CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
#AxanarRules !!
Sci series often do their own mockumentary episodes or parts of episodes. Babylon 5 did the Gropos one, and I think they did a while episode as an earth central news bulletin, x files did the cops episode, and voyager had the neelix chat show type thing. That's just off the top of my head to think about something in context of sci fi, which Axanar, in so far as it exists, is.
The office, in its original form, is a parody and mockumentary (I won't lie....first time I saw it, leaving TV on in background, I thought it was another BBC 2 fly on the wall documentary)
The office, in its original form, is a parody and mockumentary (I won't lie....first time I saw it, leaving TV on in background, I thought it was another BBC 2 fly on the wall documentary)
It's complicated. And too complicated to get into here.
But that doesn't matter. Ranahan DEFINED the term in her motion filing. Unless the court rejects that definition, that is the only definition that matters.
If Paramount and CBS were each bringing an individual case against Axanar separately (IE CBS filed it own lawsuit vs Axanar and Paramount filed it's own lawsuit) - and both of those lawsuits claimed copyright infringement of the Star Trek IP that argument might hold some water - that's probably why CBS/Paramount did file jointly. Unless Axanar is somehow claiming either CBS or Paramount hold no copyright with regard to Star Trek that particular argument is a red herring/hold no legal weight. Paramount/CBS did follow the standard to prove their collective copyright ownership over the Star Trek IP. Since they are suing jointly/together - the actual specifics of which party holds copyright over which aspect of the Star Trek is moot. (Again, not a lawyer, but I've heard Judge's rule similarly when this kind of aspect is brought up in a case where one side is composed of two parties that file jointly vs the other party.)
It's very interesting considering (according to Axanar's own financial report) she WAS paid a salary, but the reporting of the amount of that salary was 'deferred'. She could still be named as a as one of the 'Does' in the lawsuit (should it be allowed o proceed). Also, it's possible she could settle with CBS/Paramount on her own (yes, that's legal); and as part of such a settlement she could agree to testify to what she personally knows about the way Axanar operates as a business, and what she knows about the production of the 'Axanar works' (IE 'Prelude to Axanar' and whatever production was done for the Axanar feature film.) But again, time will tell. CBS/Paramount might decide she's not worth pursuing or using in the case; or she might still be named BUT choose not to settle or assist CBS/Paramount in the case.
True, it doesn't matter for the case in the courtroom; but it will matter with regard to Axanar's legal team's attempts to get the Star Trek fanbase to try and put pressure on CBS/Paramount to just settle the case. Axanar's team is trying to do everything they can to get CBS/Paramount to the settlement table and that's pretty obvious by them NOT reigning in Mr. Peters online; and their lawyer's willingness to give interviews to the media to spread their spin on the case.
Last edited:
Also: It's worth repeating that Diana Kingsbury is not just some third party tangentially connected to this case or Axanar simply because she's Alec's former girlfriend. She was hired full-time (per comments from Robert Meyer Burnett last year:
(source: How $1.1 Million ‘Star Trek’ Fan Movie Has Escaped Studio Shutdown (So Far)
...to serve as the perks & fulfillment person on the project. She's had a regularly featured sub-blog on the Axanar website for updating donors on their items being shipped. She's credited on the film as an associate producer on "Prelude to Axanar" and as a co-producer on "Axanar" the film. Perhaps most damningly, she's seen in multiple photos on the Axanar website, "Axanar Fan Page" and other promotional items distributed by Peters and the production promoting the film at various convention booths.
She has every reason to side with CBS and Paramount right now if she so chooses, and probably should, given that the probability of she being named one of the "Does" is pretty high.
(source: How $1.1 Million ‘Star Trek’ Fan Movie Has Escaped Studio Shutdown (So Far)
...to serve as the perks & fulfillment person on the project. She's had a regularly featured sub-blog on the Axanar website for updating donors on their items being shipped. She's credited on the film as an associate producer on "Prelude to Axanar" and as a co-producer on "Axanar" the film. Perhaps most damningly, she's seen in multiple photos on the Axanar website, "Axanar Fan Page" and other promotional items distributed by Peters and the production promoting the film at various convention booths.
She has every reason to side with CBS and Paramount right now if she so chooses, and probably should, given that the probability of she being named one of the "Does" is pretty high.
