Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New York Court Sees No Fair Use in <i>Star-Trek</i> Inspired Fan Film
The Star Trek franchise so far includes six television series (more than 700 episodes) — and another that launches this year —plus 13 feature-length motion pictures, all accompanied by a merchandising juggernaut. Over the last five decades, Star Trek characters, stories, dialogue, and even an invented language ascribed to alien characters, have become culturally pervasive. The enormous value of the TV and film franchise is matched by the desire of its owners, Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios, to protect it.
Cultural pervasiveness, however, has side effects. The creative story-telling that fueled the passion of fans inspired a number of them to expand the Star Trek universe on their own through “fan films,” which can challenge the property owners' efforts to maintain the integrity and appeal of their franchise. If unchecked, unauthorized derivatives could lead to an eventual loss of the copyright and trademark rights that underlie the value of the property.
Paramount and CBS Studios evidently have struggled to strike a balance between exercising tight control over the Star Trek brand and allowing space for fan filmmaking. In December 2015, the franchise owners brought a copyright infringement action against the would-be corporate producer of a professionally staffed Star Trek feature-length film and its president who, to quote presiding Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, went “where no man has gone before in producing Star Trek fan films.” Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, 2:15-CV-09938 (C.D. Calif.)
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?