CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[muCephi]

SHE is not defining the word, she references the definition at dictionary.reference.com for the word "mockumentary." It's found at the bottom of Page 4 of the Motion, Page 13 overall of the entire document.

hm... dictionary.reference.com has different definitions depending how you spell it.

without a k: a fact-based film that mocks its subject; a tongue-in-cheek documentary

with a k: a movie or television show depicting fictional events but presented as a documentary.

and the 'with a k' page has several other definitions down the page:
'british definition' (which doesnt exist on the 'without a k' page): a satirical television or radio programme in the form of a parody of a documentary

'contemporary definitions' (no source cited): a film or television program that is shot like a documentary but is fictitious and usu. Satirical

---
So, all but one definition with a K implies parody. a pretty weak reference I think to include as a definition. but a definition, granted.

As is noted, this is jousting over technicalities in this first response. I assume the response spells it with a 'k'?

 

[Jedi_Master]

They still have the "Movie" page, but it's not a Group.

Uh huh. Have seen screencaps from the Axanar Fan Group in the past 24 hours.
And the donor group.

Not entirely sure why Alec and Terry decided to make those private, as it hasn't prevented anyone from seeing what's posted there.

 

[jespah]

Blog drafting continues. Man oh man there is a lot to go over. First blog post is close to being done (I don't want to release it until the second one is a lot closer to being ready, so people don't have to wait too long). Second one is maybe 1/4 - 1/3 completed. So far, yes, the cited Disney case seems to be unfavorable to the defense, and some of the other cases seem to only tangentially apply. Stay tuned.

 

[Franklin]

SHE is not defining the word, she references the definition at dictionary.reference.com for the word "mockumentary." It's found at the bottom of Page 4 of the Motion, Page 13 overall of the entire document.

Yes. I know that. I read the document. I went to the site. Not to mince words, but by choosing that definition, she is stating the meaning of the word as she intends to use and apply it. It is, in that way at least, her definition. But we're all beginning to make too much of this one point. It's up to the judge to accept it or not.

 

[muCephi]

Yes. I know that. I read the document. I went to the site. Not to mince words, but by choosing that definition, she is stating the meaning of the word as she intends to use and apply it. It is, in that way at least, her definition. But we're all beginning to make to much of this one point.

I'm fine. It will wash out in court when CBS spends the bucks to make every point definitive.

 

[Amaris]

It's not being filmed but the unwritten script is locked and Alec Peters is learning his lines for Garth despite the fact he won't be playing the role, which is yet uncast, as is the rest of the movie despite a cast appearing in Prelude. You see, they cast and filmed the tool which got them donations but forgot to sign anyone for the movie they either wrote or didn't yet write, depending on who you talked to. No, wait--same people tell you those different things, just at different times. My mistake.

This is a statement worthy of Emmett Fitz-hume.

(If you've never seen the movie Spies Like Us, I highly recommend it)

 

[jespah]

It's not being filmed but the unwritten script is locked and Alec Peters is learning his lines for Garth despite the fact he won't be playing the role, which is yet uncast, as is the rest of the movie despite a cast appearing in Prelude. You see, they cast and filmed the tool which got them donations but forgot to sign anyone for the movie they either wrote or didn't yet write, depending on who you talked to. No, wait--same people tell you those different things, just at different times. My mistake.

I liked this, then unliked it so I could relike it.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Found on Hobbytalk this morning...

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_145149049977610&key=330c719398fd8a3d0eef982db7e4690b&libId=iisztssk01010fx2000DAfp27np4l&loc=http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=5604522#post5604522&v=1&out=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660454-Startreklawsuit.html&ref=http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/forumdisplay.php?f=4&title=Paramount sues to stop Axanar - HobbyTalk&txt=https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...eklawsuit.htmlCBS/

I am actually glad they are being sued. Fan productions are usually not very good and acting or production wise. I hope Paramount decides to make a quality Prime Trek vehicle soon.

