck having to argue ONLY about Prelude to Axanar and nothing else (removing Chang and Robert April as potential violations), giving a huge gift to the defense. So these motions for summary judgment rulings can be real game-changers if successful!
But in order to get the judge to make such a ruling, each side has to convince him that the facts are indisputable. The whole reason for a trial is for a jury to hear all the evidence and testimony and determine the facts. But if the facts are so obvious that any jury would ultimately arrive at the exact same conclusion, then why waste everyone’s time?
And thus will each motion for summary judgement essentially say, “What we’re saying is just so completely obvious!”
Then it’s time for step two, when each side responds to the others’ statement of the “obvious” facts. Now the strategy shifts from “We’re obviously right” to “They’re obviously wrong.” But there’s also another strategy that you’ll see play out a little more when we get to the defense briefs in Part 2. And that’s the, “Well, if we’re both so diametrically opposed, maybe the facts aren’t all that obvious after all. Maybe we do need a trial after all.” This is a way of covering your flank. Obviously, each side wants to win a summary judgement, but if there’s a chance you could actually lose, better to take your chances on convincing a 6 or 12-person jury instead of just one judge. So be on the lookout for elements of that strategy, too.
And now, let’s look at how the plaintiffs chose to oppose the defense’s arguments…
There’s a lot of déjà vu in the plaintiffs’ brief–for anyone who has read all of the other filings (Jonathan quietly raises hand). So I won’t go over the stuff they’ve said many times before. Instead, I’ll call attention to some notable quotes from their filing.
In trying to prove that Axanar is not “original” but instead is “substantially similar” to Star Trek, we have the following shot right out of the starting gate:
Defendants have faithfully recreated every possible element of the Star Trek universe, down to excruciating details.
I think I can just let the ridiculousness of that claim stand on its own as we consider a 22-minute short film with no sets and only six characters that takes place 20 years before TOS. EVERY possible element of the entire Trek universe…really?
Further, while Defendants assert that they have included additional “original” characters in the Axanar Works, these additional characters are by no means “original” – they are Klingons, Vulcans, and Federation officers, and are, therefore, not “original” to Defendants.
Saying this is like saying that Worf is the same as Koloth or Spock is the same as Tuvok. While, yes, the studios hold copyrights for Klingons and Vulcans in broad strokes, remember that the defense will be arguing for transformative use. Is Kharn different from any other Klingon seen before? Probably. And what does he do that is really Klingony? Mostly, he just sits and talks and occasionally bangs his staff on the floor. Yes, he looks like a Klingon and dresses like a Klingon and is apparently talking from the surface of Qo’noS. But really, is that all they got? If so, then Kharn seems to be an original character who just happens to be a Klingon. Is that enough to prove transformative? We’ll see.
However, giving the plaintiffs credit where it’s due, Soval is unquestionably the same character that appeared on Enterprise. But, as we’ll learn in Part 2, the studios never registered a copyright specifically for Soval, and so, by law, they can’t sue for infringing on that specific character. Vulcans in general? Yes. But not Soval as a specific character.
And now, here’s the strongest point the plaintiffs make…
Defendants also argue that their work should be protected as a “criticism” or “commentary” on the “horrors of war.” This argument is specious and the Axanar Works themselves demonstrate the falsity of Defendants’ position. The Garth of Izar character that Defendants have taken from Plaintiffs’ Star Trek Copyrighted Works is not described as having “PTSD” or suffering from any other malady. Indeed, he is portrayed as a near-infallible hero and military strategist, who helps lead the Federation in The Four Years War against the Klingon Empire. This character and plot are taken directly from Plaintiffs’ works, and there is no commentary, satire, parody or criticism whatsoever in the Axanar Works. It is surprising that Defendants would even offer such an argument to the Court, as their pre-lawsuit statements and admissions unequivocally stated that no such purposes were intended: “This is the story of Garth and his crew during the Four Years War, the war with the Klingon Empire that almost tore the Federation apart…This is Star Trek.”
And here, just so nobody thinks I’m just shooting down everything the plaintiffs say, they make a solid point. It’s hard to argue now, only when Alec Peters and Axanar Productions are now in front of a judge, that their purpose all along was social commentary or criticism. And yes, there was nothing specifically in Prelude to Aanar that said Garth was PTSD…then again, there was nothing that DIDN’T say it either. And maybe that was still to come in the full Axanar sequel and the framing sequence that was shot (and now may never be seen).
