CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
The only thing Alec Peters (or @Loken / @Linner / @RedOmega / whatever his shill username is this week) has demonstrated being very diligent and efficient at researching is his own ass and only then because his head is permanently wedged up inside it 100% of the time. Frankly, it's a contortionist miracle he's able to get his foot stuck in his mouth so goddamn often.
New court filing on AxaMonitor: Axanar, CBS/Paramount spar over 50 years of financial and ownership records the studios call irrelevant and burdensome to gather. Also (finally!) the plaintiffs put it in black & white: the case is about Axanar's commercialization, they explicitly call out the studiowarehousestudio and Donor Store, they reveal Alec Peters spent money on personal expenses, and they reject Axanar's convenient post-lawsuit identity as a "fan film."
BOOM. Done. Glad CBS/Paramount's lawyers are reminding everyone about this little nugget of truth. Pro Tip to you, Peters, you magnificent failure: you keep admitting your crime so much, you're gonna wind up with a guilty verdict.
One more instance of Lord Dipshit demonstrating he knows jack shit about how this industry works.
Last edited:
What's even more hilarious is his apparent belief that by suddenly and recently starting to call CBS/Paramount the "alleged" owners of Star Trek, that's going to magically make it "not so."
bring on the "alleged" podcasts...
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/cbs-paramount-sues-to-stop-axanar.278077/page-388#post-11458044
Last edited:
Indiegogo: "Why are we asking for even more money? Everything is more expensive when you are making a professional film, not a fan film." More or less what they said in their FAQ, still accessible on archive.org.
Great that they are being clear that this is a moneymaking endeavor pretending to be a fan film. There's no way Axanar can weasel out of this.
The studios definitely should keep pushing the future implications of letting one fake fan film create a moneymaking industry. It emphasizes the brazenness of the approach Axanar took to the copyright violation.
It will be interesting to see how they try to claim dilution damages. It might be hard since they stopped the film before it was released. OTOH building a competing studio and producing a competing product are pretty far along on the path to manifesting a dilution of the brand.
Your honor, these defendants were shameless in building a business off of donations for a fan film. It deserves the maximum penalty because of the egregiousness of their intent taking our IP. Not just profit off a ripoff product, but first use the money to build the studio and hire staff! Mess up our relationship with fans by flagrantly exploiting our fan film strategy for the cynical goal of setting up a non-Trek business!
Great that they are being clear that this is a moneymaking endeavor pretending to be a fan film. There's no way Axanar can weasel out of this.
The studios definitely should keep pushing the future implications of letting one fake fan film create a moneymaking industry. It emphasizes the brazenness of the approach Axanar took to the copyright violation.
It will be interesting to see how they try to claim dilution damages. It might be hard since they stopped the film before it was released. OTOH building a competing studio and producing a competing product are pretty far along on the path to manifesting a dilution of the brand.
Your honor, these defendants were shameless in building a business off of donations for a fan film. It deserves the maximum penalty because of the egregiousness of their intent taking our IP. Not just profit off a ripoff product, but first use the money to build the studio and hire staff! Mess up our relationship with fans by flagrantly exploiting our fan film strategy for the cynical goal of setting up a non-Trek business!
Last edited:
I wonder if this motion is a sort of Hail Mary pass.
I look forward to hearing the ruling.
I look forward to hearing the ruling.
Reading the "arguments" made by the counsel for the Defendants makes me wonder if they understand how subpoeanas and Discovery actually work. You can't ask for everything every written and expect the opposing party to supply it without sustainable objection. You also can't make them supply something that doesn't exist.
It's clear Ms. Ranahan either doesn't know how Copyright Infringement law is - or she hopes the Judge doesn't because as L&L said, whether or not CBS/Paramount have enforced Star trek copyright in the past against other Star Trek Fan Film producers is irreverent to the issue of whether infringement has occurred. Copyright law as it stands today ALLOWS selective enforcement. That's currently how the law is written.
Also, Judge's don't take kindly to attorneys who blissfully try to feign complete ignorance of their client's public statements - IE her continued characterization of the 'Axanar Works' as 'just another fan film' - when that definitely wasn't how Alec Peters was describing it prior to the lawsuit - and he's continued to waffle back and forth AFTER W&S and Erin Ranahan signed on to the case. I know many TV procedural court dramas like to make a big dramatic deal about a some 'i' not being dotted, ot 't' crossed <-- And that makes the case; and that the Judge views the attorney as a totally aloof entity only responsible for what his/her client says in court - but in the real world - IF it's out there (and in Alec Peters case, it is) - where the attorney would know what his/her client is saying/doing in public; the Judge will take a dim view of an attorney that continues to pile on the B.S.
