That was beautiful. Shades of "The Giving Tree" in there too.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
That was beautiful. Shades of "The Giving Tree" in there too.
Case in point:
Roddenberry with a limited budget: Season 1 of TOS
Roddenberry without a limited budget: Season 1 of TNG
I would take a lifetime of post-guideline sub-par fan films if it meant that someone like Alec Peters would no longer be allowed to rip off a entire fan community.
Fortunately, I don't think I will have to endure a lifetime of sub-par fan films. I imagine that there will be more than a few folks who make some spectacular stuff that adheres to the new guidelines.
Fortunately, I don't think I will have to endure a lifetime of sub-par fan films. I imagine that there will be more than a few folks who make some spectacular stuff that adheres to the new guidelines.
And you know this shows how much of a risk the studios have taken... good story concepts that naturally could be 'next' in their series could routinely be anticipated by fan films with faster turnaround. I know, wish for such a scale. But really, even though the studios essentially own the fan film ideas, how would this play out? Backstories of existing characters could get filled in without it being managed by the studios the way books are. A mystery in someone's behavior could be spoiled.
Video makes it more impactful than fanfic.
Do I misunderstand something? Are fan films required to stay away from characters and stories the studios create?
So long as you don't make Capt. Kirk into a child molester.
Good Lawyers AREN'T verbose (in spoken or written word) because that's the best way to piss off a Judge. When a Judge is reading a motion or Brief, they want it short and to the point.Nah, it was only 35 sentences / 496 words. I thought a lawyer could be much more verbose.
In a pending Ninth Circuit case, a judge dissented from his colleagues' decision to allow a California prosecutor to file a brief in excess of the 14,000-word limit normally afforded to parties. The judge said he would simply stop reading the brief at 14,000 words, and if the state wanted him to consider any arguments in the remaining 14 pages, it should file a new brief under the word count.
Since the Ninth Circuit may eventually decide the Axanar litigation, I wonder if we'll see a second Reason video where LFIM complains about how the Ninth Circuit's word limit restricts his creativitiy and free expression...
Saw this random post and it took me a little bit, but now I agree with the poster...........Lord Alec resembles the guy on the left much more than he does His Excellency, Lord Garth........
and Lord Garth probably thinks the opposing legal firm is really nothing more than
I was just wondering how long the solicitors are likely to carry on being 'pro bono'? Can they at some point say, for example, this client is a loony and we're going to get nothing out of this but negativity so now either start paying some fees or we walk? Can they do that?
I believe it would depend on the terms of the contract they signed at engagement. So it could be anything.
Separately, I understand attorneys can under certain limited conditions petition a judge to be relieved of representing a client.
@muCephi and @OtherGene
Winston & Strawn may be seeking to get some cachet with the nerd crowd. I don't know. Not necessarily to defend more fan films, but if they look nerd-friendly, they might feel it will translate into startup business. If they represent a tiny startup which turns into the next Instagram, then it's all worth it. And if it's a bunch of tiny startups which go nowhere, it's still nerd/developer cred and it may be artist and inventor cred. If their nerd-friendliness pays in the inventions realm, then what happens if they are representing the inventor of the next Segway? I'm sure most of us think the Segway is kinda dumb, but it's still a successful invention. And there are of course a lot of far less glamorous inventions out there which make bank. Consider the situation for someone who invents something which increases gas mileage by 20%, or somehow adds 5% efficiency to public transportation so you get fewer empty buses? Those aren't really splashy headliners, but they would make a ton of money.
As for changing their tune, some of that depends on whatever contract they signed with LFIM. If they are smart about these things, then they found some way to cap it. They are required to provide a zealous defense, but they are not required to bankrupt the firm in the process. So it might be on the procedural end of things, e. g. they won't handle an appeal. Or they could conceivably farm the case out to another firm for trial - and that second firm would not be bound by anything agreed upon by W & S.
Winston & Strawn may be seeking to get some cachet with the nerd crowd. I don't know. Not necessarily to defend more fan films, but if they look nerd-friendly, they might feel it will translate into startup business. If they represent a tiny startup which turns into the next Instagram, then it's all worth it. And if it's a bunch of tiny startups which go nowhere, it's still nerd/developer cred and it may be artist and inventor cred. If their nerd-friendliness pays in the inventions realm, then what happens if they are representing the inventor of the next Segway? I'm sure most of us think the Segway is kinda dumb, but it's still a successful invention. And there are of course a lot of far less glamorous inventions out there which make bank. Consider the situation for someone who invents something which increases gas mileage by 20%, or somehow adds 5% efficiency to public transportation so you get fewer empty buses? Those aren't really splashy headliners, but they would make a ton of money.
As for changing their tune, some of that depends on whatever contract they signed with LFIM. If they are smart about these things, then they found some way to cap it. They are required to provide a zealous defense, but they are not required to bankrupt the firm in the process. So it might be on the procedural end of things, e. g. they won't handle an appeal. Or they could conceivably farm the case out to another firm for trial - and that second firm would not be bound by anything agreed upon by W & S.
Indeed, we have no idea what the terms between W&S and LFIM are. He may say it's a "pro bono" deal, but as with all matters related to finances and this case, I take nothing at face value.
It's too bad the W&S team will be bound by Lawyer - Client confidentiality after the case is concluded because at this point they probably have some interesting stories/anecdotes about Alec Peters/Axanar as a client (IE what was the settlement offers from C/P he passed on ) - that the public (and backers) will never hear.
Very insightful comments, @carlosp. Very nice! Thank you.
It was 7 of the finest minutes in the Doctor Who canon. Not only was it well done, it gave the 8th Doctor a fitting send-off, and made all of the Big Finish audio plays featuring him canon.
7 fine minutes indeed
Robert Meyer Burnett boasted in July that Prelude to Axanar was the most successful Star Trek fan film “by any metric.” Last night, after tweeting that nobody cared about Prelude's viewer numbers, he refused to lay claim to any particular metric when confronted with Horizon‘s rapid growth by comparison. Read the update on AxaMonitor »
*At this point*, I think viewership numbers and spurious popularity claims are damn near irrelevant. Axanar and its principals have been discredited seven ways from Sunday and its been proven time and again by different sources the only people still parroting Lord Alec's claims are his brain dead sycophants (while conversely, those able to think objectively know otherwise or don't care at all)
- Status