CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Professor Zoom]

Why are we even arguing about this? I've not researched it. I don't know anything about the players involved (other than Lucasfilm/Disney of course, and YMMV on that one). I don't happen to follow Star Wars fandom.

I'm not exactly sure what you think the argument is. I was talking about it. It's not like there's a lot of Axanar news--we're circling around and around the same stuff.

That case is different from Axanar; it's based in a completely different area of IP law, with a whole different set of concerns (If you want to really twist things: are they even in the same business for which the trademark was issued? That has significant bearing in trademark law IIRC). Is it interesting for Star Wars fans? Sure. It's just not interesting with respect to Axanar.

Of course the case is different. In some ways. In other ways it's similar--as in someone who doesn't have the right to use IP is using it to raise money. And with the confusion between trademark and copyright that has occurred in this thread, it might be great to have an example of trademark infringement.

If it were a copyright case, then it would be interesting, as there could be parallels -- but it isn't, and there aren't.

Then... I guess... if you don't find it interesting you don't have to reply? I'm not making you reply.
It's interesting to me, and it is a part of the larger question of IP. So....

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Updated this article

So about this client money. I'm trying to make sense of it.
-In the way back beginning the client stated on this board in the announcement thread the production wld be self-funded. $75K
(with me always keeping in mind such amounts will change over time in any production)

-Later in the Tumbler announcement the client states that $50K personal money will be added to the crowdfund.
(cool. I'm down with the shift from $75K down to $50K. No prob)

-In the transparent accounting done until the lawsuit the $50K was not listed as added to the crowdfund. Or anywhere. Logic insists to me the client donating personal funds would never go through the crowdfund platform because the Host fees would reduce the actual amount.

-The transparent accounting shows two salaries, one paid, the other now being deferred because of dissent. (Deferred until when? Is this still then being owed or something?)

-we'llnevertell investors sign on to return, I think it was, $250K build-out costs & take over the whateverit'scalledtoday studio.

-The new outside accounting books are completed.

-The Plaintiffs' documents indicate the books show production funds for con trips and itemized stuff aside from actual production.

-The client donates $20K from auction sale. Later listed as $35K.

-The client states in documented verification personal donated funds of $100K to the production. Later in the day said by client to be $150K

So client donations $150K + $35K = $185K.

Client salary paid = $38K

Bringing client stated donations, by subtracting the $38K salary, to $147K. Right?


Now back to the we'llnevertell 'investors'.

-They sign on to refund $250K build-out when they take over whateverit'scalledtoday studio.

So about this:
-Client indicates he's some part of the we'llnevertell investors when offering the ex-IT guy a percentage of studio in lieu of $$.

-Client states personal donation to the production (after I subtracted salary) is $147K

-The we'llnevertell investors refund $250K


There is no information on even how many investors comprise the we'llnevertell group.
The refund is $250K
Client's donation is $147K

A purely speculative thought based on information client has provided us: $147K is right at half the refund amount. Is this we'llnevertell less a 'group' than perhaps the client only? Or the client and one other? The word group just in and of itself has no real meaning in a long established environment of exaggeration, misinformation, hidden, and misdirect. And I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, legally a single entity can name his/her something with the word group even though there is only one person. (or two)

 

[trynda1701]

...the IP trees giving the fan-pleasure fruit.

AHA! So THAT"S what the "Axanar Kool-Aid TM" is made out of!

 

[carlosp]

====== Court Orders Studios to Turn Over Documents to Defense ======

BREAKING In decision issued just hours after a discovery hearing, Federal Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick ordered CBS and Paramount to give defense attorneys documents the studios had so far resisted turning over in their copyright lawsuit against Axanar. More to come on AxaMonitor.

 

[jespah]

I will be blogging about this on the Semantic Shenanigans blog. Now it's time for me to read.

 

[oswriter]

BREAKING In decision issued just hours after a discovery hearing, Federal Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick ordered CBS and Paramount to give defense attorneys documents the studios had so far resisted turning over in their copyright lawsuit against Axanar. More to come on AxaMonitor.

For those of you who enjoy reading the full-text of discovery rulings:

The Court has read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to "Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs" ("the Motion"), filed September 29, 2016. The Court heard oral argument on October 21, 2016.

Defendants have withdrawn the Motion as to those matters subsumed under "Issue 3." See "Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum, etc.," filed October 7, 2016, at p. 5; see also "Joint Stipulation, etc.," filed September 29, 2016, at pp. 51-58.

On or before October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs shall: (1) serve supplemental responses without objection, and produce all documents responsive to, the following requests (except documents withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege): 14, 35, 36, 37 (limited to the works allegedly infringed and also limited to documents (which may be summary documents) sufficient to show revenues and profitability), 17 (limited to 2009 to the present, 18 (limited to 2009 to the present), 21, 25, and 29; (2) serve supplemental answers without objection to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9; (3) produce for deposition a witness or witnesses prepared to testify as to Deposition Testimony Subject No. 28; (4) serve a privilege log identifying with particularity all documents withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege; and (5) to the extend not otherwise ordered herein, fulfill all discovery-related promises previously made by Plaintiffs to Defendants.

Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied.

Any party seeking review of this Order shall cause the preparation and filing of a transcript of the October 21, 2016 hearing.

Hon. Charles F. Eick, Judge

 

[jespah]

And the blog is up (thank God for short filings!):
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-motion-compel-discovery-ruling/

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Star Trek fans need no reason to argue. They just argue.

This is typical of all fandoms, and it is only a subset of fans who do it. I kind of expect it and take it my stride.

To be honest, the only thing that surprises me and disappoints me about some Trek fans at times is the amount of them that don't seem to agree with or understand Roddenberry's beliefs or concepts, like IDIC.

 

[muCephi]

So about this client money. I'm trying to make sense of it.... A purely speculative thought based on information client has provided us: $147K is right at half the refund amount. Is this we'llnevertell less a 'group' than perhaps the client only? Or the client and one other?

Is this to somehow infer that the 'investment' got transferred in part to Alec as a refund of his donations?

 

[muCephi]

And the blog is up (thank God for short filings!):
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-motion-compel-discovery-ruling/

So how would getting more specifics from the studios about estimated market harm make any difference in appeal over largely statutory damages?

And how would obtaining internal studio documents about fan films and guidelines (which NONE of the fan films saw) demonstrate that Axanar could reasonably expect they could proceed? I mean, all fan film projects presumably had to work with only the communications they got, no matter what the internal studio discussions about future plans. Would it be something like "lets make an example of Axanar to stop the trend, even if Axanar isn't as harmful as we might make it out to be?" I could see a comment like that helping pigs fly.

 

[Noname Given]

And the blog is up (thank God for short filings!):
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-motion-compel-discovery-ruling/

I'll be honest and say I'm surprised the C/P documents concerning both Corporations take on Fan Films in general, and any statements/communication to JJ Abrahams/Justin Lin really do surprise me again because Copyright law holds that the Copyright holder can selectively take legal action as they see fit.

That said, this all still has to be argued in front of Judge Klausner and I really don't see what defense Axanar can mount in the long run that lets them escape statutory damages. By Alec peters OWN admissions many times over they stated they were aware they were violating Star Trek copyright - and further they sold (and in fact continue to sell) unlicensed Star Trek merchandise.
^^^
If that's not proof of financial/market harm to CBS/Paramount, I don't know what is.

Edited to add:
I have to wonder if that Magistrate (who's also going to be involved in the Mandatory Settlement conference) is trying to do what he can here to make a settlement more likely or palatable/desirable to CBS/Paramount?

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Is this to somehow infer that the 'investment' got transferred in part to Alec as a refund of his donations?

I don't 'think' that's what I'm circling to in the speculative mind walk I was doing that is based on no verifiable paper trail available to me to follow the money.. I 'think' what I'm hearing your question to be is something like the client donates the money to the production... then that amount of the investment rights becomes his. Correct me if I'm off base in understanding your question.


I was approaching from a different direction which hinges on possible misrepresentation of client saying the money is donations.

I've followed the documented multiple times that go as far back as that well known (and well documented dialogue from the client) auction that ended with the client's bankruptcy and heavy financial loss for the movie studio... where the client presents by spinning elements of fact. Starting back then and the:
-'We shopped around and chose the best shipping company with the best prices' ---which is was eventually documented to not have the 'best prices' ---and the chosen company turned out to be the client's documented own one employee (I believe is accurate) shipping company set up specifically for that auction.
-The client saying something about a communication failure between his auction company and 'the' shipping company --- which turned out to be [see above]
-The bankruptcy spun as a win, and 'That's the way business is. Just look at donald trump, he's had several bankruptcies.'
Then all points in-between until we get to:
-Happy group picture blurb "What do we do when we get served a lawsuit? We celebrate and eat sushi" which was rewritten to read 'No celebrating. There's no celebrating going on'. ... The picture remains the same, but the words that change.
-Followed by all those posts and tweets covering things like T. Todd leaving for X reason... then he left for Y reason to spin Mr. Todd's revelation.. Gossett left for X reason. Then Y reason to spin Mr. Gossett's revelations. McIntosh left because....
-Spinning questions as Hate.
-The spinning of the not at all transparent Transparent Accounting.
-The pr guy stating on record the email list used for the other company wasn't right while the client kept/keeps saying there was nothing wrong about it & the accounting was poor and poorly kept while the client kept saying it was great and completely transparent. This is an unbelievably long and documented list but you get the gist; saying one thing when actually it is another.


Which brought me back to reading the, as stated by the client, amounts he's 'donated' to the production. Which reminded me of the client offering the ex-IT guy a percentage of the company. And reading the update found me noticing the amount the client states he's donated to the production and the amount the we'llnevertell investors made the deal to reimburse the production for the build-out. And the documented direct legal link of the whateverit'scalledtoday studio to the long time friend of the client.. attorney.

