CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Smoked Salmon]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict it will be AP and W/S* who are not smiling.

*Whatever the reason W/S took the case, lawyers are a competitive lot. They hate losing.

Every lawyer hates losing, but getting your name on a big case is good for profile. I'm running a case through the (UK) Court of Appeal right now pro bono for exactly this reason. My client is desperate, I think we are legally correct in our argument, but I think the chances of victory are no more than 50/50 because of recent judgments. Nonetheless you get your name in the law reports and that's good for attracting business even if ultimately you're not successful.

 

[JD]

The Trek part would be a parody and thus is fair use. The Dr. Seuss side, however, is a direct copy of their style and thus would not be a parody (even if Seuss himself made parodies of other things) and therefore not fair use.

I understand now, thanks.

I don't see how you can copywrite a "writing style" or "art style".... that seems preposterous to me.


A lot of animated shows have done Seuss parodies in that style, as well.

I think those shows usually combined their style with the Seuss style, so it sounds like that would probably be OK.

I see AxaMonitor was given honorable mention in the latest Fan Film Factor blog.

Gah, I barely made it half way through that post before I had to give up. He's making a huge deal out of all of this, but it seems to me that it's just standard legal shenanigans. I definitely wouldn't consider any of it a BOMBSHELL!!!!!

 

[Ion]

That response from Ranahan left my head spinning. Where L&L tend to leave me with the impression of measured responses (so far), W&S are downright combative.

The basic gist of the response was, "They only filed it to make us look bad!"

Of course, that completely ignores where L&L are now in possession of a bunch of (apparently highly relevant) emails that the defendants didn't give them. I would think that such a blatant failure to produce would be a fairly good reason to involve the court directly, as it would make L&L wonder just what else the defendants withheld.

It does leave me with an interesting question, though.

Ranahan (or whoever wrote the response) goes on about this folder that they "did not collect from Mr. Peters", and thus "did not 'withhold' them". So who's actually responsible for that? Is the attorney on the hook for producing that folder if they know it exists but don't "collect" it? Or is the defendant on the hook because he told them it's all privileged and thus irrelevant?

Inquiring minds want to know.

He's making a huge deal out of all of this, but it seems to me that it's just standard legal shenanigans.

Very much this.

 

[urbandefault]

I understand now, thanks.

I think those shows usually combined their style with the Seuss style, so it sounds like that would probably be OK.

Gah, I barely made it half way through that post before I had to give up. He's making a huge deal out of all of this, but it seems to me that it's just standard legal shenanigans. I definitely wouldn't consider any of it a BOMBSHELL!!!!!

As far as the Gerrold thing and trade dress, there is an example of a semi recent case: A few years ago Paul Reed Smith introduced a guitar that was similar to the Gibson Les Paul. Not a copy, but similar. PRS had already taken a big bite out of Gibson's market with their unique designs. Apparently Gibson saw this new model as a direct assault and sued for trademark infringement.

PRS initially lost at trial, but won on appeal. The guitar model in question was finally determined to be different enough that there could be little or no confusion. (This is a paraphrase of the case as I remember it--details might be offf, but the result is the same.)

The point is, the illustrations in the Gerrold fundraiser could be mistaken for actual Dr. Seuss artwork. The owners of the Seuss trademarks are legally required to defend those marks or risk losing them to public domain. That's why they shut Gerrold down.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

it seems to me that it's just standard legal shenanigans.

That's exactly what it is. The guy has been watching too many movies.

Lane seems to oblivious to the fact that just because you make submissions to the court it doesn't mean the court will accept them. Reminds me of a case I have on right now. Lawyer on the other side has made an application to set aside an order I recently obtained against her clients. If Lane were reporting on that case he'd read their application full of bluster, buy into it and declare that they are "fighting back with BOMBSHELLS". In reality the application has little merit (and in this case they're already been defeated once on a similar application) and has been issued as a delaying tactic. They'll likely lose and get a cost order against them, but it's done to try and frustrate my client's attempt to get a their assets, which they've been doing for 18 months now. Would Lane be able to spot that though? No, because he isn't legally trained. That's why I must admit to being increasingly frustrated at reading his crap - not least with his mystery lawyer (Peters) whispering into his ear. He doesn't understand what the applications are, or could be, about. He doesn't understand that just because you advance an argument it doesn't mean it is legally strong, or that the court will accept it.

