Not sure to be honest, been to busy with pre-production to look into it. Not really a priority for me right now.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Not sure to be honest, been to busy with pre-production to look into it. Not really a priority for me right now.
Does this mean that until or unless CBS/P file for an injunction, LFIM could actually start (or resume) filming before the trial date?
Yes, but as the judge notes, they do so at their peril as they are on notice that C/P views the work as infringing and could lead to further liability.
I still wouldn't put it past them to go for it, however.
M
I replied on the Axanar Blog you linked to with:
Yes, I know said comment will never survive the Axanar site moderation (IE it'll be waiting in moderation forever); but I'm sure a certain person involved with Axanar will see it.
[Update: Yep - someone with Axanar saw it - it's no longer awaiting Moderation, it's been deleted - BIG surprise there...
]Sure they could- but that would just make C/P's case for 'financial damages' just that much easier; and ensure a HUGE financial penalty (probably in both statutory and punitive damages). Also, GOOD LUCK finding ANY legitimate actor (former Star Trek actor or otherwise) with a name in Hollywood willing to now be a part of a project being openly and very publically sued for Copyright infringement.Does this mean that until or unless CBS/P file for an injunction, LFIM could actually start (or resume) filming before the trial date?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VNVVSUHNySnEtSjQ/view
Last edited:
Just...to Peters and all the Axanar supporters who claimed "no profit! no profit!" I give you this darling quote that says nothing new, but finally puts to rest what the pro-CBS/P side (and anyone with knowledge of IP copyright) has been saying all along:
"Although it is unclear whether defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar works, realizing a profit is irrelevant to this analysis,"
Mic drop.
"Although it is unclear whether defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar works, realizing a profit is irrelevant to this analysis,"
Mic drop.
According to Axanar's statement to me, they have 14 days to now answer the complaint with their defense.
At least I wasn't the only nerd that noticed that.
Haha! I hope not.
It's not grounds for appeal. It's extremely immaterial to the overall ruling.
Does this mean that until or unless CBS/P file for an injunction, LFIM could actually start (or resume) filming before the trial date?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VNVVSUHNySnEtSjQ/view
They could, but I doubt they would — unless they think that going a completely different route outside of Star Trek will somehow disrupt the process.
But considering the fact that the judge referred to a previous script as "locked," I don't think that would be a wise course of action — unless they are just looking to burn money so that CBS and Paramount can't collect it.
Beyond
The rim of the star-light
My fan film
Is wand'ring in star-flight
I know
They'll find in star-clustered reaches
Law,
Strange law a fed'ral judge teaches.
I know
Their journey ends never
Their star trek
Will go on forever.
But tell them
While they wander their starry sea
Remember, remember fees.
The rim of the star-light
My fan film
Is wand'ring in star-flight
I know
They'll find in star-clustered reaches
Law,
Strange law a fed'ral judge teaches.
I know
Their journey ends never
Their star trek
Will go on forever.
But tell them
While they wander their starry sea
Remember, remember fees.
But since the judge said they're not restrained, AP could start fundraising again, right? Hypothetically, of course.
Yes, such as the typo "de minimus" instead of de minimis in the decision. As a legal proofreader, I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time that happened. Proofreading tip: always take a good look at the word public--don't let your eye fly over it without checking that the l did not drop out, as is its habit.
Last edited:
Yes, if you read fully and completely what I posted, that's in fact what I said - it's not a grounds for appeal.
I know. But there was no need to even suggest it. There is no grounds for appeal. At all.
Is that parody, or transformitive?
Reading through the Order gave me the impression that Klausner was Not Impressed.
Question for the legal folk here: is this the kind of document that the judge might have his staff write up and then sign? Or is it likely that he wrote this in its entirety? My guess is the latter, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Klausner has been previously painted as something of a humorless hard-ass. The LLAP jab suggests that while he may be a stickler for details, he does have a sense of humor. Doubt that really impacts the case, but it shows that appearances can be deceiving.
What I think Axanar should be most worried about, however, is that the judge could so easily slip in a blatantly obvious Vulcan reference that I don't believe was ever mentioned anywhere in previous documents for this case. In my eyes, it's a subtle statement that yes, he knows Star Trek, and arguing about pointed ears isn't going to be nearly enough to prevail.
Ranahan has her work cut out for her.
Good luck.
Question for the legal folk here: is this the kind of document that the judge might have his staff write up and then sign? Or is it likely that he wrote this in its entirety? My guess is the latter, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Klausner has been previously painted as something of a humorless hard-ass. The LLAP jab suggests that while he may be a stickler for details, he does have a sense of humor. Doubt that really impacts the case, but it shows that appearances can be deceiving.
What I think Axanar should be most worried about, however, is that the judge could so easily slip in a blatantly obvious Vulcan reference that I don't believe was ever mentioned anywhere in previous documents for this case. In my eyes, it's a subtle statement that yes, he knows Star Trek, and arguing about pointed ears isn't going to be nearly enough to prevail.
Ranahan has her work cut out for her.
Good luck.
Makes you wonder if W&S's management will pull Erin off the case and walk away from it. You would think at some point W&S may worry about thir reputation since this thing is looking like it will go south for them.
Unless she's well liked (or well connected) at the firm, I would honestly by worried about her future employment there.
Losing the case is one thing; that happens, and it's part of the job.
Allowing the defendant to publish snaps of you together as though you're friends is dangerous to the firm's reputation if the client ends up outed as a scumbag of the highest order, which is always a real possibility. That's not good.
A lawyer tweeting about the case? Even as obliquely as she did? That strikes me as the job of the firm's PR people, not a lawyer. If I were in charge over there, I would be pretty pissed off. I think it's a fair assumption that the tweet disappeared because her bosses told her to remove it.
Most businesses with far less to lose don't like their peons tweeting about business-related things without approval from far higher up the chain.
- Status