Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
takedown_analysis [2017/02/19 08:54] – [Can Axanar Claim 'Prelude' Copyright?] edits to tighten, clarify Carlos Pedrazatakedown_analysis [2017/03/02 21:16] – [Can Axanar Claim 'Prelude' Copyright?] edit to clarify Carlos Pedraza
Line 7: Line 7:
 ====== The Shoe is on the Other Foot ====== ====== The Shoe is on the Other Foot ======
  
-//**Following Lawsuit, Axanar Ironically Claims Copyright Protection Against Fan Edit of 'Prelude'**//+//**Following Lawsuit, Axanar Ironically Claims Copyright Protection From Fan Edit of 'Prelude'**//
 {{TOC}} {{TOC}}
 <WRAP> <WRAP>
Line 75: Line 75:
 ===== Can Axanar Claim 'Prelude' Copyright? ===== ===== Can Axanar Claim 'Prelude' Copyright? =====
  
-Unlike CBS, Paramount, Lucasfilm and Disney, have for their works, Axanar's lack of a clear copyright hold on //Prelude// may impair its attempt to defend the film from such things as fan edits. According to Atlanta attorney Michael K. Stewart:+Studios like CBS, Paramount, Lucasfilm and Disney have a clear copyright for their works. By contrast Axanar's unclear copyright of //Prelude// may impair its attempt to defend the film from such things as fan edits. According to Atlanta attorney Michael K. Stewart:
  
 > Axanar does have a copyright in this film, at least in the original elements that they contributed. Even though it may be an unauthorized derivative work, the creator of the unauthorized derivative work still owns the copyright in it — even though the overall work may be infringing and he doesn't gain any rights into the pre-existing material he incorporated into the work. The myth that if you create an unauthorized derivative work, the copyright in that work is automatically owned by the party whose you infringed is just that — a myth. > Axanar does have a copyright in this film, at least in the original elements that they contributed. Even though it may be an unauthorized derivative work, the creator of the unauthorized derivative work still owns the copyright in it — even though the overall work may be infringing and he doesn't gain any rights into the pre-existing material he incorporated into the work. The myth that if you create an unauthorized derivative work, the copyright in that work is automatically owned by the party whose you infringed is just that — a myth.
Line 148: Line 148:
 <WRAP tip> <WRAP tip>
 [{{ :prelude-redux.jpg?300|**REDUX** An altered //Prelude// scene in the fan-edit taken down from YouTube.}}] [{{ :prelude-redux.jpg?300|**REDUX** An altered //Prelude// scene in the fan-edit taken down from YouTube.}}]
 +
 ===== Fair Use Analysis ===== ===== Fair Use Analysis =====
  
-<wrap lo>As it turned out for Axanar in its lawsuit, a federal judge rejected its argument that //Prelude// consisted [[fair use]] of Star Trek copyrights. How well would //Prelude: Redux// fare under the same kind of analysis. The EFF sums up that analysis under the following questions,(([[https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals|"A Guide to YouTube Removals," Electronic Frontier Foundation]], retrieved 2/18/17.)) each followed by the fan editor's likely stance. \\ \\+<wrap lo>As it turned out for Axanar in its lawsuit, a federal judge rejected its argument that //Prelude// made [[fair use]] of Star Trek copyrights. How well would //Prelude: Redux// fare under the same kind of analysis? The EFF sums up that analysis under the following questions,(([[https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals|"A Guide to YouTube Removals," Electronic Frontier Foundation]], retrieved 2/18/17.)) each followed by the fan editor's likely stance. \\ \\
 **Is the video transformative? Is it non-commercial?** \\ **Is the video transformative? Is it non-commercial?** \\
 The fan editor would say yes to first under the theory that his cut comments on the original work and transforms it into a new interpretation. Posted for free on YouTube, and free of any surrounding commercial endeavors based on the work — which severely weakened Axanar's own case — //Redux// would likely be found non-commercial. The fan editor would say yes to first under the theory that his cut comments on the original work and transforms it into a new interpretation. Posted for free on YouTube, and free of any surrounding commercial endeavors based on the work — which severely weakened Axanar's own case — //Redux// would likely be found non-commercial.
 \\ \\ \\ \\
 **Is the video a substitute for the original? Would people still want to buy the original after seeing the video?** \\ **Is the video a substitute for the original? Would people still want to buy the original after seeing the video?** \\
-Axanar could certainly argue the intent of the fan edit is precisely to substitute for the original. But Axanar is prohibited under the settlement from ever selling copies of //Prelude//, therefore there could be no market substitution. The fan editor could, however, do a better job of identifying //Redux// with the body of the fan edit as clearly //not// the original //Prelude//.+Axanar could certainly argue the intent of the fan edit is precisely to substitute for the original. But Axanar is prohibited under the settlement from ever selling copies of //Prelude//, therefore there is no market  in which to substitute. The fan editor could, however, do a better job of identifying //Redux// with the body of the fan edit as clearly //not// the original //Prelude//, rather than just in the description of the work.
 \\ \\ \\ \\
 **How much of the original work did the fan editor take, both quantitatively and qualitatively?** \\ **How much of the original work did the fan editor take, both quantitatively and qualitatively?** \\