And now, it’s the plaintiffs’ turn to invoke that other “star” franchise with the droids and the X-wings…
The Supreme Court has clearly held that a use is not rendered “fair” simply because a plaintiff cannot precisely quantify the damages resulting from the creation of unauthorized derivative works. Indeed, if that were the law, no owner of a successful copyrighted work could ever be expected to enforce its rights, as the precise damages from virtually any infringing use would be exceedingly difficult to quantify if compared to the revenue generated by say, the Harry Potter franchise, the Star Wars franchise, or even a long running television series such as Seinfeld.
On this point, the studios know they will never prove actual damages (there probably aren’t any, to be honest, or they’re so minor as to be fractions of rounding errors in a billion dollar franchise). So instead, they say it’s irrelevant in the eyes of the law, and that just because there’s no proof of damages doesn’t mean they get to claim fair use.
That’s not entirely true but not entirely false either. Direct financial harm is only one aspect of fair use, and by itself does not necessarily kill the fair defense (although it usually does). But implied harm? Assumed harm? I’m not sure that’s enough to kill the fair use defense either. But I suppose it’s at least worth a try.
But does Axanar really have that much power to harm the studios? They go on to say:
Instead, if the proliferation of the infringing use would harm the market for the licensing of derivative works, the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court have held that the use “is not fair.” Here, if numerous producers were permitted to create “independent Star Trek film(s)” (so long as the main characters from Plaintiffs’ works were not used), the adverse effect on the licensing of derivative works would be clear, and the economic harm to Plaintiffs would be self- evident.
Did you see what they did there? Notice they said “independent Star Trek film(s)” so as to try to protect themselves against my favorite counter argument: “Then why are you encouraging Star Trek fan films with your guidelines rather than stopping them completely?” Of course, the plaintiffs then have to make absolutely sure that the court sees Axanar as something OTHER than a “fan film,” and the plaintiffs work VERY hard hammering that point…often using Alec Peters’ own words to do so. Here’s one example of something Alec said:
But Axanar is not just an independent Star Trek film; it is the beginning of a whole new way that fans can get the content they want, by funding it themselves. Why dump hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on 400 cable channels, when what you really want is a few good sci-fi shows? Hollywood is changing. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other providers are redefining content delivery, and Axanar Productions/Ares Studios hopes to be part of that movement.
This isn’t quite as damning as the plaintiffs hope, however. Alec specifically says “a few good sci-fi shows” and not specifically “fan-produced Star Trek.” In fact, here’s something else Alec said and the plaintiffs quoted:
We intend to turn this warehouse and office space into a fully functional sound stage. This will allow us to not only make ‘Axanar’ but other Star Trek projects after Axanar and other Sci-Fi projects.”
While it’s all conjecture what MIGHT happen in the future, it is obvious from the statements that Ares Studios would not be exclusive to Star Trek fan films. That said, it’s still possible they would be creating at least a little fan Trek…however, remember that, at the time he wrote that statement, Alec thought the studios were okay with fan films. Now that he knows they do have a problem, my guess is the plans for Ares (or Industry) studios will likely shift toward general sci-fi created by fans. So again, I don’t think this statement is quite a damaging as the plaintiffs hope it is.
Next up, I have a very interesting technicality that is going to annoy the plaintiffs to no end. They spend about five pages specifically describing all the similarities between content in Axanar and the original source material from Star Trek. They even use photos:
The photos will certainly help, but here’s something that like;y won’t help:
Defendants argue that Garth of Izar is an “obscure” character, but they do so by disingenuously ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs published an entire Star Trek novel devoted to (and entitled) Garth of Izar. Further, the Motion does not address the undisputed fact that Defendants borrowed their plot and characters regarding Garth and the Four Years War from Plaintiffs’ Four Years War publication. Moreover, even if Garth of Izar was featured in only one television episode, that would not render that character unprotectable, and Defendants have not cited to any law to support that assertion.
So here’s the problem: the novel Garth of Izar and the publication The Four Years War were never mentioned in the original or amended complaint. They might be “juicy” items on the plaintiffs’ GOTCHA! list, but as been explained to me by an intellectual property attorney, the plaintiffs can only use what was in the original complaint. The judge won’t (or at least shouldn’t) allow these two works to be admitted and used to prove a specific violation. A technicality? Yes. But it is the law.
