GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

FOX goes after Firefly website

POSTED BY: SIMONWHO
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 05:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10683
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, January 8, 2011 7:30 AM

SIMONWHO


Legal threats from FOX have shut down a Firefly RPG website:

http://leafonthewind.ajjegames.com/

It's not like we don't have the bastards already but still... bastards.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 7:40 AM

WHOZIT


There is already a role playing game, "Infringing Game". I gotta go with the evil FOX on this one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 7:41 AM

GREENKA61


The irony of them saying that anyone might assume that Fox as "supported" anything related to Firefly.....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 7:41 AM

GREENKA61


The irony of them saying that anyone might assume that Fox as "supported" anything related to Firefly.....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 8:02 AM

CORTEXOVERRIDE


Quote:

I am writing to you on behalf of The I.A.V. Dortmunder and its related entities (hereinafter collectively referred to as "The Alliance"). The Alliance is the exclusive owner of copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights in and to the television series, including to the games based on the Series.

We have recently become aware that your game which uses trademarks, characters, images, designs, slogans and/or other distinctive creative elements of the series.

Your use of various trademarks, characters, images, designs, slogans and/or other distinctive creative elements of the Series in the Infringing Game is likely to cause consumers to believe that The Alliance are all manner of stupid. Accordingly, the Infringing Game violates our trademark rights and constitutes unfair competition under the Whatever Act.

Further, your use of Our copyright images and episodes from the series constitutes copyright infringement under Alliance law, and entitles The Alliance to recover its actual damages, statutory damages up to 150,000 credits per copyright infringed, your profits, our attorney's fees, and court costs.

We, therefore, demand that you immediately:

1. Cease all display or dissemination of the Infringing Game..please.

2. Cease all use of any characters, images, designs and/or other distinctive creative elements of the Series in any manner whatsoever, and,

3. Confirm in writing to the undersigned no later than now, that you support unification.

Should you fail to comply with the above demands, we will consider sending an Operative with a fleet of highly trained Alliance FEDs and crush your balls into an oblivion.

This letter is without prejudice to our rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.

Very truly yours,

Commander Harken

The I.A.V. Dortmunder

Oh, Have A Nice Day!!!







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 8:02 AM

CORTEXOVERRIDE


Double Post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 8:12 AM

BLACKROBEDBOOK


Quote:

Originally posted by CortexOverride:
Should you fail to comply with the above demands, we will consider sending an Operative with a fleet of highly trained Alliance FEDs and crush your balls into an oblivion.



ROFL!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 12:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Somewhat similar to them shutting down the MMO Universal and another gaming company were working on. Odd that they go after a fansite though. I mean, technically they can go after any fansite, but it's usually really hard to hold up damages in court unless it can be shown monetary exchange has taken place which would have otherwise gone to the parent company.

It's also even stranger since Universal has an authorized RPG from the same franchise. I bet if they never used the Firefly logo and episode images Fox couldn't even have touched them.

My guess? Fox loses the rights this year which is making them do some last minute acting out. You wonder why they'd even bother, but there it is.

Everyone get ready, FFF.net is probably about to be served.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 4:35 PM

INVADERCHAT


I'm starting to think that Firefly has some sort of code hidden within it that has been sent from people being held captive within the Fox Network H.Q. and that after realizing the existence of this code are trying to eliminate it completely.

First they screw up the actual T.V. show, intentionally, and now they're setting about destroying every remaining molecule of it from everywhere. Seriously, they can't be making money of something they aren't even supporting so why bother going after not profit sites? Are they going bankrupt, or something more sinister?

Seriously, it's only a matter of time before they come up with some bullshit story and order the recall of the DVD's and burn them. Then, in an apocalyptic future, a lone warrior who has learned to fight by watching the show will have to carry the last remaining DVD set across the desolate landscape on foot to where they have a last bastion of knowledge set up in a hidden museum in Alcatraz where finally it can be again shared with the world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 3:23 AM

DOG13000


I've been a member of the game for almost five years on and off. It's a shame Fox has closed it down. From what we could tell, the only references to Fox's intellectual property were the use of words like "Firefly" and "Browncoat."

