Why are you sorry about that? Is wasn't Axanar brand coffee, was it??
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
This is an excerpt from a speculative piece I wrote for the Facebook group last week that addresses your question:
I believe that after the dismissal is denied, Peters will announce that production of Axanar is going to move forward as a reimagined project, with a script that looks much more like Prelude, which Ranahan kept re-branding as a Mockumentary, with Axanar now looking like "Star Trek as you've never seen it before," as quite specifically described in the joint statement released this week.
The delay won Axanar four months to re-tool itself into something that will fit what Ranahan describes in the joint statement as a defensible project under the terms of Fair Use, especially describing it as "transformative."
This is key because what I think she's trying to do is change the legal landscape on which this case will be fought. Transformative fair use isn't intended to be used for projects that require permission from the copyright holder. It grants people the ability to copy from creators' work so long as the end result is transformative.
By redefining the terms of the case, CBS/Paramount's arguments about whether Axanar is copying aren't as salient because of course a transformative work is going to copy; it's just doing it in a way that is allowable under the law. You can stipulate to the copying and focus all your legal efforts at transforming transformativeness, while the "did you copy?" arguments fall to the wayside.
This explains Winston & Strawn's continuing interest in the case when all others characterize it as a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.
The thing is, a loss for Axanar is still a win for Winston. If they're able to carve out new clarity about fair use, it's a win. If they're able to get better information about how to define transformativeness, it's a win. If they're able to raise their profile in the legal community, it's a win. If they're able to publicly portray themselves as a firm willing to stand up for the little guy against corporate overlords, it's a win. Frankly, a non-disclosure settlement is the least appealing outcome for Winston & Strawn.
Are we just repeating posts now? Didn't you already share that here, Carlos?
Maybe I'm just stupid, but having read the definition of "transformative" three or four times and looking at examples form court cases, I still can't wrap my brain around the word "transformative". The only one that makes sense to me was Google making thumbnail images from web pages to give users a visual reference of the link they might click on.
Let's pretend there is some way Axanar can be done within that guideline, and NOT as a straight-up parody, what exactly might it look like???
Let's pretend there is some way Axanar can be done within that guideline, and NOT as a straight-up parody, what exactly might it look like???
We have published a story on Valkyrie Studios ...
http://1701news.com/node/1193/has-axanar-soundstage-rebranded-valkyrie-studios.html
http://1701news.com/node/1193/has-axanar-soundstage-rebranded-valkyrie-studios.html
Does this mean that Ranahan will get writer credit?
The basic example you tend to be given is somone taking say, a car part, and then weld it together with a bunch of other crap to make an art piece. You don't just transform what it looks like, you've literally changed its use.
'Transformative' is a broad defence for stolen goods, not just IP. Usually it's used if you're the end recipient of stolen goods, but not the one who actually stole it in the first place. If you can prove its been transformed, usually you can keep whatever the stolen thing is. The logic is that you literally can't return the stolen item, because it no longer exists.
IP law probably has its own particulars, but that's the broad explanation.
So let me see if I have this right.
The news of fhe rebrand and rental came out making some backers and others concerned about how the money is being used.
On that backdrop instead of addressing the issue Alec posts a blog post about how to raise money via crowdfunding and how he did it better the stc?
Is that about right?
The news of fhe rebrand and rental came out making some backers and others concerned about how the money is being used.
On that backdrop instead of addressing the issue Alec posts a blog post about how to raise money via crowdfunding and how he did it better the stc?
Is that about right?
That's a bit of a cynical framing of the definition.
Transformative also covers use in criticism or commentary.
I'm not sure he cares about making Axanar in any fashion. There's never going to be a class-action donor lawsuit, and hiring W&S to defend Axanar gives him a bit of ammo to say he at least tried to move forward with Axanar, but darn that big, bad CBS...
I think I shared only a link to that post earlier. This excerpt was responsive to OP's specific question.
You're not the only one who wishes transformativeness was better defined. So does much of the legal community. That's exactly why Winston took this case. They want to be a law firm that, via Axanar, brought new clarity to fair use and the meaning of transformativeness.
Last edited:
I still think it's just as irresponsible now as I did the first time you posted this. There is nothing outside of a "Voyager Conspiracy" episode that suggests that Peters will do this, or if he does, that it would even make sense. Sure, Peters doesn't make sense many times, but this would really be pretty wild — especially since it wouldn't affect his case one iota.
It doesn't matter what he does POST-lawsuit, what matters is what he did leading up to fundraising, during fundraising, and the months leading up to the lawsuit. That's what will be pulled in discovery.
Michael, I know we disagree about this but most of what I speculate on is backed by facts:
- We know Axanar is retooling their script in light of the lawsuit. Ranahan said so in both motions to dismiss and in the joint statement.
- We know that the retooled script is something Ranahan plans to defend as transformative under the fair use provisions of copyright law. She said so in the joint statement.
- We know that Ranahan believes Prelude (a "Mockumentary") is in the clear vis a vis fair use, and deserves its own fair use analysis separate from Axanar. She intimates that in the motion to dismiss and the joint statement.
- We know that fair use has always been a plank of the defense strategy, and the opportunity to make new law in that area was a big draw to Winston in taking the case pro bono. Ranahan said so as far back as January in an interview; both dismissal motions and the joint statement reinforce that.
- If you follow Ranahan's logic regarding the fair use status of Prelude, then the so-called infringement and financial activity extending back that far means the jury should consider that activity in light of the fact that it was fair use back then. As I've stated before, I don't believe this, but this is the logic at play under Ranahan's theory of the case.
- As to what Peters may or may not do, we know he plans on announcing something about the production moving forward. He said so in his Indiegogo announcement last week and reiterated it in his blog post this week.
The only remaining pure speculation is whether Peters plans on re-starting active crowdfunding. He may intend to — hence his posting his announcement via an Indiegogo update — but it's an open question whether Indiegogo or any other crowdfunding platform would touch Axanar given the ongoing litigation. Is this what you're categorizing as irresponsible, or is there more?
Its an interesting theory, but I think the judge has got W&S's number wrt/ trying to shift the grounds away from the simple facts of what Axanar did leading up to the lawsuit, and he seems to have pulled the plug on every attempt to make it about something else. He even gave validity to the "final" script as something to review for comparability, in effect rejecting the concept that the work still can be "born" in the future.
I think for all practical purposes the "Axanar is transformative because see we changed it" argument can't be created anymore. This doesn't speak to your prediction about their *choice of strategy*. You may be totally right about what they were hoping to do. *That* would an entertaining train wreck
A fail to see how a movie about a spaceship and a war with the klimgons could in any way be a reanwformative version of Star Trek. Sounds exactly like Star Trek as it is.
Indeed. We will have a lot more facts on this matter around May 26 when the defense's Answer to the legal complaint is (finally!) due.Its an interesting theory, but I think the judge has got W&S's number wrt/ trying to shift the grounds away from the simple facts of what Axanar did leading up to the lawsuit, and he seems to have pulled the plug on every attempt to make it about something else. He even gave validity to the "final" script as something to review for comparability, in effect rejecting the concept that the work still can be "born" in the future.
I think for all practical purposes the "Axanar is transformative because see we changed it" argument can't be created anymore. This doesn't speak to your prediction about their *choice of strategy*. You may be totally right about what they were hoping to do. *That* would an entertaining train wreck
Also, remember that the judge won't be ruling on a lot of this. The jury will be the ones determining whether infringement happened and/or whether this constitutes fair use. The judge will frame the legal questions for the jury, and the battle between the plaintiffs and the defense on those points will be fun to watch.
If it gets to trial, in a civil case in the US, is the public able to view the trial in progress, i.e. is there a public gallery?
- Status