I was amazed they didn't find more space on that tunic to slap on still more gold leaf. Overcompensating much?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, TOS flag uniforms always did that. So a 'Fleet Captain' like the one shown fits with original costuming.
And even with all that has transpired, I can still watch Peters as Garth in the NV short "To Boldly Go" with no problems.
Doesn't however excuse his behaviour with regards to Axanar.
I know, I know, burn the heritic!Eww.
Seriously, no problem with that short. His podcasts, however, are another matter!
A
Amaris
Guest
See, I wish I could do that, too. Unfortunately, his behavior has ruined even that bit of enjoyment.
Here's an interesting copyright infringement decision from a judge (not Klausner) issued last week in the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs sell test preparation manuals. The defendants allegedly "copied, plagiarized, and sold knock-offs" of the plaintiffs' materials. In response to the lawsuit, the defendants raised a bunch of affirmative defenses, a bunch of which were disallowed by the judge.
Of note, the defendants claimed they "acted at all times...in good faith," so they were "not liable" for any inadveternt copyright infringement. The judge struck that defense, noting good faith is not a defense to liability, although it may be relevant to the issue of statutory damages. The judge said the Ninth Circuit was quite clear on this point and cited a 2012 case, Monge v. Maya Magazines.
In Maya, a magazine published copyrighted photos of a Latin American pop singer's wedding without her consent. The Ninth Circuit rejected the magazine's "fair use" defense, holding that even though the magazine purchased the photos purportedly unaware that they were protected by copyright, "the innocent intent of the defendant constitutes no defense to liability."
The Ninth Circuit also explained why the magazine's use of the photos were not "transformative" under fair use. The magazine argued that "publication transformed the photos from their original purpose — images of a wedding night — into newsworthy evidence of a clandestine marriage." But the court said "wholesale copying sprinkled with written commentary [] was at best minimally transformative." It's one thing to report facts--i.e., the plaintiff's marriage--but that does not give the defendant a "a valid fair use defense to an infringement of copyrightable expression," such as the photos.
This is a critical point in Axanar, as the defense's fair use claim rests on treating copyrighted expression--e.g., the Klingons, the Vulcan language, the Federation--as if they were "facts" in the public domain. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit's reasoning on "good faith" undercuts Axanar's defense that its actions were fair use because they acted no differently than "any other fan film" and thought what they were doing was permitted.
On another subject, I believe @KennyB asked upthread about "Exhibit MMM". The court released it today. It's a Casting Announcement for the proposed Axanar feature. It clearly describes the project as "set in the Star Trek universe." No reference to MASH, Band of Brothers, or any PTSD commentary.
Of note, the defendants claimed they "acted at all times...in good faith," so they were "not liable" for any inadveternt copyright infringement. The judge struck that defense, noting good faith is not a defense to liability, although it may be relevant to the issue of statutory damages. The judge said the Ninth Circuit was quite clear on this point and cited a 2012 case, Monge v. Maya Magazines.
In Maya, a magazine published copyrighted photos of a Latin American pop singer's wedding without her consent. The Ninth Circuit rejected the magazine's "fair use" defense, holding that even though the magazine purchased the photos purportedly unaware that they were protected by copyright, "the innocent intent of the defendant constitutes no defense to liability."
The Ninth Circuit also explained why the magazine's use of the photos were not "transformative" under fair use. The magazine argued that "publication transformed the photos from their original purpose — images of a wedding night — into newsworthy evidence of a clandestine marriage." But the court said "wholesale copying sprinkled with written commentary [] was at best minimally transformative." It's one thing to report facts--i.e., the plaintiff's marriage--but that does not give the defendant a "a valid fair use defense to an infringement of copyrightable expression," such as the photos.
This is a critical point in Axanar, as the defense's fair use claim rests on treating copyrighted expression--e.g., the Klingons, the Vulcan language, the Federation--as if they were "facts" in the public domain. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit's reasoning on "good faith" undercuts Axanar's defense that its actions were fair use because they acted no differently than "any other fan film" and thought what they were doing was permitted.
