With Christmas about to set in, people around the world were busy in
preparation for the holiday. Out of nowhere, Viacom / Paramount
started handing out Christmas presents to numerous web master a legal
warning letter to tell them close down their Star Trek Internet web
site or else.

For those of you who want to read about the letter, here is an
abstract:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
----- Re: Infringements of STAR TREK Copyrights and Trademarks

Dear (name here):

I write as attorney for Paramount Pictures Corporation ("Paramount").

As you are, no doubt, aware, Paramount owns all the rights to the
television series entitled STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, STAR TREK:
DEEP SPACE NINE, STAR TREK: VOYAGER, and all theatrical releases
relating thereto (collectively the "STAR TREK Properties"). These
rights are protected by numerous copyrights trademarks in both the
programs themselves and the characters, sets, and other elements
appearing in those programs.

We have recently learned that you have posted various elements of the
STAR TREK Properties on your site at (web site address here). Your
posting of these items is an infringement of Paramounts copyright and
trademark rights in the STAR TREK Properties.

Paramount does not, of course, object to all materials posted on the
Internet relating to the STAR TREK Properties. For example, Paramount
does not object to the general discussion of "Star Trek" over the
Internet. However, when such discussions rise to the level of copying
full scripts or excerpts therefrom, or providing detailed summaries of
the works, suck transmissions are clear infringements of Paramounts
rights. Similarly, posting of copyrighted material such as photographs,
artistic renditions of "Star Trek" characters or other properties,
sound files, video clips, books or excerpts thereform are likewise
infringements of Paramounts rights.

Based upon the foregoing, we hereby demand that you confirm to us in
writing within ten days of receipt of this letter that: (I) you have
removed all infringing materials from your site, including all images,
sound bites, and video clips; and (ii) you will refrain from posting
any similar material on the Internet or any other on-line service in
the future.

The foregoing is without waiver of any and all rights of Paramount
Pictures Corporation, all of which are expressly reserved herein.

(Lawyers name here)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Whats Wrong? Viacom Has Every Right To Do This!

True! Even I must agree. Viacom's action seems so reasonable ... and
yet to completely idiotic as not to be believed!

One thing must make clear at this point. IF a site private Star Trek
Properties for use in commercial manner or in any other way related to
commercial activity, then Viacoms action is a just one. But what
happens here is very different. How can a site maintained by a 14-year
old kid be a thread? Most sites were created and maintained by Star
Trek fans, these sites never charged a single cent. These sites were
created as a publicity and promotion mean to introduce others to the
show. It is these sites that saved Paramount billions in advertising.
It is these sites that snow ball paramounts income in the first place.

Star Trek had been and shall continues to be Paramounts valuable
asset. What makes Star Trek successful is the fans behind the show. It
is the fans who frock to theater to see the Star Trek movies; it is the
fans who pay for memorials; it is the fans who promoted the show to
others. For some mysterious reason, Viacom also think it is the fans
that is hurting their profits???

Is Viacom stupid enough to believe one will settle for an poster image
instead of the real thing? One will be satisfy by owning a 10-second
sound clip instead of a sound track? One will opted for a 20-second
video clip instead of the video tape or laser disc?

Internet was a place for freedom of speech, and I fail to see Trekkers
had abused their right. On the contrary, images, sound clips and video
clips are more like a bate to seduce us to buy the real thing and in
return, put our hard earned cash into Paramounts pocket.

I sincerely hope Viacom will come to its sense REAL SOON. Otherwise,
the Trek community will become so hurt that it might not exist any more

If you want to learn more about this disaster, use the site
http://www.stwww.com/viacom.html as your starting point to learn more.

If you feel it is time to act, please write to Viacom or Paramount and
let them know your feelings.

:) Rgds.

This is a most unfortunate development. But there are some ways
you can try to deal with this constructively.

Last year, WB became aware of the existence of many BABYLON 5
sites, and the Legal Affairs Department was of a mind to take similar
action (as has been taken by other shows, including the Simpsons). The
reason for their desire is simple. It's not that the sites present a
*threat* per se, but there is the issue of copyright protection at
stake.