Also, note that, they called Garth “protectable” and not “protected.” There is no specific registration of copyright on the character of Garth. More on that in Part 2.
We’re nearly done in our “rocket tour” of the 20-page filing. And while this blog analysis is intended to “save” you from reading through both 20-page filings completely, I do recommend that you give them a look-over, as they’re worth diving into more thoroughly than I have time or space to. But here’s a few final choice quotes:
Moreover, the mere fact that Prelude includes fictional “interviews” with Star Trek characters, in addition to scripted dialogue and action sequences, does not render that work “transformative.”
And my snarky response would be, “Moreover, the mere fact that the plaintiffs state an opinion like this does not make it true.” And perhaps this is why I’m not a lawyer, since yes, it is pretty snarky. But to be fair, the entire case pretty much hinges on this one throwaway sentence, and so I would hope the defense team calls the plaintiffs out for saying so matter-of-factly something that is really just their self-serving opinion.
Peters unquestionably engaged in a commercial endeavor, raising and spending almost a million and a half dollars (much of it on his own personal expenses). Peters also sought to produce Star Trek content for Netflix….
The “much of it on his own personal expenses” part is misleading and is resulting in a lot of negative press about Alec Peters lately. I would expect some push-back about both this and the “sought to produce Star Trek content for Netflix” comment. Both statements endeavor to twist the actual facts into something inaccurate, but I’ll let Alec and/or his legal and PR team tackle this. I’m not at liberty to speak on the point further. (Man, I so want to do an interview with Alec!!)
Defendants argue, without any basis in evidence, that the Axanar Works “offer free promotional value to Plaintiffs.”
Well, d’uh, but actually, the plaintiffs kinda have a point here. The defense should try to find a way to back up their claim that fan films help the studios with free promotion. In my mind, the best way to do so would be to point out the studios’ tolerance of (and in the case of Star Trek Continues‘ “The White Iris,” assistance to) Star Trek fan films and fan series to at least show there isn’t necessarily harm…or else the studios wouldn’t be so permissive of fan films…especially high-end ones.
Next time, we turn our attention to the defense’s opposition brief. You’re gonna wanna be here for that one, folks, as Team Axanar has pulled out all the stops for this one! Soval as James Bond? Garth as Godzilla (Garthzilla)? And is this really a first amendment case??? Possibly
Axanar Podcast # 41 is up.
OWC Digital have made amazing advances in computer hard drive technology by building drive arrays and writing the software to run them. These products allow users to edit large video files without any freezing of the hard drive, and OWC's mantra is that they build products and solutions to help people take their creativity further.
In this episode of the official Axanar podcast, Robert Meyer Burnett and Alec Peters are joined by Bing Bailey, the digital imaging technician and digital colorist on Prelude to Axanar, and Larry O'Connor to discuss new technology from Other World Computing (OWC) and how its use will change high-definition film editing.
Intro and Patches! (00:00:00)
The Lawsuit (00:02:37)
Recent Filming (00:05:51)
Larry O'Connor and Bing Bailey (00:12:31)
Working with 5K Files (00:18:46)
The Software Component (00:20:17)
Differences between Hard Drive Types (00:24:23)
How Does Drive Speed Help in Post Production? (00:27:17)
Designed and Built in North America (00:33:48)
Eight-Drive Thunderbolt 3 Arrays? (00:36:15)
Final Thoughts (00:40:10)
I will sign a non disclosure agreement in a heartbeat to get back the $275 i donated to this. i have no dog in this fight.
On another subject, according to Axamonitor Alec actually offered some people refunds, but asked them to sign a non-disclosure agreement and they refused.
I hate to say it but if you ask for a refund and have a problem signing a non-disclosure, which I feel Alec has every right to ask for given the history involved you're just flat out WRONG and he is right.
PS: I hate anyone who did that for actually making me say Alec was right about Anything.
I'd swear at you but they'd just delete the post if I did.
I don't know anyone named "Reece", never talked to anyone named "Reece" and I am pretty sure you are not my Brother or one of the other 2 people I've actually talked to at length about this Kickstarter.