The game was a text based RP environment - similar to forum based RPs. The show's crew was off limits and never really brought up... It just took place in the same 'Verse by a bunch of us fans who loved the show.

Our community of fans has grown fairly large over the years; we've had a few real life meet ups in different parts of the world, and there was even a couple who met on the site and are now married.

It just frustrates me that the we show such love and admiration for the show and it's met with legal action. It frustrates me that we buy DVDs, Blu-Rays and other licensed gear... that we tell our friends - hell, we tell anyone - to do the same, and it's not enough for Fox.

Our little non-commercial venture did nothing to harm intellectual property. Really it was just the opposite. Word of Mouth is the most successful type of marketing; it's what has kept Firefly alive and selling discs all of these years. I guess Fox is keen on stopping that income though.

Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
There is already a role playing game, "Infringing Game". I gotta go with the evil FOX on this one.



There is a series of Serenity RPG books, but just like D&D, WoD, or what have you, the point of them is to run your own game. I was the GM of a ship on Leaf on the Wind. I have purchased every book released for the RPG...

-----
"Someone Ever Tries to Kill You, You Try and Kill Em' Right Back"
-----
AIM: dog13000 YSN: reverse_drive2g
E-Mail: louis@reversedrive.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:11 PM

THEVOICEINMYHEAD


I have been playing on the site for years, my own self. Has everyone forgotten when FOX went after the people that were making t-shirts and stuff a few years back, because they found out that they could make a dollar off of something that they had let drop and not bothered with it? or is everyone too new to remember?

Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

Browncoats are forever

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:17 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by thevoiceinmyhead:
Has everyone forgotten when FOX went after the people that were making t-shirts and stuff a few years back, because they found out that they could make a dollar off of something that they had let drop and not bothered with it? or is everyone too new to remember?


I remember Universal filing a suit over a misunderstanding about the Serenity logo on certain versions of EleventhHour's shirts; they thought her references to "Serenity swirl emblems" were about the actual logo rather than something she designed herself, and that infringement had occurred. I remember it very well. The suit was dropped, if you remember that. Her store remained open for quite some time after until she chose to close it down.


I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:21 PM

THEVOICEINMYHEAD


there was much more to it than that, and a number of people were affected

Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

Browncoats are forever

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:55 AM

ZEEK


I had a temp job in a trademark lawyer's office when I was in college. From what I understood they have to go after anyone they find using their trademark or they're basically giving up their rights to it. Something like if it can be shown in court that they knew about others using it and they did nothing to stop it then anyone can use it from there on out.

So, just because a fan site isn't doing them harm they can't then turn around and go after a tv show or something who uses their stuff. Also in this case I think it is directly harmful. If they licensed their logo on such to an RPG company for an official game then they have an obligation to that RPG company. They can't charge them for something they let others use for free.

So, you may consider the actions evil but it's the general system at fault. Not just Fox.

I'm no lawyer though. So, all that may just be my misunderstanding of what trademark lawyers do.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:54 AM

BYTEMITE


I guess it's all dependent on whether the fansite has enough money to front a lawyer or wants to pay a few thousand for the sake of keeping up their pasttime. Probably it's just too expensive to fight it.

Unless... You mean you think this leaf on the wind site had posted rules directly from the player's manual and handbook for the RPGs? In that event they might also have a case, though it would be Universal and Margaret Weis Productions filing suit instead of Fox.

Trademark images could prompt a lawsuit, but it still doesn't make sense to me that you could define any of that as damages unless money was involved.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:11 AM

ZEEK


It would damage the business of any officially licensed products.

Think of it like pirating a movie. You might have gotten that pirated movie for free but there are still damages. Just because no money changed hands doesn't make it ok.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Hmm. I guess a magazine writing an article has to request use of stills from the parent company.

