CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens
- Thread starter jespah
- Start date
In Today's AxaMonitor News:
Ex-Axanar Director Paul Jenkins Strikes Back at Alec Peters in Countersuit
Jenkins files counterclaims alleging deceptive trade practices, defamation by Peters. Also:
HAPPIER DAYS From the October 2019 Axanar shoot, director Paul Jenkins — now the third man to have left over Alec Peters' mismanagement — takes a selfie with the Ares bridge crew.
Ex-Axanar Director Paul Jenkins Strikes Back at Alec Peters in Countersuit
Jenkins files counterclaims alleging deceptive trade practices, defamation by Peters. Also:
- Jenkins responds to the allegations in Peters' amended legal complaint, detailing how his copyright registration brings Axanar Lite™ to a halt.
- Two former employees start a GoFundMe effort to defend against Peters' second try to get money from the sale of the Enterprise-E filming model.
HAPPIER DAYS From the October 2019 Axanar shoot, director Paul Jenkins — now the third man to have left over Alec Peters' mismanagement — takes a selfie with the Ares bridge crew.
Last edited:
Both Peters and Jenkins admit there is no written agreement whatsoever regarding his work on the screenplay. And for those who are angling for a work-for-hire interpretation, legally, work-for-hire requires an explicit written statement.
Absent such an agreement, Peters cannot claim Jenkins' contribution was a work for hire. According to FindLaw:
“Since no formal agreement is required between the co-authors or collaborators a legal relationship of joint authorship may occur even without the intent of the respective authors to create a work of joint authorship.” Of course, as I report in today's AxaMonitor, Jenkins isn't going the joint author route. Instead he's claiming copyright only on the words he wrote that appear in the screenplay. You can read more here.
After reading these AxaMonitor DailiesIn Today's AxaMonitor News:
Ex-Axanar Director Paul Jenkins Strikes Back at AlecPeters in Countersuit
Jenkins files counterclaims alleging deceptive trade practices, defamation by Peters. Also:
You can read today's newsletter here. And sign up to get the first read in the future!
- Jenkins responds to the allegations in Peters' amended legal complaint, detailing how his copyright registration brings Axanar Lite™ to a halt.
- Two former employees start a GoFundMe effort to defend against Peters' second try to get money from the sale of the Enterprise-E filming model.
HAPPIER DAYS From the October 2019 Axanar shoot, director Paul Jenkins — now the third man to have left over Alec Peters' mismanagement — takes a selfie with the Ares bridge crew.
https://mailchi.mp/fce60dc4ba9e/ex-...s-suit-peters-sues-over-enterprise-model-sale
https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2d0411ecf0787fd9d4dc8dc5c&id=1a1cb220e6
https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2d0411ecf0787fd9d4dc8dc5c&id=1a1cb220e6
my question is the following. Granting that copyright law favors Peters' ability to use Jenkins' work created in the capacity of co-writer for the Axanar project, what impact would Jenkins' copyright registration of that work have on whether Peters' project violates the fan film guidelines stipulated by CBS (given that guideline #9 for Star Trek fan films says [https://www.tor.com/2016/06/23/new-star-trek-fan-film-guidelines/]:
Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law
), were Peters in fact to use that work?
You should read today’s AxaMonitor Daily because it details Jenkins’ copyright strategy.
Copyright law favors the person who has registered the copyright. Jenkins has. Peters hasn’t. What’s more, Peters can’t under the terms of the CBS settlement. For Peters, guideline 9 is a requirement. For Jenkins, it’s a guideline; he isn’t a party to the settlement.
Furthermore, to sue for damages over copyright infringement, you have to go to federal court and you have to have your copyright registered; Peters hasn’t and can’t.
The only party with standing to sue for copyright infringement here is CBS, and dollars to donuts they don’t give a shit about doing something that in any way helps Alec Peters.
Last edited:
I asked the question, because in the earlier daily, you said that the principle of joint authorship "is well-trodden in copyright law, and it appears to favor Peters’ position." So, what you're saying is that these are special circumstances in which that generality does not apply? That would make sense.