Betazoids and Vulcan mind melds are still the realm of science fiction so I have to call complete BS on you having the slightest idea what I knew when I decided to back this kickstarter because its pretty apparent you haven't read anything I've said or you'd know everything you said is flat out wrong.
I find it funny that as much as Alec claims all of us lie about him its actually his supporters ( or perhaps an alter ego?) that lie about me,
Lets look at the facts shall we?
"Axanar is the independent Star Trek film which proves that a feature-quality Star Trek film can be made on a small budget." Note that does not say "fan". It says INDEPENDANT.
Richard Hatch, Tony Todd, Kate Vernon, JG Hertzler and Gary Graham - these are NOT fan film actors, these are PROFESSIONALS.
The only thing "fan" about this PROFESSIONAL, INDEPENDENT film the funding. THAT is what I KNEW when I backed this.
Unlicensed - actually, being a PROFESSIONAL film it would be illegal for this to be unlicensed, that's why Disney can't use the X-Men in there Marvel films. They can however use Spider-Man but only because they sat down with SONY (I believe it SONY, I could be wrong) and worked out an arrangement, kind of like Alec implied he had done with CBS/Paramount.
THAT is what I KNEW when I backed this project, that Alec had CBS/Paramounts blessing to make these films, because he couldn't have made them without such (ergo the Lawsuit).
You said "the campaign listed objections from the copyright holders as a possible risk"
Umm, no. what they said was, and I QUOTE
"In addition, "Star Trek" is a licensed property of CBS and so they have the final say in any Star Trek venture. However, the Axanar team has dealt with CBS and knows the landscape that must be navigated. Every member of the Axanar team is a professional who has proven their skills on other projects and films."
That's not a warning, that's a "Hey we are professionals and we know what we are doing, we work with CBS, this is NO BIG DEAL"
You said "you are a donor". Complete BS. The ONLY time anyone sues the phrase "Donor" is when toy run a fraudulent KS and are trying to skate out of there responsibility to complete it.
"By creating a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter, you as the Project Creator are offering the public the opportunity to enter into a contract with you. By backing a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter, you as the Backer accept that offer and the contract between Backer and Project Creator is formed."
We are contractor and contractee, NOT scam artist and "donor" as you and Alec seem to think.
The contract is simple, We as backers give creators money, the creators use that money to provide the rewards offered.
As backers we honored our part of the contract, Alec Peters has refused to honor his part of the contract.
Sorry. Yeah I'm referring to the fact checking one. Although the article before it regarding kickstarter, and showing a copy of one of Alec Peter's emails to donors was equally as interesting.
@David - are you referring to the fact checking one?
Just finished reading another good article up on Axamonitor.
@ Carl - Yes several people have been issued refunds, but since that time Alec has refused to issue refunds. I asked and was told there are no refunds. I am disappointed at how this whole kick-starter has been handled and at this point Alec has burned all my remaining good will towards the project.
The only question I have left for Alec is what is the status of the backers in the legal battle. If you loose are we also liable for damages?
@JamesEdwards You can be as upset as you like, but that doesn't change anything. You knew this was a fan production going in. You knew it was unlicensed, and the campaign listed objections from the copyright holders as a possible risk. You aren't an investor, you aren't a retail customer, you are a donor, period. That doesn't give you any special power to dictate what happens with your donation afterwards any more than if you donated to any other organization. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but that's what a defense lawyer is going to hit you with.
Axanar folks do not respond to multiple emails. They are rude in their postings. I surely regret all of my donations.
When will this Independent Financial Review Committee be formed? Who will be on the committee and what process will be used to determine who is on the committee? What will be the schedule for this committee to report to the donors?
What are the terms of the lease on the studio? Can Axanar Productions get out of the lease to avoid the continued monthly expense of the lease?
For those of us that are fed up with the drama that is playing-out by all sides of this dispute, how do we obtain a refund? There are multiple reports online that several people have received refunds.
BTW I have been talking with Kickstarter Support and they are removing spam posts from users. While I have agreed to stop posting duplicate posts, they are sensitive to the defamation and spam from half a dozen users and will remove those posts as well.
