CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Did your co-worker donate to Prelude or the full film? I seem to recall Alec or Terry hiding behind the logic that since Prelude was actually made, they wouldn't be refunding that money at all?
I know there have been a few people on the CBS v. Axanar FB group who have joined after being banned as "haters" on the Axanar Fan Group but who have also claimed Peters gave them their money back.
I know there have been a few people on the CBS v. Axanar FB group who have joined after being banned as "haters" on the Axanar Fan Group but who have also claimed Peters gave them their money back.
<sudden intake of breath> I did NOT see that coming.
Last edited:
I'd like to know how they became "cash strapped". I don't remember the initial estimates for Prelude/Axanar, but it was way WAY less than 1.3 million. I know they upgraded everything, carpet included, but they were also "just weeks away from filming" a few short months ago.
How do you go from wildly exceeding your target donations and being ready to film to being cash strapped in three months?
How do you go from wildly exceeding your target donations and being ready to film to being cash strapped in three months?
I don't know, but maybe Lord Alec should read the 'Panama Papers'.........(or maybe he already has....)
Sushi ain't cheap. It probably isn't cheap to keep Kingsbury from going to the other side, either.
Now now, Bill... Lets not talk ill of Diana now... We simply couldn't have that now, could we?
Not talking ill of Ms. Kingsbury. It is actually a slam at Peters for trying to keep the genie of information in the bottle.
The second Kickstarter, so, the full film. Then again, they've managed to spend all that cash.
I know - just waited to flip the tables as normally people have a go at me for it
Here is a ss of AP as GarthofIzar on Reddit declaring anyone that donated can get a refund by asking. I don't know if AP is honoring his word but it wouldn't hurt to try.
Yes, people have
If the in-courtroom play is fair use, which seems likely, then it seems to me, though IANAL, that the motion to dismiss cannot undermine the requisite affirmative defense strategy that will be employed or prejudice the judge against such a strategy.
-----
FWIW, the 9th Circuit recently schooled Universal MG (lenz v UMG) on a common misconception on fair use and affirmative defense: that fair use is "an infringement, excused." According their read of the law, there are three entities that can authorize the use of a copyrighted work: the owners, the owners agents, and the law. They explicitly reiterated that fair use is a "right" and a use "authorized by the law." I read the amended ruling at the eff.org site here ( IV B is where the fair use discussion occurs)
Someone upthread used the analogy of kids in your yard, Well, in my state, that 30 inch wide strip of concrete that bisects my yard is an assessed part of my property, I pay taxes on its square footage and yet I can't restrict the access to it and the kids run up and down and play on the fair use sidewalk all day long.
That is an interesting tidbit. So the kids could conceivably draw some chalk hopscotch squares and play, or open a Kool Aid® stand (or coffee bar), or even film some kiddie-like play and behavior, and maybe fund it from the coffee and Kool Aid® proceeds.
No refunds.
Seriously, I did not know that about sidewalks...
No refunds.
Seriously, I did not know that about sidewalks...
Holy crap, I just realized I haven't been around here for a few weeks owing to real/life/work. But, like Beetlejuice, if you say my name I reappear, Luckily I also answer to "someone upthread".
(And, no, it is not in the least a bit scary that "upthread" - when I was last active - was 40 or 50 pages ago. You folk really keep things moving. I've read Jespah's blog and the other writing around the latest motion to dismiss (such as Axamonitor) and it's all really good stuff. To @jespah and @carlosp you listen.)
I will put on my "legal nerd" hat (it sits nicely atop my "nerd in general" hat) and say that "schooled" and "common misconception" are overly strong terms, given that that opinion - while good law in the 9th Circuit - is considered so far to be somewhat of an "outlier", and generated a lot of criticism (some scholarly and some not-so) about its alleged misinterpretation of "fair use" as a "right" and the Supreme Court cases upon which it relied to justify that reading. See, e.g., "A Takedown of Common Sense" (" it takes little more than a Google search — let alone the legal research one should expect of federal judges and their clerks — to realize that the court is woefully, and utterly, incorrect"); "Let's Not Go Crazy" ("The problem here is the Supreme Court quote does not really support the point for which it is being cited. In fact, ten years later, the Supreme Court plainly stated just the opposite.")
Back into my burrow.
M
Last edited:
- Status