CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens
- Thread starter jespah
- Start date
There's already a locked / pinned topic "Axanar Lawsuit Timeline". Maybe someone could update that one.
Off the top of my head,
Fan Film Factor is run by Alec's puppet Jonathan Lane
Trekyards were once all on board with Axanar but I'm not sure the relationship now.
Fan Film Factor is run by Alec's puppet Jonathan Lane
Trekyards were once all on board with Axanar but I'm not sure the relationship now.
Relationship of diminishing returns?
Originally posted by Cooleddie elsewhere, but I thought it belonged here, so...
@cooleddie74Originally posted by Cooleddie elsewhere, but I thought it belonged here, so...
Wot, no coffee?
I was going to say, yes there is, but rereading it, its "A Covfefeworx Picture" !
I was going to say, yes there is, but rereading it, its "A Covfefeworx Picture" !
Yeah, I saw that after posting, but is Covfefe really coffee?
Yeah, I saw that after posting, but is Covfefe really coffee?
Only in the Deep State.
Axanar update. May shoot has been pushed back, maybe July or August:
https://axanar.com/axanar-update-may-2022-big-news/
https://axanar.com/axanar-update-may-2022-big-news/
DId he say what the family emergency was elsewhere?
Of course it has! Quelle surprise!
EDIT: I succumbed to clicking on the link (I usually dont), and found that @SITZKRIEG! was being genuine, not sarcastic (no insult intended, my friend). So if there has genuinely been a family emergency amongst the crew, or even Alecs' family, I take that back. Me bad.
Last edited:
DId he s
No worries and no insult taken. I figured I'd ask as I generally tune out from axanar news unless this thread starts blowing up with something other than stale sushi jokes as folks get their news from newsletters, blogs, and groups that I stopped checking years ago but that aren't necessarily going to be shared by Ares/Axanar/Peters directly.
No worries and no insult taken. I figured I'd ask as I generally tune out from axanar news unless this thread starts blowing up with something other than stale sushi jokes as folks get their news from newsletters, blogs, and groups that I stopped checking years ago but that aren't necessarily going to be shared by Ares/Axanar/Peters directly.
Mirror verse style Off Topic.
Updated Mon, Jun 6 20222:14 PM EDT
Updated Mon, Jun 6 20222:14 PM EDT
- The family of the author whose article inspired the 1986 movie “Top Gun,” which starred Tom Cruise, is suing Paramount Pictures for copyright infringement.
- The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, including some profits from the Cruise sequel “Top Gun: Maverick” and to block the studio from distributing the movie or further sequels.
So the article "inspired" a movie? And just how is that "copyright infringement"?? What's the proof?? Besides, as I understand it, both case law and black-letter law say you can't copyright an idea. Unless the article was a piece of fiction with specific plot lines and such mirrored by the movie, I don't see how they have a valid claim. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. And juries (and judges) have been known to make stupid rulings contrary to known legal standards.
According to the article, Paramount obtained the rights for the first movie from the author based on the original article. The rights then reverted back to the author's estate a few years ago. The estate, or its beneficiaries, sent a cease and desist. Paramount denies that the sequel is derived from the original idea and then said that it had "'sufficiently completed' the sequel by the time the copyright reverted." YMMV on the last 2 sentences as that is going to be the crux of the suit.
Specifically, the rights reverted in 2020, but since the movie was delayed, first from a 2019 release for reasons I'm not aware of (reshoots? Crowded release week? I'm not checking), and then delayed from 2020 for reasons that are obvious, I think Paramount probably did have the movie all-but-finished by the time the rights reverted, though I don't know if that actually matters, since the "publication" of the movie was unambiguously after the rights reverted.
This feels like the mirror image of the Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie from 1994, which was made without any intention of releasing it, just so the movie rights wouldn't revert because of lack-of-use. So, I suppose if making but not releasing a movie would qualify for using the rights in that case, it's probable it would in this case, too. I imagine there's enough specificity in the original contract to find out, and I'm sure it would be on Paramount's side (they wouldn't want to have to negotiate a new agreement with the journalist for re-releases and home video and TV and whatnot, though I suppose the deadline could be indexed to "public premiere of the film" or something like that, but if it was, Paramount wouldn't be arguing the movie was done by the time their contract expired).
Last edited: