CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Michael Hinman]

To be absolutely clear on her intent, the choice of the term mockumentary by Ranahan to describe the docufictional work Prelude to Axanar was aimed directly at you and people like you (reporters) to help Axanar/Peters' case in the court of public opinion. Most quotes and excerpts from the filing will not include her additional footnote clarifying her definition of the term, leaving the public to use the more standard definition which includes parody, something protected under fair use. The actual intent is for reporters to help link what they were doing with the Star Trek IP to fair use in the publics mind.

My father was a lawyer and a law professor, and I'm sure he'd have given Ranahan very high marks for her use of this one term in that filing.

Well, with all due respect, my father was not a journalist nor a journalist who covered many court cases in his day. That was me. And I am seriously doubtful that Ranahan gives two shits what I or other reporters think. She defined the term, she did it LEGALLY, and that's what matters to the court.

If down the road, Ranahan takes a position of parody for "Prelude," I'll entertain it. But considering the fact she used the term "mockumentary" and DEFINED it on the page for the JUDGE (not for me), and didn't talk about a parody claim in any other way, we are jumping to conclusions that do not exist.

 

[Campe]

And that is all that matters. The attorneys do have the right to define terms as they see fit within their motions. It could be an interesting tactic though with the fair use defense. While Ranahan is defining mockumentary as she does, it's obvious most people would consider it as a comedy. It's the more common accepted definition. I would not be surprised if it does make it to trial that Plaintiffs would file a motion in limine barring the term "mockumentary."

 

[Albinator]

it's obvious most people would consider it as a comedy. It's the more common accepted definition.

Only obvious to the ignorant and uneducated. Mockumentary has never meant "funny." I talked about this about a hundred pages ago. Even parody and satire need not be humor-based.

 

[Campe]

I don't appreciate the implication that I'm ignorant and uneducated.

Only obvious to the ignorant and uneducated. Mockumentary has never meant "funny." I talked about this about a hundred pages ago. Even parody and satire need not be humor-based.

 

[Albinator]

 

[Indysolo]

Pacer was updated this morning.

"STIPULATION to Continue HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Plaintiffs CBS Studios Inc, Paramount Pictures Corporation.(Grossman, David)"

Neil

 

[Earthrise]

The mockumentary genre is very broad. It's entirely possible for some people only to have experienced it in its more comedic form, thus identifying the subtext of "mockumentary" as comedic, while others have an entirely different perspective.

That's why it was so important for the lawyer to define how they were using the term. Left undefined, there would have been even more ambiguity than there is currently. As for why the lawyer chose that definition, I have no idea, but I suspect people will derive their own interpretations based on their own experiences with the term.

 

[Michael Hinman]

And that is all that matters. The attorneys do have the right to define terms as they see fit within their motions. It could be an interesting tactic though with the fair use defense. While Ranahan is defining mockumentary as she does, it's obvious most people would consider it as a comedy. It's the more common accepted definition. I would not be surprised if it does make it to trial that Plaintiffs would file a motion in limine barring the term "mockumentary."

It's alway the definition I have known it as ... so I don't know about common, but I didn't think "parody." But then again, I think about words, and how they are used. And I never considered "Modern Family," "The Office" or "Parks and Recreation" as parodies.

 

[Albinator]

But then again, I think about words, and how they are used.

I think i'm in love.

 

[Michael Hinman]

The mockumentary genre is very broad. It's entirely possible for some people only to have experienced it in its more comedic form, thus identifying the subtext of "mockumentary" as comedic, while others have an entirely different perspective.

That's why it was so important for the lawyer to define how they were using the term. Left undefined, there would have been even more ambiguity than there is currently. As for why the lawyer chose that definition, I have no idea, but I suspect people will derive their own interpretations based on their own experiences with the term.

Well, it's a descriptor. By her definition, it's something that is filmed in a documentary style, but it's of fictional content. Thus, it's not a documentary, but it's mocking the style ... using the colloquialism of "mockumentary."

 

[Shaw]

Well, with all due respect, my father was not a journalist nor a journalist who covered many court cases in his day. That was me. And I am seriously doubtful that Ranahan gives two shits what I or other reporters think. She defined the term, she did it LEGALLY, and that's what matters to the court.

That is an amazingly hostile response... was it warranted?

The opinion I put forward was mine. And while my education was in mathematics, I did take a number of critical reading and writing courses, which formed the basis of that opinion.

I only brought up my father (who recently died) to compliment Ranahan's abilities as a litigator.

If you want to take a more passive reading of her text, that is fine. This is a person who's profession is to actively use language for both defensive and offensive means. But if you are willing to take a passive reading of her text, it would be nice if you extended me the same consideration.

