CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens

[carlosp]

jOn 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 relevant 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.

You’re still misunderstanding the settlement. Peters breaching it doesn’t require CBS to file another lawsuit for enforcement. The whole point of a settlement is to avoid further litigation; the settlement provides for a series of enforcement measures to avoid another lawsuit. And as Axanar’s own press release stated at the time, Axanar is required to adhere to guidelines under the terms of the settlement (see graphic below).

And as we reported last year, the settlement prescribes procedures for dealing with breaches without having to go to court.

 

[Noname Given]

You’re still misunderstanding the settlement. Peters breaching it doesn’t require CBS to file another lawsuit for enforcement. The whole point of a settlement is to avoid further litigation; the settlement provides for a series of enforcement measures to avoid another lawsuit. And as Axanar’s own press release stated at the time, Axanar is required to adhere to guidelines under the terms of the settlement (see graphic below).

And as we reported last year, the settlement prescribes procedures for dealing with breaches without having to go to court.

But again, one side or the other has to initiate (either CBS or Alec Peters) a claim of breach of settlement. Weather by agreed to arbitration or filing notice in a court of law, (or however it was agreed to in the settlement), for that process to start.

Once that's done, it'll go before whatever type of judicial official (an arbiter or judge), and a determination will be made as to who breached what, and whatever remedies agreed to for any such breach will be applied.

So yes you're correct in that this action might expose Alex Peters to further action from CBS/Paramount; but it's still up to CBS/Paramount to initiate a claim of breach by whatever manner was specified in the settlement.

In most cases that's filing such a claim with the court who has jurisdiction.

 

[Maurice]

What boggles my mind is that people are still stupid enough to get in bed with Captain Trainwreck and his idiocy. Does no one do any due diligence on this money pit before throwing their lot in?

 

[carlosp]

But again, one side or the other has to initiate (either CBS or Alec Peters) a claim of breach of settlement. Weather by agreed to arbitration or filing notice in a court of law, (or however it was agreed to in the settlement), for that process to start.

Once that's done, it'll go before whatever type of judicial official (an arbiter or judge), and a determination will be made as to who breached what, and whatever remedies agreed to for any such breach will be applied.

So yes you're correct in that this action might expose Alex Peters to further action from CBS/Paramount; but it's still up to CBS/Paramount to initiate a claim of breach by whatever manner was specified in the settlement.

In most cases that's filing such a claim with the court who has jurisdiction.

That's simply not the case. Granted, I am not yet privy to the precise provisions of the settlement but I know this much from covering Peters' breaches last year: Yes, one side or the other must notify their opposite of a claimed breach, but you mischaracterize the process by lumping a judge together with an arbitrator as a "judicial official." Arbitrators operate in private and their rulings remain private; judges and their rulings are public. Arbitration costs a lot less than litigation and grants all parties shelter from public scrutiny.

We appear to both agree, however, it's up to CBS et al., to initiate a claim of breach.

 

[Csalem]

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.

In light of the world we all live in now, did anyone else shudder when they saw all these people in close proximity to each other?!

Also we have a new Interlude Confidential. We don't know when the film will come out:
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2020/10/12/interlude-confidential-13-so-when-is-your-fan-film-coming-out/

 

[motorhead]

We don't know when the film will come out

I don't think he has to worry, at this point nobody expects Axanar or Interlude to ever come out.

 

[Noname Given]

That's simply not the case. Granted, I am not yet privy to the precise provisions of the settlement but I know this much from covering Peters' breaches last year: Yes, one side or the other must notify their opposite of a claimed breach, but you mischaracterize the process by lumping a judge together with an arbitrator as a "judicial official." Arbitrators operate in private and their rulings remain private; judges and their rulings are public. Arbitration costs a lot less than litigation and grants all parties shelter from public scrutiny.

We appear to both agree, however, it's up to CBS et al., to initiate a claim of breach.

But the majority of Arbiter are retired Judges (I know because I deal with stuff like this daily.) The issue is that in the current case, UNLESS CBS/Paramount make a claim, the Settlement won't be an issue for the case. That's all I've been saying. You want to get into the minute, fine; but the settlement WON'T be an issue here unless Peters of CBS make it one.

Also, yes court proceeding are public WRT the finding (IE - if the settlement requires a Judge to make a determination, the determination is public; however, if the settlement states that the penalties are not to be disclosed; and the Judge who signed off on the initial settlement didn't have an issue with such a clause, then no the penalties won't be made part of the public record. Again it ALL depends on exactly what was agreed to in the settlement itself, and unless you read it yourself, you don't know.

 

[fireproof78]

What boggles my mind is that people are still stupid enough to get in bed with Captain Trainwreck and his idiocy. Does no one do any due diligence on this money pit before throwing their lot in?

Isn't that part of running a con? Downplaying failures while overselling ability?

 

[carlosp]

But the majority of Arbiter are retired Judges (I know because I deal with stuff like this daily.) The issue is that in the current case, UNLESS CBS/Paramount make a claim, the Settlement won't be an issue for the case. That's all I've been saying. You want to get into the minute, fine; but the settlement WON'T be an issue here unless Peters of CBS make it one.

Also, yes court proceeding are public WRT the finding (IE - if the settlement requires a Judge to make a determination, the determination is public; however, if the settlement states that the penalties are not to be disclosed; and the Judge who signed off on the initial settlement didn't have an issue with such a clause, then no the penalties won't be made part of the public record. Again it ALL depends on exactly what was agreed to in the settlement itself, and unless you read it yourself, you don't know.