But then this is the same tool who thought sending a fan film dossier to the studio in the middle of litigation, while being associated with parties to that litigation, was a good idea....

 

[Smoked Salmon]

That response from Ranahan left my head spinning. Where L&L tend to leave me with the impression of measured responses (so far), W&S are downright combative.

Some lawyers are like that because they like to give the impression to their clients that they're fighting their corner with all they've got.

I don't do it personally as I think if your argument is good you will prevail unless you get a bad judge, but I will concede that it can sometimes be beneficial for keeping a client on side during the course of a case. The downside to it is if the client then loses they tend to be even more difficult in their dissatisfaction as they feel they have been led on.

 

[Karzak]

Christ that's cringeworthy. Is Lane so intellectually limited that he thinks nobody can spot both his colossal lack of understanding of litigation and his ludicrously biased rhetoric? He behaves like this is a court drama on the TV.

Carlos Pedraza: writer and journalist, trained in scholarly research and proper journalistic writing and posessing the integrity of same, regardless of what facts he is reporting on.

Jonathan Lane: self-important shit-bag blogging Axanar shill, unable to see the facts outside his own very biased agenda.

I know whose writing I trust.

 

[Ion]

Some lawyers are like that because they like to give the impression to their clients that they're fighting their corner with all they've got.

Speaking only from my own perspective, of course, it makes them seem rather desperate. Almost as though they're trying to get the case thrown out on a technicality (or set themselves up for an opportunity for appeal).

Carlos Pedraza: writer and journalist, trained in scholarly research and proper journalistic writing and posessing the integrity of same, regardless of what facts he is reporting on.

My one and only complaint about Carlos is that he occasionally refers to himself in the third person. That bugs me.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Speaking only from my own perspective, of course, it makes them seem rather desperate. Almost as though they're trying to get the case thrown out on a technicality (or set themselves up for an opportunity for appeal).

They tried that and failed in their motion to dismiss. Their latest applications have not sought that and no disputes over discovery would see the case discontinued. To be honest, they're doing no different from anyone else. They're doing what they can to protect their client's interest and nothing so far can be said to be unethical. The problem for them is that they have the weaker case, which they probably already know and likely have already advised Peters accordingly. But as long as there is some merit in a defence their approach is entirely acceptable. I don't think they can be said to have become vexatious.

 

[Ion]

But as long as there is some merit in a defence their approach is entirely acceptable. I don't think they can be said to have become vexatious.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[urbandefault]

They tried that and failed in their motion to dismiss. Their latest applications have not sought that and no disputes over discovery would see the case discontinued. To be honest, they're doing no different from anyone else. They're doing what they can to protect their client's interest and nothing so far can be said to be unethical. The problem for them is that they have the weaker case, which they probably already know and likely have already advised Peters accordingly. But as long as there is some merit in a defence their approach is entirely acceptable. I don't think they can be said to have become vexatious.

What kind of behind the scenes drama do you suspect is going on in regards to AP's failure to produce emails (and possibly other documents)?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I'll take your word for it.

Well, there are in my opinion. Worth remembering that when I say "merit", I mean that there is some level of argument, not that they will necessarily win.

First you have fair use. Is it an argument that will succeed? I don't think so. But there is nonetheless some argument that Axanar is not a direct copy of Trek and therefore is transformative. The reason I don't think that will succeed is that Axanar still relies on the core heart and hallmarks of Trek. I've said this in here since January. In layman's terms, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, etc. But there is nonetheless an argument. It's like the example I Gave above from my own case when I said my opponent's application likely won't succeed. But she will be unlikely to get penalised by a judge as long as there is some level of credibility in her application.

Second, even if they lose on fair use, they will have a duty to try and mitigate the level of damages ordered against Peters & Co, and in such circumstances the fact that the studio hasn't gone after productions like New Voyages might come into play and might be an argument that impacts the level of damages. As a lawyer you have to be conscious not just of what is happening in the here and now, but what could happen in any number of scenarios that could possibly play out.