To explain...and this may help you to at least understand
Paramount's position, even if you don't agree with it...if copyrighted
material begins to be passed around freely, and copied, and
redistributed, and published, without the proper protections,
eventually the material will become *public domain*. The studio no
longer owns it. In order to demonstrate that you own the material, you
must make consistent, and conscientious efforts to protect your claim
to that name and/or that property.

Many companies and individuals have actually *lost* the right to
the copyright of material they own or created because they did not take
steps to actively protect it. Which is why you often see
advertisements from companies like Xerox reminding people that it's a
*company name*, and not a generic term for photocopying. Otherwise
they risk letting that name become a word, part of the vernacular, and
as indefensible as saying "tissue paper" is a copyrightable term.

When material from a show is posted without the proper copyright
protection, every time you allow this to happen it moves that material
further and further into public domain. Once it *becomes* public
domain, the studio will not be able to profit from it, ownership
questions come up, and outside agencies can produce anything they want,
slap that name on it, and sell it. It's a cumulative effect, over time.
And it *is* a real problem; don't delude yourself by saying so because
you *want* it not to be so. The law is the law is the law.

When this came to our attention, we (acting sort of as fan
advocates) sat down with WB legal and discussed ways of doing it short
of sending out these exact sort of letters to BABYLON 5 sites. What we
came to was the following understanding: that WB would not actively go
after sites which used B5 photos and other material PROVIDED THAT the
proper copyright information was appended to the material utilized.
They are currently in the process of verifying and evaluating sites
before sending letters telling them to append this information.

This seems to me a fair and reasonable response to what is, in
truth, a genuine concern. What may help here is for system operators
of web sites to append the copyright information, and notify Paramount
that they are in full and complete compliance with copyright, and
acknowledge formally that Paramount is the owner of all copyrighted
material posted on that site. They may, or may not, accept that, but
it gives you a place to start. Obviously, magazines use copyrighted
images all the time, and Paramount makes no effort to stop that...but
if you look in the edges along photos and the like in these magazines,
you will see the words "photo copyright (c) 1997 Paramount Television."
That is the difference that allows them to use this material. There is
no immediate reason why sites should be viewed in any way differently
than a magazine, IF the laws are followed.

(Interestingly, there's a debate in the TV community about the
copyright of the original ST being in some dispute, since for about 10
years Paramount did little to protect the name of the original ST,
until the first movie came around. I have no actual information on
that, however, nor can I comment beyond just remarking on the topic.
If there *is* any merit to it, that might further explain their
reasonable concern about it happening with current material.)

So point is...the concern expressed by Paramount is legitimate,
and you should abide by it, OR see if you can find some compromise
position by adhering strictly to the copyright laws in how material is
displayed, and what material is selected, as we have done with the B5
sites. You may also want to write to those currently running the ST
franchise to see if the producers of the show can intercede on the
behalf of ST fans as we did for B5 fans. Lawyers have little or no
vested interest in the fan/show relationship; those involved directly
in these shows, do have a vested interest.

Usual disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and can only speak from
anecdotal information, and have no specific information about
Paramount, and am in no way suggesting any difference of opinion with
their actions. I'm only trying to help you understand the issues
involved.

jms

Everything you say is correct, of course, but I'm convinced that with
the Viacom/Paramount decision much more is at stake than the mere
protection of their copyrights. If that were all they were concerned
about, less draconian action, like the action taken by Warner, could
have been chosen. I'm convinced that the MSN site has everything to do
with their decision. Many fan sites were far superior to anything over
at Continuum (I don't belong to MSN and don't intend to, but a friend
does for her business, and I've seen the site), and thus in direct
competition with the exclusive, money driven MSN site. Of course I'm
sure you know all this, but I'm just raising the point.

Urk...I'd forgotten about the MSN site. I wonder also if there
is any advertising at that site. That might also prompt them to want
to drive people there for ST material, so they can ensure there's only
one place in town to get it, and then collect ad revenue. Nothing
wrong with advertising on a web site in and of itself, of course; it's
a natural progression that will, in time, give sites greater resources
to do stuff. Most web sites are "dead web," interesting to look at,
but with the resources to make the site very deep.

jms

Again, this was a conversation we had with WB, and as long as
sites have a link to either the WB site or the official B5 fanclub
site, we don't see a problem in coexisting.

jms