I keep seeing this, but who is this guy??
Neil
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I still don't get the joke. Please explain. 10-Q
Sounds like nearly every lawyer I've hired.
After reading that - it's pretty clear the type of Lawyer Ranahan is: A Civil lawyer who uses the old tactic of:
"Either settle; or I'm going to bury you in paperwork and motions until the end of time; and we'll appeal this whole thing to the hilt!"
And yes, against smaller companies - where time/cost/quick resolution of a legal situation is a factor and concern, that often works. But the flip side is - it DOES piss off Judges whom realize the only reason they're having to wade through and rule on all this is that the side making these motions KNOWS FULL WELL how weak their case is; and they DESPERATELY want a favorable settlement.
At this point it's pretty clear CBS/Paramount have decided to stay in this for the long haul; and with moves like this W&S and Erin Ranahan are doing themselves no favors. Judges have long memories and do talk among themselves and lawyers and firms DO get reputations based on their conduct that ideally shouldn't but in fact does sometimes slightly color how a Judge may treat their motions in Trial (because Judges are human too - and most just want you to get strait to the point - argue the FACTS of your case - let them adjudicate - and then get on to their next case.)
Yes, some legal maneuvering is expected, but they also expect it to be relevant, and they do not care for lawyers who overly litigate every aspect with motion after motion (and that's clearly what Ms. Ranahan is doing here); or who 'lay it on thick' with regard to trying to twist the legal interpretation of something by cherry picking and attributing decisions from other cases out of content on a huge scale <-- which is also what W&S are doing here. Judge's are human and they are allowed to apply common sense in their deliberations of a case.
And as Jespah basically said in her blog, with regard to Appellate court Judges; if Ms. Ranahan thinks shes going to win points with them if/when this all goes to appeal, she's crazy. There's no Judge who enjoys wading through piles of unnecessary motion verbiage that just drags something out for the sake of dragging it out (IE they too realize one side was REALLY TRYING to get the other back to the Settlement table with a more favorable offer.)
Seriously - CBS/Paramount do have a pretty upfront - cut and dry case here; PLUS a group of Defendants who just will not shut up and continue to dig a deeper hole for themselves with every public statement, blog, KS update, Indegogo update, tweet or Facebook post they make.
It's scary that a law firm that supposedly deals in Copyright cases, has a lawyer (and partner) who thinks displaying her ignorance (IE asking for documents relating to C/P treatment and decisions not to persue legal action against other fan film makers - when one of the main tenants of current copyright law is the copyright holder can selectively decide who they'll go after with no prejudice to that case) of BASIC copyright law will put her, or her firm in a good light.
Most good lawyers learn to 'read' their Judge after seeing how he rules on a few pre-trial motions and they then tailor their arguments accordingly going forward. Erin Ranahan should have realized after her MTD was denied what kind of Judge she's dealing with; and yeas, even though this motion is going before a different Magistrate; in the end, it's still ALL going to be in front of Judge Klausner - and I have a feeling it's not going to improve any opinion he has regarding Erin Ranahan as a attorney.
Time will tell - but IMO - it's looking like it's going to be one big train wreck for Alec Peters and Axanar; and instead of 'getting away' with his studio intact to some degree; I think rather he'll be living out of a cardboard box when all is said and done.
Time will tell.
Last edited:
Maybe it won't be until a motion to dismiss, but the Judge will get a word in. And that word may be "denied, denied, denied...".
Is there a date around when the judge will rule on this new motion?
They did put a lot into and made a lot of what made them what they are at all and into what made them successful.
They also contributed a lot to the products and certainly contributed to their success.
I don't see how it's giving away something, if the fan maker isn't going to monetarily profit, to tolerate a cheap imitation or especially sequel of something when it's old and when the corporation isn't expecting or planning to make its own version.
Again it's fine, possibly for the better, that the corporation has the legal right to still stop such a production but that doesn't mean they should.
Making, let alone profiting (even through donations) from a direct knockoff/competitor is different from using concepts for something clearly different and derived; Axanar indeed seems too much like competition given the setting of the next series. Although it still does seem embarrassing to the corporation if it thinks something made with less than 1/100th the budget and presumably much lesser talent would divert people away from the official product.
I would hope they would get credit and fans wouldn't like it if they didn't. Not crediting, as happened, Bill Finger for writing Batman stories or, initially, Steve Ditko for plotting/co-plotting Spider-Man stories were pretty jerky though legal things to do.