 

[carlosp]

Um, no. A footnote is part of the document.

Michael, I don't deny the existence of the footnote. But motions don't only have a judge as their audience. Yes, the judge is the only one that ultimately counts but how that motion is perceived by the public plays into the word choice of an attorney. And you know as well as I do that the word mockumentary was quite deliberately chosen by Axanar's attorney. We may quibble about what the reason behind it may be but it's not just a happenstance word.

Just look at the public hoo-hah around the "fans need Star Trek explained" meme that emerged from the motion. It's exactly the kind of distraction an attorney wants — make people look at what's wrong with the plaintiffs instead of pondering the alleged wrongdoing by the defendants. Score 1 for the defense.

Another goal for the motion was to up-end a key assumption in the complaint, namely that Prelude and Axanar are both two parts of a greater whole, "The Axanar Works," as described in the complaint. So that goal was to find a way to divide the Axanar Works into two parts, and not simply two constituent parts but two intrinsically different ones. So instead of Prelude being an introduction to the full story of Axanar, and instead of Prelude being an advertisement specifically created to drive fundraising from Star Trek fans using CBS' intellectual property, it instead becomes a standalone "mockumentary" that should be judged completely separately from the feature, Axanar. Imagine how convenient, the word mockumentary becomes. It's a word with multiple meanings, and the majority hint at parody or satire. The point of this tactic isn't necessary to see through a fair use defense to its completion as much as it is to successfully divorce Prelude from Axanar, where once they were viewed as parts of a greater hole.

 

[trynda1701]

If this case actually gets to jury trial, what are the conditions that jury members will be subject to?

The reason I ask is what will the 'man on the street' jury member think of the case as it will be presented? We here are biased in two ways, first, we're Trek fans, and we are following all the ins and outs on the Internet as the Axanar team continue to not hold silent on the issue.

In this civil case, is it the same as presented on TV in criminal cases (eg "Law and Order"), where a jury is sequestered for the duration of a trial? Could a typical jury member be confused with all the legal jargon, and the complexities of copyright law, without necessarily hearing about all the stuff we've been discussing for all these past pages!

Or do I have that completely wrong? Never had to do jury duty, and it may be different in the US than here in the UK.

 

[Karzak]

If its anything like the jury duty I've been called to serve (and summarily excused from) here in Los Angeles, the attorneys from both sides will ask people beforehand various questions before agreeing on a group of suitably unbiased people to make up the jury.

 

[trynda1701]

@Karzak
Oh, I understand how the jury may be selected, but I'm wondering how a typical member might think about all the information that is going to be presented.

Most, if not all of them, will probably NOT be Trek fans (that is probably one of the selection questions!), and I'm wondering if jury members would have access to the Internet outside of the court room, to maybe better understand the situation.

 

[carlosp]

If this case actually gets to jury trial, what are the conditions that jury members will be subject to?

The reason I ask is what will the 'man on the street' jury member think of the case as it will be presented? We here are biased in two ways, first, we're Trek fans, and we are following all the ins and outs on the Internet as the Axanar team continue to not hold silent on the issue.

In this civil case, is it the same as presented on TV in criminal cases (eg "Law and Order"), where a jury is sequestered for the duration of a trial? Could a typical jury member be confused with all the legal jargon, and the complexities of copyright law, without necessarily hearing about all the stuff we've been discussing for all these past pages!

Or do I have that completely wrong? Never had to do jury duty, and it may be different in the US than here in the UK.

You're not likely to see a jury sequestered in a civil case like this. Even in criminal trials, sequestered juries are uncommon. Juries are sequestered only when there is so much media coverage of the case that a judge believes the jurors cannot avoid it and could reasonably be expected to encounter information not actually introduced as evidence in the trial.

Interestingly, CBS and Paramount chose to ask for a jury trial for this case. IMHO that's a sign of how strong they think their case is, and that they believe they'll be able to portray a copyright case in terms regular, reasonable people can understand. I can guarantee you one thing: there will be no Trekkies on that jury.