Again, you're forgetting this lawsuit is not a copyright case. So of course the settlement is irrelevant to it. The settlement only comes into play if Peters tries to contest Jenkins' copyright registration. Problem with that is, to take legal action he has to have registered his own copyright. And he can't. Because of the settlement.

 

[carlosp]

AXAMONITOR DAILY
Peters Allegedly Creates Appearance of Progress While Mismanaging Axanar

Here are the headlines in today's AxaMonitor Daily:
Is Peters Making a Façade of Progress Just to Appease Large Axa-Donors?
Also:

• Peters admits paying himself with proceeds from Axanar merchandise
• A deep dive into ex-Axanar director Paul Jenkins counterclaims against Peters
• Update on Hunt-Newbury GoFundMe legal defense against Peters lawsuit

You can read today's AxaMonitor Daily at our newsletter archive.

 

[Noname Given]

Again, you're forgetting this lawsuit is not a copyright case. So of course the settlement is irrelevant to it. The settlement only comes into play if Peters tries to contest Jenkins' copyright registration. Problem with that is, to take legal action he has to have registered his own copyright. And he can't. Because of the settlement.

I haven't forgotten anything. You're the one who seems to be hung up on the settlement aspect. Your last post I was relying to was because you didn't care for how I phrased some terms.

Earlier when I stated (in multiple posts) the settlement isn't be relevant, you bring it up in another context.

At this point, I'm going to drop this discussion and move on.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

In the AxaMonitor Daily dated October 13, 2020, you say [https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2d0411ecf0787fd9d4dc8dc5c&id=5766b0aabc]:

Defamation defense. In his legal complaint, Peters claims the following statement posted by Jenkins after his departure was defamatory:

“META Studios and its employees, including founder Paul Jenkins, are no longer associated with the Star Trek fan film Axanar led by Alec Peters. Paul’s credits on the project included co-writer and director, and META Studios was credited as the film’s co-producer; however, due to conflicts with META Studios’ core values of transparency, accountability, and integrity, we have removed ourselves from the credits.”​

Jenkins' own assertion there that his credits on the Axanar project included co-writer strike me as being at odds with his rejecting the designation of "joint author."

 

[Admiral2]

AXAMONITOR DAILY
Peters Allegedly Creates Appearance of Progress While Mismanaging Axanar

Here are the headlines in today's AxaMonitor Daily:
Is Peters Making a Façade of Progress Just to Appease Large Axa-Donors?
Also:

• Peters admits paying himself with proceeds from Axanar merchandise
• A deep dive into ex-Axanar director Paul Jenkins counterclaims against Peters
• Update on Hunt-Newbury GoFundMe legal defense against Peters lawsuit

You can read today's AxaMonitor Daily at our newsletter archive.

Current and future donors really ought to read and re-read the lines about Peters just keeping up appearance.

 

[carlosp]

In the AxaMonitor Daily dated October 13, 2020, you say [https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2d0411ecf0787fd9d4dc8dc5c&id=5766b0aabc]:Jenkins' own assertion there that his credits on the Axanar project included co-writer strike me as being at odds with his rejecting the designation of "joint author."

"Co-writer" and "joint author" sound like they're the same thing but they're not. The first can mean any number of things, and is often a film credit reached via negotiation. The second has a specific legal meaning with regard to copyright. It's why Peters has constantly tried to legally minimize Jenkins' work on the screenplay, referring to himself in his legal complaint as "dominant author," and describing Jenkins' work only as "editing a pre-existing script."

If the dominant author thing works for him, it means he would be sole author from a copyright perspective — he would fully control the use of the intellectual property. This is Peters' best case scenario.

If the joint author thing were true, he and Jenkins could each do whatever they want with the property, so long as they share any proceeds that might come from their separate efforts. This is Peters' second-best case scenario.

Since Jenkins has registered a sole-author copyright for just the words he added to the pre-existing script (estimated to be at most around 75% of the completed script), he's the only guy legally empowered to decide what's done with the IP. This is Peters' worst case scenario since he's thereby legally prevented from making use of the material Jenkins has formally copyrighted, effectively erasing the past three years of work on Axanar Lite.

 

[Professor Zoom]

"Co-writer" and "joint author" sound like they're the same thing but they're not. The first can mean any number of things, and is often a film credit reached via negotiation.

Yep. Assigning who and how one is listed is sometimes left up to the WGA Arbitration system.

 

[JD]

Wouldn't Jenkins copyrighting even just his words be illegal since CBS owns Star Trek, not him?

 

[Noname Given]

Would Jenkins copyright even just his words be illegal since CBS owns Star Trek, not him?

Unless/until CBS contests the copyright in court, Jenkins can register copyright on anything he wrote.

 

[carlosp]

Unless/until CBS contests the copyright in court, Jenkins can register copyright on anything he wrote.

I have it on pretty good authority CBS has no interest in pursuing Jenkins over this screenplay. You can imagine why. Also, as I understand it, what Jenkins copyrighted studiously avoids explicit Star Trek IP.

 

[Mytran]

Also, the "no copyright" thing is a FAN FILM guideline - at this point, there is no film that has been released.
All Jenkins has really done is register some fan fic

 

[carlosp]

Also, the "no copyright" thing is a FAN FILM guideline - at this point, there is no film that has been released.
All Jenkins has really done is register some fan fic

Not exactly. Guideline #9 doesn't apply only to the finished film:

Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law. [emphasis mine]​

Pretty sure a screenplay qualifies as an element of the work.