That may be the cause they're suing for in court, but I doubt it's the real reason they decided to sue in the first place. Were I the person in charge of dealing with this, and in spite of my more liberal view of the ethics of fan films, I'd still have sued the pants off them. In a very real way, CBS and Paramount are protecting the fans from a con artist.
It's just easier to deal with in a civil court than in a criminal one. Lower standard of proof.
Even if the film had been made, the mere fact that Peters was paying himself and his cohorts out of those donations is cause for action -- not for lost profits to the plaintiffs, but because the plaintiffs shouldn't want anyone taking advantage of their loyal fans.
JMHO.
Never mind that Peters was literally lining his pockets with money raised for the purpose of making the film which will now likely never be made. Money which would never have found its way into his scumbag hands had he not raised it with the power of the name STAR TREK (a name he has never, currently, nor will ever own) behind it.
Well, you can't be sure that the owner is not going to go back to something old. Current series, case in point. They will doubtless forward reference canon they established. I doubt they would want to reference a fan production, but if fan productions are successful filling in the story, it might pose a problem for the owners both legally and wrt/ the fans. Would the studio have to pay licensing fees to the fan production for their 'original' work? That's just an example.
IANAL, but that said, I think these ideas (which seem to be brought up a lot in Axanar fan arguments I have seen, no reflection on your argument, which could be going elsewhere ultimately) are more wishful thinking on their part than clear understanding of where the law draws the lines. Copyright also protects against marketing of "derivative works" without licenses. It isn't just about literal copying. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law . I don't think it enshrines anything about whether the entity who uses the protected work has the potential to be a true competitor or is just a fan, except in evaluating the extent of some of the damages.
The attorneys here would have to address where the borders are around "fair use" and "transformative" changes. Your "clearly different" could mean a lot of things. But just about all of what fan films do is, I think, on the copyright protected side of the line. Fair use, for example, has a pretty explicit list of qualifying forms like documentary (such as "making of Trek") but, I suspect, NOT "mocumentary" (an extended fiction atop the original fiction). See above link re fair use.
Axanar has been selling the "competitive" distraction since the start. At best, this may create in fans a sentiment of resentment towards studios and solidarity among donors wrt/ Axanar. But the law being violated is not based on whether competition exists or its quality, rather on whether taking of value is occurring. Thus, Axanar selling "they are afraid of competition" is IMO a willful dishonest distraction from Axanar having to talk about the *actual* violations with donors. The court won't let this argument fly, and I think one can see that Axanar's attorneys are not trying to make the argument. It is solely sand in the eyes of donors and press.
It kinda looks like the main arguments are going to be around "fair use", with a side portion of "the copyrights are questionable". But I tend to agree with others who have called this whole defense a sandbagging to try to extract a less punitive settlement. Its called "excessive motion practice", I believe. W&S may have started out thinking they could argue some points of law, but eventually they had to see they were aboard a Mad Max world flaming assemblage of parts on its way down. IMO.
And I also am gathering the impression that the distractions put forward to donors serve the purpose of delaying and defeating any class action lawsuit. Whether this indicates an intentional effort, I can't say. But ask yourself.. if Dr. McCoy were running Axanar, would he be wasting donors' time with years of excuses about patches, false claims of running a nonprofit, distractions about things like "competition", etc? There is a lot of Ferengi in the air around Axanar, IMO.
My point was not "certainly they should get credit", but that their compensation is money/points, and perhaps credit. Not sublicenses. One could argue that they "should" have a sublicense to resell the IP, but that's not what their contract says or what the law requires. Actors can't take a successful character out the door with them and shop it around studios who may want to make a sequel or spinoff.
Last edited:
Why? That's exactly what the Axanar gang and their more vocal fans have been saying since the lawsuit was filed.
That joke never gets old!
Neil
I don't know, the Kelvin timeline movies have earned their fans, including some who also like the classic stuff. I'm a prime timeline-only myself, and I still loved Beyond (since it was a good Trek movie that captured the spirit of the original). While you can find critics of the new movies and fans that want nothing to do with them (I still do not like Abrams' Star Trek movies at all), I have never noticed any major loss of audience, much less the Axanar project stealing any thunder (in fact, I think it's more famous for the lawsuit than anything else, and seems to have lost a lot of sympathy, if anything).
Agreed. The Axanar folks might have made a good film with Mr. Gossett welcomed and a flexible management willing to let professionals drastically rework the story and the business strategy. They certainly had the money and professional interest. But all this it-wasnt-even-near-filming self importance from the fans of Axanar is like a sheet of bubble wrap saying it could have stolen the thunder of a shuttle launch.
- Status