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