Still seems weird, since my mind does not equate a still to the entirety of a work itself, and it seems even stranger if no money is exchanged. Now a logo, I could understand that, as it can be considered representative of the entirety of a work.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:51 AM

BYTEMITE


Your analogy to piracy works if it's the handbook that was posted, but I don't think that's the case because Fox didn't publish the handbook. While your initial assessment of the motivations of the trademark lawyers is probably correct, there's still something we're missing that provides the legal basis for their action.

A non-profit magazine writing an article still has to request use of stills from the parent company. Why? Answer this, and we'll know why legal action was brought against the website.

As for the law itself, it's weird, since my mind does not equate a still to the entirety of a work itself, and it seems even stranger if no money is exchanged. Comparing to your piracy analogy, that would be like quoting from a paragraph of a published work (since about a paragraph of a shooting script is, at most, what a screenshot would compromise). Yet I'm relatively sure you can quote parts of a work without facing legal action, so long as you make clear you are not the author of the work. Piracy would be getting the whole thing from a source that is not the parent company.

Now a logo, I could understand that, as it can be considered representative of the entirety of a work.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:12 AM

BYTEMITE


Found it.

I looked up copyright infringement. What they did does not constitute "copyright piracy," which would be manufacture and sale of a product wholesale. It does, however, potentially constitute "copyright theft."

Quote:

Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.


What I see is that currently copyright theft is considered only a civil suit issue, whereas copyright piracy is currently considered a criminal issue, but there are wheels in motion to make all forms of copyright infringement criminal.

Which shuts down fans and people who want to buy the products. Way to shoot themselves in the foot.

Of course, we'd also be having an entirely different conversation if we were talking about photography, where a collection of images could make up single intellectual property (a work), or other type of painting or artwork. So maybe this is the frame which we should discuss the issue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:15 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


The thrice cursed Fox strikes again, eh? Bastards just can't stop kicking us can they? They have a reserved spot in the Special Hell when their time comes.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!



X.O. / Battalion O.I.C.



http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

http://76thbattalion.proboards.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:27 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Sorry,"leafonthewind.ajjegames.com" does not exist or is not available.


Just move it to another server and change its name.

Keep it judgment proof. Or countersue ("use of this site constitutes contract for marketing services").

Frak em! Firefly Lives!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:40 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Your analogy to piracy works if it's the handbook that was posted, but I don't think that's the case because Fox didn't publish the handbook. While your initial assessment of the motivations of the trademark lawyers is probably correct, there's still something we're missing that provides the legal basis for their action.

A non-profit magazine writing an article still has to request use of stills from the parent company. Why? Answer this, and we'll know why legal action was brought against the website.

As for the law itself, it's weird, since my mind does not equate a still to the entirety of a work itself, and it seems even stranger if no money is exchanged. Comparing to your piracy analogy, that would be like quoting from a paragraph of a published work (since about a paragraph of a shooting script is, at most, what a screenshot would compromise). Yet I'm relatively sure you can quote parts of a work without facing legal action, so long as you make clear you are not the author of the work. Piracy would be getting the whole thing from a source that is not the parent company.

Now a logo, I could understand that, as it can be considered representative of the entirety of a work.


I know the piracy thing was a different issue but it's the same concept. If we want to keep it closer to the topic then think about a videogame. Let's say Iron Man 3 is coming out and Electronic Arts buys the rights to create a videogame featuring Iron Man. At the same time some fans create a game featuring Iron Man that they allow people to download and play for free. Sales of the officially licensed Iron Man game will likely be hurt in some amount by the fan made game. Which is why Marvel would have to take legal action against the fan work.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:49 AM

BYTEMITE


They weren't using characters from the series, only the setting, so that's still not right. Though yes, that would (and has) attracted copyright lawyers as well, and I'd have to look more deeply into it to understand the mechanisms at work for that case.