Actually wouldn't Jenkins working with Peters on Axanar bring him on as a party to the agreement as it is Axanar they're working on; and the lawsuit and settlement are specifically related to both Alec Peters and the Axanar production itself specifically?
That said, I believe the settlement states that Alec Peters can't use any Hollywood professionals beyond who was involved in shooting "Prelude to Axanar", thus Alec Peters bringing Jenkins aboard to work on Axanar already puts Alec Peters in violation of the settlement agreement with CBS/Paramount.
But again I guess this all is moot unless CBS/Paramount decide to get involved with their own action legal against Alec Peters for breach of settlement, and whatever they'd want to file against Jenkins for participating in the Axanar production.
Bottom line: Ynless CBS/Paramount decide to get involved in another lawsuit with Alec Peters regarding Axanar; standard copyright law would apply here, and yes Jenkins having registered The copyright, and he and Peter's having no formal, signed written agreement = Jenkins has the advantage in court in this situation.
If Alec Peters decided to introduce evidence RE: his Axanar lawsuit settlement with CBS/Paramount; that would just open up another can of worms for the judge and would probably put Alec Peters in a way worse legal situation going forward. I would think the last thing he would want or need is to make CBS/Paramount a party to this legal situation between him and Jenkins.
I don't think you can retcon Jenkins as a party to the settlement because Jenkins independently rewrote Peters' Axanar script years afterward. And absent any kind of employment, work for hire or contractual agreement, there's nothing formal legally tying Jenkins to Axanar. As far as I can tell, Jenkins didn't copyright anything specifically Star Trek; the registration appears to go out of its way to NOT mention it.
That said, I believe the settlement states that Alec Peters can't use any Hollywood professionals beyond who was involved in shooting "Prelude to Axanar", thus Alec Peters bringing Jenkins aboard to work on Axanar already puts Alec Peters in violation of the settlement agreement with CBS/Paramount.
But again I guess this all is moot unless CBS/Paramount decide to get involved with their own action legal against Alec Peters for breach of settlement, and whatever they'd want to file against Jenkins for participating in the Axanar production.
Bottom line: Ynless CBS/Paramount decide to get involved in another lawsuit with Alec Peters regarding Axanar; standard copyright law would apply here, and yes Jenkins having registered The copyright, and he and Peter's having no formal, signed written agreement = Jenkins has the advantage in court in this situation.
If Alec Peters decided to introduce evidence RE: his Axanar lawsuit settlement with CBS/Paramount; that would just open up another can of worms for the judge and would probably put Alec Peters in a way worse legal situation going forward. I would think the last thing he would want or need is to make CBS/Paramount a party to this legal situation between him and Jenkins.
Peters has for years used the confidentiality requirement of the settlement as a shield against transparency about Axanar and its finances. Now it appears to be working against him.
My initial analysis assumed that Peters and Jenkins would legally be considered "joint authors" of the Axanar script. Both guys explicitly reject that designation, however: Peters because he wants to totally control and own the script and footage based on it, and Jenkins because he may have rewritten in his own words as much as ¾ of Peters' script, and he is only copyrighting those specific words.
What Jenkins is arguing here is that Peters is sole author of the original script, and the bit that remains in Jenkins' rewrite, while Jenkins is sole author of just his words in the rewrite, which is a derivative work of Peters' original script. Peters' only option here is to contest Jenkins' copyright by suing him in federal court for copyright infringement, which would put him in violation of the CBS settlement because he's not allowed to claim copyright on anything Axa-related.
And what Peters is arguing is that even if Jenkins is a joint author, Peters is still allowed to exploit the work of joint authorship so long as he shares proceeds with Jenkins (which would be zero). Peters doesn't get that Jenkins hasn't claimed joint authorship, only sole copyright over just the words he wrote. Meaning Peters can't use those words in a script or a derivative work like, say, a film, without licensing them from Jenkins, effectively erasing three years of work on Axanar Lite™.
Hence Peters' admission the script is being rewritten (again), and some or all of the Jenkins footage will be reshot. The company line is that it was bad anyway. Riiiiiiight.
