4 ms·

© Copyright 2012 Farragut Films, Dracogen Strategic Investments and Vic Mignogna Star Trek®, Star Trek: The Next Generation®, Star Trek: Deep

by 3JPLW 13y ago

© Copyright 2012 Farragut Films, Dracogen Strategic Investments and Vic Mignogna Star Trek®, Star Trek: The Next Generation®, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine®, Star Trek: Voyager®, Star Trek Enterprise® and all associated marks and characters are registered trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All rights reserved. The use of anything related to "Star Trek" on any of these web sites is not meant to be an infringement on CBS Studios Inc. property rights to "Star Trek." It's just like the standard youtube uploaders' disclaimer - "no copyright infringement intended." I wonder where this started... why do so many people believe copyright infringement is only wrong or enforceable if you really meant to steal it?

Cushman 13y ago
It makes sense if you realize those statements are (obviously) not written by lawyers to prevent legal challenges, but by Internet users to prevent annoying comments by other Internet users. Although for what it's worth intentional copyright infringement is legally worse.
sp332 13y ago
Because mens rea is required for a criminal (felony) copyright infringement. A civil case could still be brought for damages, but a federal prosecutor has to prove the violator did it intentionally. http://books.google.com/books?id=Mw5a7mL8XYAC&lpg=PA1183&ots=_HRQfsbVNz&dq=copyright%20%22mens%20rea%22&pg=PA1183#v=onepage&q=copyright%20%22mens%20rea%22&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Mw5a7mL8XYAC&lpg=PA1183&ots... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
- gamblor956 13y ago
  The very fact of deliberately making copies for financial gain is mens rea enough for copyright infringement. However, that is irrelevant here, since the issue is not copyright infringement but trademark infringement. Paramount has generally ignored (or blessed) fanfiction videos and literature with regards to Star Trek (but the same cannot be said for video games).
  - sp332 13y ago
    Unless they put ads on the videos, I don't think a YouTube post counts as financial gain.
Dylan16807 13y ago
Read it again. It's no trademark infringement intended, here is a list of trademarks and who owns them. That is a valid thing to do; consumers can't get confused about mark ownership if you explicitly tell them you're only using the mark as a description and you are not official.
gamblor956 13y ago
Because it's not copyright infringement. Copyright applies to the content (i.e., DVDs, videos, or even simply clips of larger videos). Fanfiction is not (usually) copyright infringement because ideas can't be copyrighted, only the distinct expression of the idea can. (Without going down the rabbit hole, Captain Kirk is an idea, his portrayal in any particular tv show or movie would be the expression of that idea). The video is disclaiming trademark infringement, which is not a crime.

by 3JPLW 13y ago

Cushman 13y ago

It makes sense if you realize those statements are (obviously) not written by lawyers to prevent legal challenges, but by Internet users to prevent annoying comments by other Internet users. Although for what it's worth intentional copyright infringement is legally worse.

sp332 13y ago

Because mens rea is required for a criminal (felony) copyright infringement. A civil case could still be brought for damages, but a federal prosecutor has to prove the violator did it intentionally. http://books.google.com/books?id=Mw5a7mL8XYAC&lpg=PA1183&ots=_HRQfsbVNz&dq=copyright%20%22mens%20rea%22&pg=PA1183#v=onepage&q=copyright%20%22mens%20rea%22&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Mw5a7mL8XYAC&lpg=PA1183&ots... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

gamblor956 13y ago
The very fact of deliberately making copies for financial gain is mens rea enough for copyright infringement. However, that is irrelevant here, since the issue is not copyright infringement but trademark infringement. Paramount has generally ignored (or blessed) fanfiction videos and literature with regards to Star Trek (but the same cannot be said for video games).
- sp332 13y ago
  Unless they put ads on the videos, I don't think a YouTube post counts as financial gain.

Dylan16807 13y ago

Read it again. It's no trademark infringement intended, here is a list of trademarks and who owns them. That is a valid thing to do; consumers can't get confused about mark ownership if you explicitly tell them you're only using the mark as a description and you are not official.

gamblor956 13y ago

Because it's not copyright infringement. Copyright applies to the content (i.e., DVDs, videos, or even simply clips of larger videos). Fanfiction is not (usually) copyright infringement because ideas can't be copyrighted, only the distinct expression of the idea can. (Without going down the rabbit hole, Captain Kirk is an idea, his portrayal in any particular tv show or movie would be the expression of that idea). The video is disclaiming trademark infringement, which is not a crime.