This particular scenario is further complicated by the existence of an authorized table top RPG, which the play-by-post may or may not have been drawn from. With a tabletop RPG it's understood that use of the setting is allowed for personal storytelling among a group of people of varying size.

So I can only conclude it is specifically the images used and logo use which is attracting legal action, which I think is more like the "even one photograph that's part of a collection is intellectual property" analogy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 11:12 AM

MICJWELCH


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm. I guess a magazine writing an article has to request use of stills from the parent company.



Technically, that falls under "Fair Use." Copyright laws are entirely different if you're doing something either for commentary or parody purposes. The point of that is mostly to make sure that news programs can report without having to clear everything first. Why parodies are included is a bit of a mystery, but it means that "Mosquito" will probably never have any legal issues, while "Browncoats: Redemption" had to jump through a lot of hoops. Requesting stills is done as a courtesy more than anything, but it also means that they may get higher quality images.

As a side note, this kind of thing is exactly why Freedom is no longer a Firefly fan film.

"Always be yourself. Unless You suck." - Joss Whedon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:45 AM

FOLLOWMAL


It's a shame to lose a site to Fox again...but I understand the laws they apply to it. Still doesn't mean I think it's right though.

:(

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:27 AM

TENTHCREWMEMBER

Could you please just make it stranger? Stranger. Odder. Could be weirder. More bizarre. How about uncanny?


[quote=thevoiceinmyhead]

I have been playing on the site for years, my own self. Has everyone forgotten when FOX went after the people that were making t-shirts and stuff a few years back, because they found out that they could make a dollar off of something that they had let drop and not bothered with it? or is everyone too new to remember?


Oh, I remember this. Many of us got letters and threats, but it was 11th Hour who really got assaulted. Ultimately it all worked out, but I have to agree with most people who wonder "YTF does FOX even care now?" I mean, at some point it becomes part of our culture (I guess legally they still retain the rights). But I guess they are bored since most of the programming on that network is crap anyway. I think they are still just bitter that they tried to destroy something special, and it refuses to die.

We're too damn pretty to die. Sorry to disappoint you FOX.

TCM

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:38 AM

STORYMARK


It's amazing.... people don't read.

As explained above, if they don't pursue it, it endangers their legal position on other copyrights. Just the way it is.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:41 PM

SIKA56

I got stupid. The money was too good.


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
It's amazing.... people don't read.

As explained above, if they don't pursue it, it endangers their legal position on other copyrights. Just the way it is.



In that case they could have granted permission for the site to use the logos etc. That could have been done without prejudice to their copyright ownership surely?

Zebadiah Sika (XO Dragonfly-class pirate vessel "Shadow", LOTW)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:13 PM

11THHOUR


Quote:

Originally posted by TenthCrewMember:
Quote:

Originally posted by thevoiceinmyhead:
there was much more to it than that, and a number of people were affected

Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"



Oh, I remember this. Many of us got letters and threats, but it was 11th Hour who really got assaulted. Ultimately it all worked out, but I have to agree with most people who wonder "YTF does FOX even care now?" I mean, at some point it becomes part of our culture (I guess legally they still retain the rights). But I guess they are bored since most of the programming on that network is crap anyway. I think they are still just bitter that they tried to destroy something special, and it refuses to die.

We're too damn pretty to die. Sorry to disappoint you FOX.

TCM



Just for clarification... it was not 20th Century Fox that initiated the action against my Cafe Press shop, rather it was a law firm working for Universal Studios. From what I understand this law firm was recently hired by Universal (usually they did things in-house) and were trying to demonstrate their effectiveness at ferreting out copyright infringement. Problem is, the law firm was unaware of the relationship Universal encouraged and worked with the fans to help promote the movie Serenity. Also the law firm went after my Cafe Press shop and ALL of my designs are original, no official graphics or characters were incorporated into the designs. It isn't just respect for official copyright ownership, it's also artistic integrity not to rip off the designs of others. I can do my own art thank-you-very-much.