It's only really if they made an application totally and completely devoid of argument that you could say they are advancing a vexatious defence.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Christ that's cringeworthy. Is [he] so intellectually limited that he thinks nobody can spot both his colossal lack of understanding of litigation and his ludicrously biased rhetoric? He behaves like this is a court drama on the TV.

I know what you mean and it's a puzzle that continues to find me struggling to wrap my mind the behavior. Even though the science of this, these, behaviors continues to replicate in study after study after study that the intellect is frequently not a factor in any way/shape/form. That the native inbuilt human urge to believe colors & complicates the intellect's processing choices. And more than I'm comfortable with compromises the intellect's processing choices. I look around myself in Real Time and see this everywhere. Matters of the heart, matters of ideology, matters of political leanings, matters of right/wrong definitions.... and on down the line to the most mundane and innocuous opinions on things like the Kelvin Timeline and the 'Voyager' series.

And, yes, I do agree that he displays a lack of understanding and uses rhetoric. I also observe that he believes. And belief will be interpreted by even a high intellect as evidence of truth. A deep seated belief rejects contradiction and observable facts, often re-framing them as 'assault'.

I submit that the writer is not intellectually limited in any way though. That it is a belief system that is playing out in his writing, and that everything he writes seems perfectly logical to him.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

What kind of behind the scenes drama do you suspect is going on in regards to AP's failure to produce emails (and possibly other documents)?

For me, the key question that arises is whether or not he was honest with his lawyers. What instructions have been given? Where were the missing emails? If they have been deleted, when were they deleted? Did he instruct W&S that they had been deleted prior to giving evidence the first time around intentionally or simply didn't think about it? Was he aware that Gossett and fat Terry may well have copies of emails even if he no longer did? If so and if he didn't tell them, why didn't he?

If it were me, I would try and get copies of the emails as soon as possible, review them and then advise my client as to whether or not they had any significant impact....and that's because no matter how many applications W&S make about CBS/P's disclosure, if the court orders that Peters be deposed a second time then they'll have to face that issue come what may.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I know what you mean and it's a puzzle that continues to find me struggling to wrap my mind the behavior. Even though the science of this, these, behaviors continues to replicate in study after study after study that the intellect is frequently not a factor in any way/shape/form. That the native inbuilt human urge to believe colors & complicates the intellect's processing choices. And more than I'm comfortable with compromises the intellect's processing choices. I look around myself in Real Time and see this everywhere. Matters of the heart, matters of ideology, matters of political leanings, matters of right/wrong definitions.... and on down the line to the most mundane and innocuous opinions on things like the Kelvin Timeline and the 'Voyager' series.

And, yes, I do agree that he displays a lack of understanding and uses rhetoric. I also observe that he believes. And belief can be interpretative by even a high intellect as evidence of truth. A deep seated belief rejects contradiction, even observable facts, often re-framing contradictions in held belief and even facts that contradict belief as 'assault'.

I submit that the writer is not intellectually limited in any way though. That it is a belief system playing out in his writing, and that everything he writes seems perfectly logical to him.

He's intellectually limited in the sense that he lacks the knowledge and experience to interpret what is going on, not that he's an idiot. But otherwise I would accept your assessment.

 

[urbandefault]

the key question that arises is whether or not he was honest with his lawyers.

Agreed, that is the question.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Agreed, that is the question.

Given his history, I'm sure we'd all like to know the answer to it.

 

[jespah]

We did talk Axa but man oh man it was during the last 3 of the 24 hours so I freely admit fatigue and general loopiness. Blogs, YouTubes, etc. to follow.

Thank you for your kind support. And coffee.

Zzzz

 

[urbandefault]

We did talk Axa but man oh man it was during the last 3 of the 24 hours so I freely admit fatigue and general loopiness. Blogs, YouTubes, etc. to follow.

Thank you for your kind support. And coffee.

Zzzz

Kudos for doing 24 hours. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

We did talk Axa but man oh man it was during the last 3 of the 24 hours so I freely admit fatigue and general loopiness. Blogs, YouTubes, etc. to follow.

Thank you for your kind support. And coffee.

Zzzz

24 hours?