That tied back into all those documented years proclivity of spinning dialogue to fit a current point the client was asserting. And led me to my quandary about what's in this for the we'llnevertell investors. Followed by the question who wants the whateverit'scalledtoday studio the most. Which led me to the client.

Which circled back to that amount the client says he's donated to the production. Where I found myself asking..... what if this is another spin? These high dollar donations. What if instead of donations it is the client's buy-in money as The or A we'llnevertell investor? The money's going to the production anyway, sooo.... what if the client was just doing some more fact spinning by presenting an investor buy-in money as a 'donations' to fit the current point he was asserting because, technically, both end up in the production funds.

So where I 'think' you were asking if I was saying his donations to the production somehow transferred part of the we'llnevertell investment to the client....... I was saying that perhaps the donations are not donations at all, but instead indirectly referencing an investor buy-in that pays that $250K build-out reimbursement to the production. Using the word 'donations' as a beard to continue to hide identity as 'being' The, or A we'llnevertell investor ...... which would allow a person to boast with equivocation about the amount of personal money he's given to the production.

 

[Ion]

Edited to add:
I have to wonder if that Magistrate (who's also going to be involved in the Mandatory Settlement conference) is trying to do what he can here to make a settlement more likely or palatable/desirable to CBS/Paramount?

I was thinking more along the lines of "doing as much as possible to torpedo any possible appeals." If he gives them everything that's even remotely reasonable, then they can't later claim that they should be granted an appeal because he denied them.

Sometimes I wish I could read minds; it would be fascinating to know what these folks are really thinking.

 

[carlosp]

Sorry. I posted this a couple hours back but forgot to put the link here...

Court Orders CBS/Paramount to Turn Over Documents Here's the rundown on the what Axanar won and lost in the hearing on its motion to compel discovery from CBS and Paramount. On AxaMonitor »

 

[oswriter]

From @carlosp's blog:

On Twitter, Axanar producer Alec Peters, a named defendant, called the order “a big win in court today.”

Yes, Donald Trump will win Wyoming and its 3 electoral votes. No, that will not affect the outcome of the election.

 

[jespah]

I realized I had forgotten to add the October 31st Mandatory Settlement Conference to the timeline, so I've updated my post.

It is possible that these 'donations' 'back' to the 'production' are really a kind of percentage transfer. And the consortium becomes, for all intents and purposes, one person. Three guesses as to who that is, and the first two don't count.

@carlosp and I picked up on the same thing, that these documents are all well and good for proving or disproving claims of actual damages, but if the plaintiffs are going after statutory damages, then the whole exercise is a moot one. Documentation about what the plaintiffs wanted to do with other fan films is immaterial, but it's possible @Ion is right on the nose here, that the magistrate was more lenient in an effort to sink any appeals before they even begin.

BTW, selective enforcement of copyright is perfectly fine. And defense doesn't even get to try to spin it as an attack on a minority film maker. AP is a middle-aged white dude. Just in case anyone thought of going there.

 

[urbandefault]

And defense doesn't even get to try to spin it as an attack on a minority film maker. AP is a middle-aged white dude. Just in case anyone thought of going there.

Maybe they'll try for discrimination against the mental-health challenged.

 

[muCephi]

So I guess one thing defense may be fishing for here is any internal studio statement that this or that other fan activity was allowed as "fair use". Would it matter? The defense argument seems to be that Alec had an impression he was ok based on the boundaries others experienced. I suppose if you could find studio discussion that any other use of donor money at scale was ignored as "fair use" by the studios, or that IP uses comparable to Axanar were ignored as "fair use", you might have an argument, but would it interfere with the right to sue who you want, if such info were out there? Probably it would at least be a PR problem. And the scale of Axanar's "fully professional Trek" objectives might make comparability hard.

Wrt/ the Alec donations possibly facilitating the 'investor group' process, where those donations ended up, whether they were converted into studio value ownership transferred to Alec, etc, if anything like that happened I should think the donors would care. Certainly the impression left now is that out of pocket staff donations would have been promptly spent on the production (otherwise, why would a paid staff member donate?). And that they were donations, in the normal sense of the word.

And I wouldn't doubt that he might have made the donations sincerely to cover expenses, since he claimed publicly he made quote unquote donations. Any subsequent reframing of donations into equity or a loan repayment, however, would be skeezy at best, and illegal if claimed as a writeoff.

It would in effect be saying, "I pooled donations with other donors to pay for the studio, but if we have to sell the studio as an improper use of donor money, I take priority over all other donors in the reclaimed investment, and my donations are refunded by being converted to equity in the studio, but yours are returned to the Axanar operating budget".

 

[Sgt_G]

The defense argument seems to be that Alec had an impression he was ok based on the boundaries others experienced.

Except messages posted on Trek-BBS prove that he knew exactly where those boundaries are, and that he completely ignored them as he drove right thru them and kept on going.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Except messages posted on Trek-BBS prove that he knew exactly where those boundaries are, and that he completely ignored them as he drove right thru them and kept on going.

I wonder if he's tried to delete them, and I wonder if CBS' lawyers have made use of our search function.