Also: It's worth repeating that Diana Kingsbury is not just some third party tangentially connected to this case or Axanar simply because she's Alec's former girlfriend. She was hired full-time (per comments from Robert Meyer Burnett last year:
(source: How $1.1 Million ‘Star Trek’ Fan Movie Has Escaped Studio Shutdown (So Far)
...to serve as the perks & fulfillment person on the project. She's had a regularly featured sub-blog on the Axanar website for updating donors on their items being shipped. She's credited on the film as an associate producer on "Prelude to Axanar" and as a co-producer on "Axanar" the film. Perhaps most damningly, she's seen in multiple photos on the Axanar website, "Axanar Fan Page" and other promotional items distributed by Peters and the production promoting the film at various convention booths.
She has every reason to side with CBS and Paramount right now if she so chooses, and probably should, given that the probability of she being named one of the "Does" is pretty high.
I don't want to get into Peters' personal relationships (because despite what that moron thinks, I don't care) ... however, just because they are broken up doesn't necessarily mean that they have a bad relationship.
I mean, I live in Grenada right now with my ex. It can work.
Let me see if I'm finally getting this straight. She's defining the term "mockumentary" as meaning simply a "documentary of fictional events," so as not to associate the word with parody and satire as so many other definitions do. So, does that mean she's claiming it protected under fair use as a legitimate type of documentary, in which there is no intent of parody or satire (humorous or otherwise)? Because it was essentially within a category of documentaries (a documentary over a fictional event), it's protected? Seems that would open up a future can of worms. If she "won" that idea, "Axanar" could be rewritten to be told as a series of flashbacks much like "Prelude" was. It would simply be a more detailed mockumentary of the fictional event. Or am I way off here?
We will see, then, whether CBS or the judge disputes the chosen definition. Given the apparently common usage of the term strongly asserts parody, and parody is a key defense for fair use, CBS might take objection to the definition. In the meantime, it puts an onus on reporters/bloggers to point out that the definition submitted is not in alignment with the definition which will be found by searching for the term.
Who is behind the TALES OF STAR TREK AXANAR Youtube channel? 
I don't want to get into Peters' personal relationships (because despite what that moron thinks, I don't care) ... however, just because they are broken up doesn't necessarily mean that they have a bad relationship.
I mean, I live in Grenada right now with my ex. It can work.
Far more to the point than the post I was writing.
It just bugs me that this relationship turnover was never discussed anywhere. They have been presented as a happy couple up until now. It feels like another secret Alec kept from the donors. Tony Todd, anyone?
I realize Diana may continue in her role as the fulfillment director and be perfectly happy, but it just looks sneaky.
I realize Diana may continue in her role as the fulfillment director and be perfectly happy, but it just looks sneaky.
For the 500th time here ... the motion to dismiss or strike is not listing defenses. It's a technical argument to try and throw the case out (or reduce it greatly) based on technical aspects of the case. This is not their defense or anything like it.
They are not dealing with the law itself at the moment, but instead at what they believe (and hope) the court will require of the plaintiffs in filing the suit.
It's like if we're playing Scrabble. You put a word on the board, and I challenge it. That challenge could change the game in some way (like switch leads), but it really has nothing to do with your overall play-style.
Ranahan isn't looking for the best tiles right now. She's simply challenging a single word. And it's up to the dictionary, er judge, to determine if she's right or wrong.
We are all hung up on "mockumentary," but it's just a descriptor. It could suggest what she plans on using as a future defense and the like, but this is not an answer to the complaint. It's a response in the form of a motion. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Because its not our business. Do you want your personal details bandied about? They can be a happy couple or not and it shouldn't have to be discussed. And maybe there is something sneaky and underhanded. But more likely than not, not so much. Right now I think it's only fair that we respect their privacy in this issue. If Diana or Alec says something about it, then that's fine. Until then, why does it matter?
Agreed. The personal relationship element is really of no consequence to us; we are not owed anything on that level.
If she parts ways with the production, it's an interesting twist in this whole melodrama, but not much more beyond that. My post above was more to remind everyone that she is a key player in all the lawsuit proceedings and not just Peters' (now) ex.
If she parts ways with the production, it's an interesting twist in this whole melodrama, but not much more beyond that. My post above was more to remind everyone that she is a key player in all the lawsuit proceedings and not just Peters' (now) ex.
thanks
- Status