So for those of you who cannot read, here are the facts again. If you want to argue them, then go ahead, but you have no FACTS to support any other conclusion. What CBS alleges in their complaint is not a fact, it is as meaningless as the bullshit you read online. (Which some of you seem to take as gospel)
In light of information contained in the Motions for Summary Judgement filed by both sides in our continuing litigation with CBS Studios and Paramount Productions, we think it’s important to provide some information to our fans and backers to help put everything into context:
1) Alec Peters has put in approximately $ 150,000 of his own money into Axanar over the past year. He is currently paying the $ 15,000 a month it costs to keep the studio open, out of his own pocket, as he has been doing since this for the past 6 months.
2) Alec has not kept a single dollar from donor funds, either in salary, or expense reimbursements. Any money Alec received was paid back through the money he has been putting into Axanar. This means, Alec has worked full time on Axanar for over 2 1/2 years and not received a dime in salary, benefits or expense reimbursements.
3) Axanar now has an accountant who has taken all of the voluminous notes and records Alec and the team have kept and completed financial statements for the past 2 1/2 years. The financials will now be reviewed by our CPA/Tax accountant next week as she prepares our tax returns.
4) We have decided to create an Independent Financial Review Committee, a group of industry professionals and donors, to review the financials and report back to the entire donor base. We believe that the report from this committee will give donors the confidence that the Axanar team spent the donor money wisely and that Alec has not received any compensation or expense reimbursements.
5) Axanar has also retained a firm to prepare and manage our 501c3 filing, which should be filed shortly. They are currently waiting on a document back from the CA Secretary of State approving the change to our articles of incorporation and then they will file our application.
6) While Axanar has not made one dime off of renting out the studio, that is the intention of the Axanar team, as we hope to continue to be able to pay the rent. Every single dollar raised by renting out the studio (which we now call Industry Studios) will go towards producing Axanar.
With everything going on concerning the lawsuit and the amount of disinformation being spread by people whose intention is to see Alec Peters fail, embarrass those who worked with him and make it impossible to share our vision for the story of AXANAR with the tens of thousands who financially supported this project, we thought it was important to give you our side.
As to where things will go after the lawsuit, we think it would be unhelpful to speculate on too much. But Axanar Productions remains committed to addressing the copyright concerns of CBS Studios and Paramount Pictures Corporation in a way that allows us to tell the story of AXANAR our fans and donors have supported. Once this lawsuit is resolved, Axanar Productions’ team will meet and discuss what kinds of modifications need to be made so we can move forward with production.
Once the plan is set, we will share that news with all of you.
Until then, thank you for your on-going support.
This comment has been removed by Kickstarter.
@James Edwards - It is a bad situation right now. What doesn't help is all the information that came out of the court documents on the usage of donor funds. The GnT show did an interesting episode (it was episode 260 after about the 1 hour mark) where they discuss the documents and case at length.
I hope that with Kickstarter deleting the flood of update posts, this will mean flood posts will stop since they are monitoring this now according to my report update from Kickstarter.
That is your OPINION, NOT a statement of fact.
I've stated my opinion as to the deliberately misleading, i.e. fraudulent information presented to backers to both overstate the abilities, qualifications, relationship with CBS/Paramount and professionalism of the creators (does anyone think they are acting in an even remotely professional manner at this point?) as well as minimizing the risks involved.
The issue here is ONE person. His name is Alec Peters.
If he had been capable of acting professionally, rationally instead of like an immature 6th grade bully none of this would be happening.
Instead of relating to backers with concerns and trying to address and resolve the issues, including issuing refunds, he instead chose to antagonize them, embarrass himself and his company and at this point has to be giving Kickstarter nightmares.
This is turning into an EPIC kickstarter meltdown because of one person on a project that violates enough of Kickstarters policies it NEVER should have been allowed on the platform for a well none property, i.e. Star Trek that is grabbing attention in all of the worst possible ways towards Kickstarter.
This could very well be the disaster project that draws enough attention to the dirty secret side of Kickstarter they like to hide, i.e. the failures and complete lack of protection to the backers that forces people much higher up to step in and start regulating.
