CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Disclaimer: I'm no legal expert, especially not on US law.
As far as i understand it, this would be considered a SLAPP- suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation), which as i understand it, are frowned upon. Maybe one of our legal experts can enlighten us here.
Some more quotes from Alec Peters from this thread:
Alec Peters from 3 years ago is a total Axanar hater...
Alec Peters from 3 years ago is a total Axanar hater...
I do wonder how honest he was with them? Do they know about the coffee?
From the I Stand with CBS group.
Neil
"Scre
Well, money does make people do funny things. All bets are off when you suddenly find yourself swimming in cash.
Alec Peters from 3 years ago is a total Axanar hater...
Well, money does make people do funny things. All bets are off when you suddenly find yourself swimming in cash.
Peters just announced his lawyers. No word on the extension or the halt in filming as a stipulation.
Wait until you see who CBS and Paramount have hired!
Soon enough, Alec's lawyers are going to get pro bonered
Sorry - couldn't resist
Sorry - couldn't resist
Two things popped into my mind: 1. That lawyers would actually pose for a picture with their defendant like that (is that an LA/Hollywood thing?), and 2. How does a company that brought in $1 million to fund its project get pro bono representation?
From the I Stand with CBS group.
Neil
Oh, and will they be all smiles a couple of months from now?
Seriously, Alec stood in front of his audience and said that the "Axanar haters" think [threating Mr. Oliva] is "acceptable behavior"? And make that false statement appear valid by conflating it (statement appears true if one OR the other appears true) with "or hateful rhetoric", which can mean anything? This is why Alec depends on absolute censorship of the forums in which he speaks. You can only get away with this sort of manipulation of information and ideas if you can prevent every single trace of deeper understanding from reaching the target audience.
1. they might be attracted by the idea of greeting a large audience of Trek fans
2. has the firm itself made a public announcement of their engagement? thats where to see if they actually say they are doing it pro bono. I would think this would entangle them in the hollywood press into the whole is-Axanar-for-profit-or-not thing, and it doesn't seem that wise, but its their reputation... Could be they just got a big retainer up front.
wonder how long before the iStandWithCbs group or trekmovie or another public place makes this public filing available and points out the info to the fans in the walled garden.
Why don't they just declare Axanar as a parody like the porn industry has been doing successfully for years?
I'm glad you dug those up.
It's interesting to me how someone like Peters, who claims A) to have talked "with the head of licensing for Star Trek on a regular basis" and B) to have known in what manner "CBS expects fan films to act" in order not to infringe on CBS Intellectual Property (at least in that particular instance), could wind up on the receiving end of a lawsuit brought by CBS for copyright infringement.
They would still have to prove it was parody in court, which they wouldn't be able to do.
If it is produced as shown, i'm not sure it qualifies. That said, they could make some adjustments and it could-- that's why I wondered about the "historical retrospective documentary style" of the prelude. Would that be enough to consider it as commentary/transformative/parody?
I'm no law expert, but i'd imagine it would be a tough sell.
A few things.
- A lawyer admitted in a jurisdiction requiring pro bono work (e. g. New York state) or seeking admission in such a jurisdiction, would take a pro bono case. There is nothing wrong with this, nothing unethical. It does not create an inference that anyone believes in anything.
- Ethical considerations require the pursuit of a zealous defense, but a lawyer may defend a client even if the lawyer thinks the client has a 0% chance of winning. Hell, those people are most in need of a defense.
- A lawyer's zealous representation/defense stops where perjury begins. If a client is not telling the truth and/or is pushing the lawyer to not tell or to shade the truth, the lawyer can quit (in fact, he or she is pretty much supposed to).
- However, a lawyer quitting a case does not necessarily mean anything untoward has happened. Sometimes lawyers quit cases because there's suddenly a conflict of interest, or their kid got really sick, etc.
- I worked for insurance carriers for the most part (and it was years ago) and I don't recall anything like a background check being done prior to taking someone's case even when I worked for an indie firm. Doesn't mean they don't happen now, but a firm is probably under no obligation and it doesn't change things much except in the context of, in non-pro bono matters, whether a client can conceivably pay legal bills. Doing a background check to answer that question may or may not be ethical, BTW. Lawyers are not required to starve, but at the same time, if they only take cases because someone can pay, that means a lot of people would go without representation (hence pro bono exists). But I digress.
Yeah, I mean obviously it wouldn't pass the way it is now but if they tinkered with it a bit they might just get on the save side. Of course, it wouldn't exactly be the movie they wanted to release, but at least they'd get to release something.
can you make a "documentary" about a story that you have yourself made up, and then include IP because you set your made up story in that universe? Doubt it.
They have already done so, but the "fans" continue to not believe it.
As for myself, I am finished with the StandWithCBS group after I was kicked off unfairly after mentioning opinions
No idea. But maybe they could argue that "changing it" into a documentary is transformative enough, the way "changing it" into a porn film does. Obviously those two things are have the same differences, but they are not entirely dissimilar differences conceptually.
I am also not arguing that this will or even could be their defense-- I am simply raising the question of whether a docu-style format could qualify-- because I don't know.
- Status