• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know I already posted about this, but this is just ridiculous. I can't believe he is actually going after you guys on his own. If you turn yourself into a public figure, you are going to get people who say bad things about you, or your work, especially in a situation like Axanar. You just accept it and move on, you don't antagonize them yourself, all that does is make you look bad.
 
Seen on the Axanar Fan Group page:

Screen%20Shot%202016-02-02%20at%2011.55.28%20AM_zpsc9coyxxe.png


I wonder if that means the Sci-Fi Film School is on too?
Sorry, no photos are allowed on the bridge at Axa-Con. That would violate the court order.

Neil
 
So... Even though they voluntarily put the film is on hold, will CBS still push for an injunction that will take his site down and remove videos from Youtube, etc, etc ?

The 30-day hold was what Axanar agreed to in order to get an 30-day extension in filing its Answer to the studios' legal complaint. Otherwise, they would've had to file last month.

The injunction is an entirely separate thing, and one of the key items CBS/P is seeking from the lawsuit. Unless they file an amendment to their complaint saying they're no longer seeking an injunction it stands. Frankly, if they weren't seeking an injunction, that would weaken their overall case.
 
Some of those Axanar donors aren't just drinking the Kool-Aid. They're bathing in it and absorbing it through their pores.
 
I wrote a blog with my thoughts on Peters ages ago. A friend of mine shared the 1701 article - I posted the link to the blog in my thoughts. Alec (not friends with either of us on Facebook - no direct contact) commented out of nowhere.
This happened just recently? Is this blog on FB? (I can't see FB because I don't have an account)
 
Poor Richard Hatch. The only work he's going to be able to get after this will be as Neil Breen's stunt double.
 
Los Angeles-based Partner Erin Ranahan’s representation of the producers of a fan film prequel to Star Trek in a copyright infringement lawsuit was profiled in the Law360 article “‘Star Trek’ Fans Tap Winston Copyright Whiz to Fight Suit” published on January 27.

According to the article, Paramount Pictures and CBS filed the lawsuit against Ms. Ranahan’s pro bono client Axanar Productions Inc. over “Axanar”—a feature-length, professional-quality Star Trek fan fiction film funded by $1.1 million in fan donations on crowdfunding sites. While writer Alec Peters believed he had a green light from CBS to make the film, the lawsuit alleges “Axanar” improperly used “innumerable copyrighted elements” and “unabashedly” infringed the company’s intellectual property.

“It’s an interesting area of law, and it’s obviously a high-profile case,” Ms. Ranahan said about her decision to take the case pro bono. “And the cost of these cases can put these people out of business.”

The article discusses a few of Ms. Ranahan’s past copyright cases, such as her representation of video-sharing site Veoh Networks Inc., which was significant in setting the boundaries for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbors, her defense of mobile ringtone provider Myxer against copyright claims by major record labels, and also her copyright defense of Wolfgang’s Vault, an online marketplace for live concert recordings.

With her extensive background defending Internet companies against copyright infringement claims, Ms. Ranahan sees similar challenges in the Star Trek case.

“This type of fan fiction represents another gray area under the law,” she said. “Our clients are good actors who were trying to follow all the rules and navigate the legal waters.”

Ms. Ranahan notes that her defense may incorporate the fair use doctrine based on her growing understanding of the case.

“Their use of the [copyrighted] material is really minimal, and the film involves so much of their own creativity,” she said,” “But fair use is always going to be an adventure.”

The article suggests that there is hope the case will be settled “in a fair and amicable manner” given the “Axanar” team’s longstanding, enthusiastic support of the franchise.

“This suit is designed to stop the movie, but there is room for us to reach some kind of amicable settlement,” she said. “These aren’t parties that should be antagonistic with each other.”

Link
 
kinda like the 501(c)3 situation. How long has he has someone working on it? more than 6 months? How about an update, or specifically, the draft content of it, particularly parts 3, 4, 5 and 10, treating the organizing document's statement of charitable purpose and board structure, the past/present/future charitable activities, the compensation, and the finances?

Alec Peters claimed to me that this corporation was created to protect this particular asset, the townhouse that is listed as the corporate address (in public documents). He has no mortgage on that property (that I can see), so the only thing between him and changing the ownership is to simply file a quitclaim deed, and pay the appropriate tax (which takes all of 10 minutes). In fact, even the tax itself would not be a big issue, because he could just claim the value of $100, and pay just 70 cents.

I am leaning toward giving him the benefit of the doubt that he intended to use this corporation to shield assets. But here's the thing ... he hasn't. And he's had a year to do something that takes just 10 minutes, and 70 cents.

So let's say the Axanar lawsuit goes to court. CBS/Paramount wins a massive judgement, in this example ... more money than what Peters has on hand. CBS/Paramount will be able to go after the townhouse in Florida ... why? Because Peters is named in the suit, which means he's personally liable. And as of right now (or, depending on the law, at the time the lawsuit was filed) that townhouse is under his personal name.

If he had transferred ownership to Woodland Terrace Investments a year ago, or even six months ago, it would be harder for CBS/Paramount to come after that asset as a way to fulfill the judgement. That's why you would create an LLC to protect a property, and you would do it by transferring the property to that LLC. You still "own" the property, but as the controlling member of the corporation.

That doesn't make you completely immune to having the asset forfeited -- but it does make it a lot harder.
 
Alec Peters claimed to me that this corporation was created to protect this particular asset, the townhouse that is listed as the corporate address (in public documents). He has no mortgage on that property (that I can see), so the only thing between him and changing the ownership is to simply file a quitclaim deed, and pay the appropriate tax (which takes all of 10 minutes). In fact, even the tax itself would not be a big issue, because he could just claim the value of $100, and pay just 70 cents.
A quitclaim deed, may be quick and easy, but they lose the protection of the warranty deed, so he may have started down the road, and just figured, it wasn't that important, at that point. Who knows....
 
You probably know that far better than me, I'm afraid. So I have to concede that point. :)
Squiggly, might have a better insight on it, I just know, my MIL lost 1/10 of an acre of her yard because of a Quitclaim deed.... and when she finally did research the initial property lines, and subsequent titles, the county said they wouldn't be bothered... BUT OTOH, this is a townhouse, and it's relitivally new construction, so I don't know how much risk there would be... I am just spitballing here... Does anything Peters ever does make any sense anyway?
 
As I understand it - there is no court order per se. The agreement reached between the parties was Axanar wouldn't film anything in exchange for the 30 day extension to file a response. (This is going by comments Mr. Peters himself made/posted on the Axanar site)

this probably would have been a stipulation signed before the judge, and granted by the judge, with a new response date set by the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top