Last edited:
My point more goes to the fact that what Alec Peters is working on is still Axanar and still covered by the settlement. Jenkins isn't a direct part of, or violating the settlement per se (IE He wouldn't be liable for any damages that CVS/paramount would call for if they invoked a breach of settlement suit); Alec Peters is.
^^^
But that assumes of course that CBS/Paramount decide to file a suit claiming Alec Peters is in breach of the Axanar settlement; and at this point I don't think they're going to so this particular aspect is moot.
The judge can only go by the evidence presented and if neither side brings up the Axanar lawsuit settlement agreement; and CBS/Paramount, doesn't file anything here or decide to file a lawsuit claiming breach of settlement, then I assume standard copyright law will apply here with respect to the dispute regarding the script, and the judge will decide based on that.
The man who has "training" as a lawyer didn't get a written agreement. lol.
Alec Peters doesn't want anything in writing because he knows that can be used against him when things go to shit. (And 9.9 times out of 10 everything he's done has gone to shit.)
Thank you!
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. The settlement covers a lot of territory and just because they haven't apparently taken action on the aspects he's already violated that doesn't mean they won't ever. They're in the catbird seat; they can choose to intervene whenever and however they want. There's more going on here that I'm still working on reporting.
I don't know why you'd assume neither side would bring up the settlement. Peters has already done so in claiming that Jenkins' two copyright registrations should be invalid because of Guideline 9. And Jenkins can bring up what we do publicly know about Guideline 9 — that Peters is bound to it as a condition of the settlement, meaning he has given up his standing to copyright anything related to the Star Trek fan film.
As I mentioned above, Peters has for years used the non-disclosure terms of the settlement as a shield against transparency, and for once that settlement may be used against him.
No paper trail.
I saw nothing mentioned RE: The CBS/Axanar Settlement, nor any referenced the CBS fan film guidelines in the Amended complaint by Alec Peters and that's the version of the complaint the Judge will start with. Also, even IF either side brought up the CBS Fan Film guidelines; even CBS has publicly acknowledged they are just that - IE Only guidelines. They have no force of law in and of themselves. CBS has simply stated that if a fan film producer follows them CBS probably will not take any legal action, (IE - CBS states they still reserve all rights including legal action if they decide to do so). CBS also states the Guidelines are NOT an implied contract in any way. So again, unless CBS/Paramount decides to file a brief, or file a lawsuit against Peters or Jenkins - the Fan Film Guidelines have no legal standing/force of law in and of themselves.
You're misunderstanding what’s at issue in Peters’ lawsuit. This is NOT a copyright case; that would be have to be heard in federal court. It is a defamation case brought in Georgia state court. The CBS settlement has no bearing on the defamatory statements Peters has accused Jenkins of making. Consequently, there's no reason for the settlement to be included. Anything copyright related would be out of a state judge's jurisdiction.
Peters is making the rather bizarre assertion that registering a copyright is defamatory per se. Which is ridiculous.
You're also misunderstanding the way in which the guidelines apply to Peters and Axanar Productions under the terms of the settlement. For everyone BUT Peters and Axanar, the guidelines are just that: guidelines along the lines you suggest above. But the guidelines were incorporated into the terms of the settlement, meaning that for Peters and Axanar the guidelines are actually rules, the breaking of which violates the terms of the settlement.
Ah okay. That is nuts. And yes, I also thought Peters was contesting in court Jenkins copyright filing directly - niot claimiming it's somehow defamatory.
^^^
On this, no, I'm not. YES the fan film guidelines apply to Alec Peters ONLY IF CBS/Paramount file a suit in court claiming he breached said settlement. So, like I said, unless someone involved in the current case makes the Judge aware of said settlement - and some provision pertains to the case at hand (and I say that because at present only Peters and the CBS/Paramouint legal team that drew it up know the exact details - and if Jenkins brought it up and said something was relevent the Judge would probably ask it be produced for her to determine); but other than that UNLESS CBS/Paramount jumps in to this case and claims breech of settlement, no, it really doesn't here in this particular case.