On another subject, I believe @KennyB asked upthread about "Exhibit MMM". The court released it today. It's a Casting Announcement for the proposed Axanar feature. It clearly describes the project as "set in the Star Trek universe." No reference to MASH, Band of Brothers, or any PTSD commentary.
Last edited:
Exhibit "Manifests Miscreant Motivations"
Too true. Got even worse for the flag officers in TNG...Q's super-deluxe grand admiral uniform (with a side of chips) was one of the most hideous "official" uniforms that ever existed, IMO. AP's fleet captain wrap was timid by comparison.
Last edited:
Although, I was never sure if that was an "official" uniform or if Q was lampooning Starfleet.
Skants are have been deemed a danger to self esteem and a Federation Fashion Faux pas.
Interesting historical sidenote, as parody, Skantsanar probably could have gotten away with everything except the merchandise sales. Unfortunately, they insisted they would stick with the vanity casting.
Lol - That exhibit itself pretty much renders Ms. Ranahan's claim that Alec Peters/Axanar never used 'Star Trek' in the title of the film; or used 'Star Trek' to promote the film in any way. No wonder she wanted it filed under seal.
It's the spaghetti defense. Y'know, we'll throw the spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.
Both sides have filed a joint witness and exhibit list (subject to the judge's rulings on the various motions to exclude). I've posted the proposed witness list.
C/P plans to call LFIM, Diana Kingsbury, Terry McIntosh, Christian Gossett; Bill Burke and Jon Van Critters from CBS; and Dan O'Rourke from Paramount.
The defense also plans to call LFIM, Van Critters, and Burke, as well as Robert Meyer Burnett, Axanar screenwriter Bill Hunt, Reece Watkins ("a Star Trek fan whose passion for Star Trek was reinvigorated by his watching Axanar"), Chris Tregillis, Henry Jenkins, Justin Lin, J.J. Abrams, and Liz Kaldoner from CBS (who was "involved with marketing and also is aware of the relationship CBS has with James Cawley").
C/P plans to call LFIM, Diana Kingsbury, Terry McIntosh, Christian Gossett; Bill Burke and Jon Van Critters from CBS; and Dan O'Rourke from Paramount.
The defense also plans to call LFIM, Van Critters, and Burke, as well as Robert Meyer Burnett, Axanar screenwriter Bill Hunt, Reece Watkins ("a Star Trek fan whose passion for Star Trek was reinvigorated by his watching Axanar"), Chris Tregillis, Henry Jenkins, Justin Lin, J.J. Abrams, and Liz Kaldoner from CBS (who was "involved with marketing and also is aware of the relationship CBS has with James Cawley").
Love this bit regarding Alec Peters on the Defense witness list:
"Innocent intent". Right.
And the defense wants to call Justin Lin and J.J. Abrams. Plus Axanar shill Jonathan Lane and Axanar sycophant Reece Witkins. Oh man, this is like a court room farce.
"Innocent intent". Right.
And the defense wants to call Justin Lin and J.J. Abrams. Plus Axanar shill Jonathan Lane and Axanar sycophant Reece Witkins. Oh man, this is like a court room farce.
Well then CBS should aggressively scan Peters' podcasts and put together a hit mashup of Peters' best quotes where Peters is openly contemptuous of copyright and clearly expressing intent to make money and build a business, those quotes are out there.
"In fact on many occasions Mr. Peters stated in public venues that his intentions included not only making a fan film, but creating a business using Trek-derived income as the seed money".
No amount of pleading innocent intent about the film itself can erase Peters repeatedly in his own words expressing his ambition and intent to build a valuable asset owned by him which is a repository of Trek money in the form of investment in a studio and paying for its operation for purposes (Propworx, Industry Studios, future plans) other than Trek fan films. Defense may want to separate the issues and say the money use was innocent because the fan film intent "was innocent", but the two matters are not separable.
Perhaps this content can be introduced by way of witnesses for the studio explaining why they find fault with Axanar. "When we heard the many open expressions of intent to capitalize on Trek IP we grew concerned... there are a number of very specific examples that bear on this."
Last edited:
Can't get enough Axanar from prosecuting the case? Drop on by!
Oh we all know they do! lol
- Status