 

[Franklin]

Only obvious to the ignorant and uneducated. Mockumentary has never meant "funny." I talked about this about a hundred pages ago. Even parody and satire need not be humor-based.

No, they don't need to be humor based, though that is a very common impression given so much of it, from editorial cartoons to "The Simpsons" is.

That said, I wonder why they didn't go for the whole ball of wax in the response and claim "Prelude" was a mockumentary because it was a comment on the state of "Star Trek" as Peters saw it. That would cover all of Peters' past claims that he was showing fans a "Star Trek" as they used to know it. That would cover his claims that he was doing "real" Trek, and even bolster his argument that CBS/P doesn't want it made for those reasons. Not that I'm saying those are strong arguments, or that they hold more water than anything else, but they seem as credible as anything, and at least ends the (popular) confusion about how "Prelude" could be a mockumentary while diffusing some of Peters' rather egotistical remarks about it as "Star Trek" as commentary as well, expressed artistically through "Prelude". Hell, that same argument could be used to justify the filming of "Axanar". "Axanar" is Peters' commentary on how far off the rails CBS/P has let their franchise go.

Meh. That's my pro bono advice to Peters. Pro bono advice and $5 gets you a caramel latte at Starbucks.

 

[Michael Hinman]

That is an amazingly hostile response... was it warranted?

Wow, sensitive much?

I am not a fan of people who are the children of people who should actually be commenting on authority about things. I don't believe that the knowledge of those careers magically pass down to children, and that somehow that puts someone in authority to speak about something, especially in disagreement with someone else who might actually have a little more authority to speak.

My dad, for example, was a railroad welder. He spent more than 30 years going around and welding tracks together. But I can tell you that I do not know the first thing about welding, and if there was a discussion thread here about welding, I wouldn't be able to jump in and provide an authoritative voice, simply because my dad was a welder.

The opinion I put forward was mine. And while my education was in mathematics, I did take a number of critical reading and writing courses, which formed the basis of that opinion.

Then seriously, you don't need to qualify your statement with whatever it was your dad did.

I only brought up my father (who recently died) to compliment Ranahan's abilities as a litigator.

Sorry for your loss, but if your intent on qualifying your statement was different from how I read it, I apologize. But people just come on here and respond, and have been doing it for 9,000-plus posts now.

If you want to take a more passive reading of her text, that is fine. This is a person who's profession is to actively use language for both defensive and offensive means. But if you are willing to take a passive reading of her text, it would be nice if you extended me the same consideration.

I don't even know what that means. I have not taken a "passive" reading of what was said. She DEFINES her use of the term in the FOOTNOTE. That is not there for me or any other reporter, or anyone here in the thread. It's there for the JUDGE, and also for the plaintiffs' attorneys. If she wants to tell something to the media, she'll tell the media, or put out a press statement.

Otherwise, the full intention of this legal document she filed is to argue her case on behalf of her clients, to the best of her ability. And that means ensuring that the court understands, by removing any ambiguity that might exist. That is what she did in defining the term, which is removed ambiguity.

And it doesn't matter what side of the case you're on, I do believe people should respect anyone who tries to communicate, and make sure that people understand what it is they are trying to communicate (by removing ambiguity).

 

[Albinator]

That is an amazingly hostile response... was it warranted?

The opinion I put forward was mine. And while my education was in mathematics, I did take a number of critical reading and writing courses, which formed the basis of that opinion.

I only brought up my father (who recently died) to compliment Ranahan's abilities as a litigator.

If you want to take a more passive reading of her text, that is fine. This is a person who's profession is to actively use language for both defensive and offensive means. But if you are willing to take a passive reading of her text, it would be nice if you extended me the same consideration.

And suddenly everyone in here wants special treatment. Was a nice place once.

 

[#1RealTrekFan]

Can someone download the new document and please post the link to the file? I don't have the account there. Thanks in advance.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public...oration_et_al_v_Axanar_Productions,_Inc_et_al

Pacer was updated this morning.

"STIPULATION to Continue HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Plaintiffs CBS Studios Inc, Paramount Pictures Corporation.(Grossman, David)"

Neil

 

[Admiral Cain]

His whole "non profit" obfuscation in yesterday's THR comment section really boils my blood. He's purposely misleading people to confuse them and extract more money from them.
He's taking advantage of people's naivety - in tax matters, in legal matters, and in business matters. Registered non profits are in the public record. Axanar isn't a non profit. It's a private corporation owned by Alec (if there are other owners they will soon be added to the lawsuit). I think this is where he skates very close to the fraud line.
He's very careful to not outright lie and say "Axanar is a nonprofit", he just lobs red herrings like "non profits pay salaries to staff" and his minions then misinterpret that to mean "Axanar is a non profit", and repeat it all over the Internet. The affect is to soothe the fan base and mislead them into thinking they are "donating" to a "non profit" endeavor. But the truth is, they are handing their money over to a for profit corporation that has zero accountability to them and zero say over how the money is spent. I find it disgusting, frankly that he uses innocent, naive fans to perpetuate this lie.