^^^
THIS is the main reason ANYONE WITH A BRAIN REPLIES WITH "No comment..."; or "I can't/refuse to comment due to pending litigation.." - as it gives the attorney virtual free reign to say whatever narrative they want where it counts (IE in the courtroom) - and really forces the other side to prove that narrative false.
Both Alec Peters and RMB talk so f*cking much about this (and record themselves doing so) - it makes it impossible for Erin Ranahan to stand in front of the Judge (or file a motion) and credibly feign ignorance as to Alec Peters actual intent or actions with regard to the Axanar Works.
It's clear her strategy is to just try and pile on and pile on - and hope the Judge agrees with her on her request for Star Trek financial and other material dating back 50 years. It would be a BIG burden to produce everything - and I can guarantee no matter what documents she got, she would continue with "This can't be ALL you have from the past 50 years..." If the Judge rules for her in this motion it more then anything else would get C/P back to the settlement talks table.
In the end, I think it's pretty clear W&S know if this case gets to trial, it's over and they loose. They're doing all they can to force C/P back into settlement talks and really cave to whatever Alec Peters is demanding that they refuse to agree to.
It'll be interesting to see what the Judge rules here, but it could be the ruling here that ultimately decides the case.
Also, Judge's don't take kindly to attorneys who blissfully try to feign complete ignorance of their client's public statements - IE her continued characterization of the 'Axanar Works' as 'just another fan film' - when that definitely wasn't how Alec Peters was describing it prior to the lawsuit - and he's continued to waffle back and forth AFTER W&S and Erin Ranahan signed on to the case. I know many TV procedural court dramas like to make a big dramatic deal about a some 'i' not being dotted, ot 't' crossed <-- And that makes the case; and that the Judge views the attorney as a totally aloof entity only responsible for what his/her client says in court - but in the real world - IF it's out there (and in Alec Peters case, it is) - where the attorney would know what his/her client is saying/doing in public; the Judge will take a dim view of an attorney that continues to pile on the B.S.
^^^
THIS is the main reason ANYONE WITH A BRAIN REPLIES WITH "No comment..."; or "I can't/refuse to comment due to pending litigation.." - as it gives the attorney virtual free reign to say whatever narrative they want where it counts (IE in the courtroom) - and really forces the other side to prove that narrative false.
Both Alec Peters and RMB talk so f*cking much about this (and record themselves doing so) - it makes it impossible for Erin Ranahan to stand in front of the Judge (or file a motion) and credibly feign ignorance as to Alec Peters actual intent or actions with regard to the Axanar Works.
It's clear her strategy is to just try and pile on and pile on - and hope the Judge agrees with her on her request for Star Trek financial and other material dating back 50 years. It would be a BIG burden to produce everything - and I can guarantee no matter what documents she got, she would continue with "This can't be ALL you have from the past 50 years..." If the Judge rules for her in this motion it more then anything else would get C/P back to the settlement talks table.
In the end, I think it's pretty clear W&S know if this case gets to trial, it's over and they loose. They're doing all they can to force C/P back into settlement talks and really cave to whatever Alec Peters is demanding that they refuse to agree to.
It'll be interesting to see what the Judge rules here, but it could be the ruling here that ultimately decides the case.
It's pretty sad, but as I was getting ready for work today I thought "Welp, this means @jespah is going to be a busy lady over the weekend"
To give some benefit of the doubt: it could be she is asking for WAY more than she needs to get more than she would've gotten if she just asked for exactly what she needs.
She's fishing.
@jespah can correct me, but, isn't showing the registration of copyright from the Copyright Office demonstration of claim? Is Axanar really hoping there's going to be some slip-up in sale?
Discovery requests often include a LOT of "fishing" items, but this is really beyond the pale. The Defendants are attempting to argue the case via the Discovery process, and are wanting to force the Plaintiffs to spend enormous amounts of time producing material no one will never see and items that will never be relevant.
But to be fair, the studios seem to be making a "violates the collective look and feel of each show" argument, not just strictly certain characters etc.
Will they argue that if they can show ownership over a significant number of elements of each show, that they can say "the show" was violated? I seem to remember they are claiming relief separately for each show as the unit of copyright violated.
Perhaps - but 50 years of financial documents is a laugh.
- Status