I know you're more or less kidding, but fuck that.
Life is precious.
Love is precious.
Family is precious.
Canon is a guideline to a fictional universe. There is nothing precious about it.
Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"
- Thread starter PicardSpeedo
- Start date
- Status
I know you're more or less kidding, but fuck that.
Life is precious.
Love is precious.
Family is precious.
Canon is a guideline to a fictional universe. There is nothing precious about it.
Well, we can begin by discarding a bunch of stuff. You can't claim ownership of the concept of something so broad as white guy, black woman, redhead, beard guy, or gay couple.That's the idea if his lawyer instructed him not to communicate it. Here's their art exhibit.
There's at least 20 other documents submitted by them. The complaint is 13 pages long. You'd think they must have some kind of case if they feel it's worth paying a $400 filing fee.
Then there's the fact that the comparisons between those characters aren't actually all that close to each other.
Then you have to ask yourself why CBS, if they were actually copying the concept and it wasn't just a coincidence, would pick characters that had any vague similarity to the "original" product at all instead of casting in a whole new direction? The physical traits and sexual orientations in the Tardigrades game aren't essential to the storytelling, so why not go for Asian and Pacific Islander lesbians and an Inuit and a silver haired guy? The fact that the didn't intentionally try to differentiate it leads me to believe the vague similarities are nothing more than coincidence.
Then you get into the meat of the claim, which is the tardigrade. But as has been demonstrated in this thread ad nauseam over the preceding pages, space traveling tardigrades were in the zeitgeist around the time both the Tardigrades game and Discovery were being conceived, because of numerous science news stories about tardigrades being extremophiles that can survive in space, and especially because they were featured prominently in the remake of Cosmos. I posted a collage of numerous examples of tardigrades in space featured in pop culture over the past few years. It's been posted in this thread multiple times. Just search through my posts if you want to find it.
Any perceived connections between the game and Discovery are just a coincidence. It happens, a lot.
I don't know if they do. It was just a question I asked. I'm not sure if anyone else asked the question about canon removal. It could just be the stolen material that gets removed from canon and they could replace the idea with something else by censoring out the word "tardegrade" and putting a voice over for some other word. Then re-do the graphics so it's not a tardegrade anymore.
A
Amaris
Guest
And as we all know, tardigrade meat is tender and succulent, despite its hardy properties.
There are people out there who do. I point you in the direction of Midnight's Edge, Doomcock, Fred Archer, Doug Fitz, to name but a few. They have made their existence out of becoming gatekeepers to fandom because they believe what they want for Star Trek is best. Nevermind what everyone else might want. Or knowing what we want isn't always what we get. Nor is it even good. I can come up with what I believe is an amazing idea for the next Trek movie. But chances are it will be a piece of crap compared to what actually comes out of it.
Regardless, this is not an issue that needs to be litigated again and again and again. What you suggest IS NOT HAPPENING even if CBS loses the suit. You have been told this numerous times. Please stop pushing this point.
I wish they would take canon and shoot it out of a canon and into the Sun.
Read it again, establishing he filed a copyright is only one stage of the process. In order to claim damages the claimant must also establish that copying did in fact take place.
The confusion lies in where in that process "substantial similarity" comes. Does it serve to establish the similarity (whose cause must then be differentiated between convergence and copying) or does it merely serve to establish the significance of that copying once proven.
Different courts have used different interpretations but crucially an actionable suit still requires the claimant to establish that copying took place.
I just wonder what kind of damages they can claim when the game was never released?
I have no idea, but it seems unlikely to me the question will come up.
I'll kick in fifty cents for him just to go away.
I'm definitely no legal expert but as far as I know, filing for a copyright AFTER you file a suit against another party for copying you, is like the proverbial horse and barn door failure.
I guess it's nice to know you still have the barn door when all is said and done.
I'm talking about when assessing damages. It just seems without some kind of baseline for what the game would/could have earned, it will be tough to assess damages.
IIRC, copyright (in the US) still exists even if you don't file for it.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
Off Topic, but this is one of my fave Aerosmith songs. Love how melancholy and nostalgic it is.
I see.
Would that apply just to his artwork since there's no game yet created?
And why then would his own lawyer discount the relevance in a follow up filing?
- Status