 

[Michael Hinman]

No, they don't need to be humor based, though that is a very common impression given so much of it, from editorial cartoons to "The Simpsons" is.

That said, I wonder why they didn't go for the whole ball of wax in the response and claim "Prelude" was a mockumentary because it was a comment on the state of "Star Trek" as Peters saw it.

Franklin, remember this is not outlining the defense. This is an attempt to have the case greatly reduced or thrown out altogether based on technical elements. If and when the case continues after a ruling on the motion, then we'll see a defense. But based on the way Ranahan defined "mockumentary" in her filing, I don't believe she is going after the parody defense. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Michael Hinman]

Can someone download the new document and please post the link to the file? I don't have the account there. Thanks in advance.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public...oration_et_al_v_Axanar_Productions,_Inc_et_al

I'm waiting to see the document, too. But based on the title, I think it's simply the plaintiffs and defendants stipulating on a hearing date (meaning, coming to an agreement), to let the judge know, who will then make a final determination on the hearing date.

But yeah, waiting to read it, too.

 

[#1RealTrekFan]

One good thing about the filing is that CBS/Paramount will be explaining what is Star Trek to Garth of Izar very soon.

I'm waiting to see the document, too. But based on the title, I think it's simply the plaintiffs and defendants stipulating on a hearing date (meaning, coming to an agreement), to let the judge know, who will then make a final determination on the hearing date.

But yeah, waiting to read it, too.

 

[muCephi]

To be absolutely clear on her intent, the choice of the term mockumentary by Ranahan to describe the docufictional work Prelude to Axanar was aimed directly at you and people like you (reporters) to help Axanar/Peters' case in the court of public opinion. Most quotes and excerpts from the filing will not include her additional footnote clarifying her definition of the term, leaving the public to use the more standard definition which includes parody, something protected under fair use. The actual intent is for reporters to help link what they were doing with the Star Trek IP to fair use in the publics mind.

My father was a lawyer and a law professor, and I'm sure he'd have given Ranahan very high marks for her use of this one term in that filing.

If I were her, the other thing I'd do to help their case in the court of public opinion would be to either superglue boxing gloves on Peters' hands or file a gag order against Peters on any information regarding this case.

Seems like there are two different contexts for use of the 'mocumentary' term, within which each argument may independently have merit. I have to say my first reaction to the term, even having seen the definition the attorney tweezed from others, was it really suggests parody to me.

Well, lets see, if I'm not mistaken Dennis Bailey has actual credit for two filmed TNG scripts; worked on the fan script for "The Tessaurian Intersection"; and is working on an original project atm.

Mr. peters has done a 21 minute featurette - and it's 'claim to fame' ISN'T his work on that script nor his screentime as 'Garth' in it - but more the excellent visual effects work of Tobias Richter. Mr. Peters has also done a 3 minute scene for 'Axanar'; and a second as yet unreleased featurette that was filmed on the 'Phase II/New Voyages' set...

Gee, comparing to two, it seems Mr. Bailey has 'made more' than Mr. Peters (unless the screencaped post above was referring to physical items like patches, T-Shirts and Coffee.

I think that's a reference to all the work that by their assertions to their donors has produced a ready to shoot in February film. Said work which now never happened, except when taking credit for it anyway.

Call me crazy, but I think the initial tally of infringements was done a long time ago, before the suit was filed. Probably with photos, since that group has been trying to hang themselves since day one. Keeping up with new stuff since the suit was filed should have been a piece of cake--AP & Co. just keep handing it to them.

That's one thing about the post-lawsuit Axanar work claims I really don't get. Axanar staff keep saying, even in the latest AP quote upstream here, that they are working on Axanar. Granted they can find ways to work around the edges of the stop work order, need to keep staff busy, need to keep donors placated. But even so, I think every trace of that behavior is evidence of aggravated conduct wrt/ the IP claims, and backs the CBS argument for discovery.

Maybe the Axanar books and emails and etc are squeaky clean, but the non-accountant 'disclosure' of finances, and the podcasts that openly contradict their current court response tend to suggest more of the same would surface.

Thus provoking discovery by continuing work on the project in any way seems like the worst possible move for them.