 

[carlosp]

@Karzak
Most, if not all of them, will probably NOT be Trek fans (that is probably one of the selection questions!), and I'm wondering if jury members would have access to the Internet outside of the court room, to maybe better understand the situation.

One of the first instructions the judge will give the jury will be to avoid any mention of this case or the topics it is about. Generally, the court trusts the jury will abide by these instructions. I've known jurors who've been replaced even after the trial was underway just for casually mentioning the case on their blog.

 

[muCephi]

One of the first instructions the judge will give the jury will be to avoid any mention of this case or the topics it is about. Generally, the court trusts the jury will abide by these instructions. I've known jurors who've been replaced even after the trial was underway just for casually mentioning the case on their blog.

isn't it also possible the jurors could be required to not read coverage of the subject matter until the trial is complete?

 

[Karzak]

Oh I know. The last time I was called in for jury duty half the prep time was spent reiterating that no, we should not be live-Tweeting the case as someone else a few weeks before had done.

The courts here are pretty well set up to pick their juries responsibly and properly. I'm not concerned about that at all.

 

[Indysolo]

The courts here are pretty well set up to pick their juries responsibly and properly. I'm not concerned about that at all.

You're clearly not watching "The People vs. O.J. Simpson"!

Neil

 

[muCephi]

Uh huh. Have seen screencaps from the Axanar Fan Group in the past 24 hours.
And the donor group.

Not entirely sure why Alec and Terry decided to make those private, as it hasn't prevented anyone from seeing what's posted there.

It does prevent fans who are trying to see what is going on from adding to the fray.

If its anything like the jury duty I've been called to serve (and summarily excused from) here in Los Angeles, the attorneys from both sides will ask people beforehand various questions before agreeing on a group of suitably unbiased people to make up the jury.

1. In your opinion, is sharing music peer to peer wrong?
2. If serving on this jury meant you would have to experience uncontrollable eye rolls, would that present a problem?
3. Have you ever worn ears? What species?

 

[Franklin]

I can guarantee you one thing: there will be no Trekkies on that jury.

So, voir dire may go something like below?

CBS Attorney: Do you know who this is? [Holds up a picture of William Shatner as Kirk from 1967.]
Prospective Juror: [Stares at picture. Squints. Suddenly, there's recognition.] Yes! That's a picture of that Priceline guy, Denny Crane! How old is that picture? He had a great head of hair, then.
CBS Attorney: Please finish this phrase, "Live long and -- ."
Prospective Juror [Long pause, thinking]: Stay classy?
CBS Attorney: Do you know who this is? [Holds up a picture of Leonard Nimoy as Spock from TMP.]
Prospective Juror: Yes, I've heard his name, before. I think he's a baby doctor from a long time ago. My mom had some of his books. Yes. That's him. He's Dr. Spock.
CBS Attorney: Does NCC-1701 mean anything to you?
Prospective Juror: I think that's a rating for a really dirty movie, isn't it?
CBS Attorney: Do you know who J.J. Abrams is?
Prospective Juror: Not really, unless you mean the guy I've heard my husband rant on about. He hates him. Says he's the guy who ruined "Star Trek", but I have no idea what that means.
CBS Attorney [Sighs and turns to judge]: Your honor, please thank the prospective juror for her time and tell her she's excused.

 

[Noname Given]

isn't it also possible the jurors could be required to not read coverage of the subject matter until the trial is complete?

^^^
The Jury 100% guaranteed WILL be instructed not to watch, read, listen to, or discuss any outside media (or other) coverage of the case <--- That's true for ANY case Civil or Criminal. And any Juror that disobeys that Judge order will be dismissed from the Jury and could face further criminal prosecution if the Judge feels the violation warrants it. That aspect of Jury Duty is no joke. When you swear an oath as a Juror you better follow the Judge's instructions or face the consequences and possible contempt of court charges and penalties.