There's a lot of wild conclusions being jumped to based on misunderstanding, limited information, and rumormongering, by both well-intentioned donors who have questions, and malicious parties pursuing their own personal vendettas. It's understandable that people are upset. Regardless, the risks were stated up front, and nobody was forced to donate. As long as the producers endeavor to produce the film within the scope of their abilities and resources, there has been no fraud committed. Since CBS and Paramount chose to sue, any delays caused can be attributed to their litigation. If that depletes the funds to the point that completion is impossible, then again, that was part of the risk assumed by the donor. Clamoring for class-action lawsuits may feel good, but if Axanar loses the lawsuit, there will be no money left to recover, even if there were good grounds for a class-action suit. Realistically, at this point, there's nothing to be gained by all this trolling and shouting. All we can do is await the outcome of the trial and any appeals.
Scrolling down, it looks like Kickstarter deleted most of the flood of Ares 2.0 posts. Seems they understand that this is being posted as spam. Thank goodness they are stepping to delete them.
Kickstarter has finally stepped in to start deleting the spam posts.
NO wise ass. We submitted overall financials which included what I received and the well over $100,000 I paid into Axanar and we submitted DONOR financials which showed where every dollar donors donated went. Not one dollar of donor money has gone to me.
So when Loeb & Loeb CLAIMS something that is from one set of financials and ignores the other set, that is called bending the truth.
Or you can come to my office and I will walk you through it. Seriously.
So when someone says "Alec did X". No, CBS/Paramount CLAIM I did "X"
your OWN financial report showed this...are you saying Alec Peter's misled the court with false paperwork?
There is one thing about me is I never fight over money. Especially over something measly as $25.
Hey, when did I asked for a refund?
I never asked for a refund, not once. Go thought my comments if you like, but I never asked.
People: Just because CBS/Paramount ALLEGE something in their motions, doesn't mean it is true. I just went through 117 "facts" that they allege, and half of them were false. In fact, some of the citations to the deposition transcripts didn't even say what they claimed. This is what their lawyers do, they twist the facts to their advantage.
So when someone says "Alec did X". No, CBS/Paramount CLAIM I did "X".
These are the same people who claim I bought a first class ticket to London and charged it to donors. The fact is I got upgraded for free on the ticket I paid for myself because I bought cupcakes for the flight attendants. But CBS personnel were telling my friends this lie this past summer at Comic-Con.
If you want to spew lies, do it elsewhere. We have clearly stated and have objective proof in the form of financials that not ONE DOLLAR has gone to me. And that I have put in almost $ 150,000 of my own money to Axanar. Yes there are expenses charged to Axanar productions WHICH I PAID FOR.
So stop with the lies. Just because CBS claims it doesnt mean it is true.
Forgive my misspellings in my last post. It should have read:
So thank Eric Berry, Armsman and Glen Hine (and of course Sandy Greenberg, who is still being an ass 6 months after getting a refund).
Tom: I am under no obligation to grant refunds. Check out Kicstarter's rules. And since the last people I gave refunds to go on to be jerks after getting their refunds, yeah, they ruined it for all of you.
So thank Eric Berry, Armsman and Glen Hine (of and Sandy Greenberg, who is still be an ass 6 months after getting a refund.
George: If you want something from me, I expect you to act like an adult. Why would I possibly give refunds to people when you will continue to act like jerks and post shit about us? It's the real world my friend. Actions have consequences.
reported to Kickstarter for multiple violations of their code of conduct. You are on their radar now Alec and you chose to lash out and punish the people who funded your project.
and legitimate requests for refunds will now be ignored as a Punishment?
Because backer's won't listen to your lies and obfuscations?
you spent pledged money on yourself and your girlfriend...the court documents PROVE that.
I want a refund.
Paying for their silence?
Let me be clear, I tried to be nice, I tried to accomodate people who seem to have nothing better to spew lies and hate and bullshit.
But they proved incapable of acting like adults. Eric Berry, Armsman and Glen Hine, like Sandy Greenberg before them, have proven that I cannot give refunds.
We tried and you ruined it. Case closed.
Well, I tried to start giving refunds on the condition that no one would post about it. But Eric Berry, Armsman and Glen Hine immediately posted and ruined it for everyone. You people really are amazing.
Kickstarter knows all about the spamming abuse by some of you, and now that those three have proven incapable of acting like adults, there will be no more refunds.
Thank you for just proving that you can't be trusted.
THERE WILL BE NO REFUNDS.
Are you going to give all of us unasked for refunds to keep us from posting here.
Why do you keep breaking the spamming rules.
Why do you not want people asking questions or discussing the project with each other?