It's really a long, long story with a lot more to it, but in the end through the awesome support of the Browncoats, and even some very official type folks associated with Firefly/Serenity, it came to light that the law firm's case was not particularly strong and would end up causing an embarrassment to Universal and a terrible PR story. In the end, the law firm did not request removal of any of my designs, but they did request removal of any written references to the movie Serenity. But that's the difference between how a law firm sees something, and a fan. I put the references in some of the product descriptions for humor and also as part of helping to promote the movie. The law firm saw those references as trying to pass the items off as official Serenity promotion items. Lawyers, they so often attribute the most negative motivations to someone's actions... sheesh...

20th Century Fox hasn't really done that much with their Firefly licensing rights. Pity, because they missed out on years of creating products (as long as they were well done) that fans are eager to buy, and this activity also helps keeps Firefly alive and selling the DVDs. Guess they didn't think the financial return would be worth the investment, or something. Who knows... but the rumor is their rights run out next year, and things could get very interesting after that...

11th Hour

P.S.
And for anyone who might wonder, because the question has been asked before, the web banner I made does incorporate official images... and it also happens to be the winning banner from a contest conducted with Universal's blessing back-in-the-day on their Serenity message board. Things were more fun when the studios saw the benefits of working with the fans.

>>>}———————————————)))======<[]>======(((———————————————{<<<

"Because teenage pranks are fun when you're about to die!" - Hoban Washburne

11th Hour Firefly & Serenity official and fan art: http://www.11thhourart.com

Cafe Press Shop ~ http://www.cafepress.com/11thhourart


Spread the word today ~ Give the gift of Firefly: http://www.apple.com/itunes


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:16 PM

SPACEJANITOR


Fox saves their lawyers for people who threaten to make money off the props that Fox chooses not to make, such as Serenity Gear.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:51 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I'm not any expert in this, and I don't know the details, but regarding the endorsed-fan scenario, the legal landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. Mostly due to the J.K.Rowling case of recent years.
There was a fan who compiled data of the works of Rowling, with her blessing, her endorsment, and which she herself used while furthering her stories. Sort of a Companion database, index, reference. The dissemination of the data had become onerous, with publication the only real solution, and then Rowling apparently decided she needed to sue to prevent publication. Apparently she demanded that the entire database be turned over to her.
This is a touchy subject to many, and the legal landscape has many hidy holes which may need ferreting out. The Rowling case disrupted a great many foundations, and the above mentioned case may be one result.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
76th Independent Battalion Part 48
Sun, September 22, 2019 10:27 - 1854 posts
Irvine, CA CSTS Event Sunday, Sept. 22th 2019. Serenity Charity Screening and the Fallen Stars.
Sun, September 22, 2019 00:43 - 1 posts
Rocker Ric Ocasek, The Frontman Of The Cars, Has Died
Fri, September 20, 2019 20:40 - 5 posts
Browncoat Ball Las Vegas Nevada weekend of September 27-29, 2019 at the amazing Sam’s Town Hotel & Casino.
Mon, September 16, 2019 13:14 - 2 posts
THE ROOKIE PICKED UP
Sun, September 15, 2019 15:55 - 5 posts
NYC CSTS Event at Slattery’s Midtown Pub Saturday, Sept. 14th 2019.
Fri, September 13, 2019 23:41 - 1 posts
Salt Lake City CSTS Event at FanX Salt Lake Comic Convention Saturday, Sept. 7th 2019. Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog Charity Screening
Sat, September 7, 2019 00:38 - 1 posts
Avengers Infinity & End Game
Thu, September 5, 2019 19:40 - 7 posts
Pennsylvania Browncoats Landing at Keystone Comic Con This Weekend! August 23-25 2019.
Sun, September 1, 2019 15:07 - 3 posts
Random roles; AV Club interview with Morena
Fri, August 30, 2019 15:46 - 6 posts
Mars
Fri, August 30, 2019 12:07 - 29 posts
Nathan Fillion in "The Suicide Squad"
Tue, August 27, 2019 17:14 - 5 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL