• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
muCephi said:
From the first doc:

"Plaintiffs have sought federal copyright protection for characters central to the Star Trek universe, such as Spock and Kirk. SAMF 82-84. Plaintiffs have not, however, sought federal copyright protection for either Garth of Izar or Ambassador Soval. SAMF 85-86. Indeed, these characters are so minor and esoteric that Justin Lin and J.J. Abrams—Star Trek fans who are intimately familiar with the Star Trek universe—have admitted that they are unfamiliar with them or otherwise consider them unimportant. The director of the latest Star Trek movie, Justin Lin, despite being a Star Trek fan since childhood, testified that he had never heard of Garth of Izar. SAMF 87-88. J.J. Abrams, the producer and/or director of recent Star Trek films, testified that while he would consider Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Zulu, Chekov, and Scotty to be central characters, he would not consider Garth of Izar a central character. SAMF 89-95." [Redacted sentence ends paragraph]
Click to expand...
Well, I guess Lin and Abrams are not super fans after all. Soval appeared in nearly 20 episodes of Enterprise!
 
oswriter said:
Point taken, but I'm sure STC also did something wrong. :p
Click to expand...

The difference being, and we can all recite it from memory by now, that Axanar is an "independent, fully professional Star Trek film." No other fan production could be confused with actual official Trek (unless you're CNN, obviously), and no other production has sold itself to donors as being direct competition to officially licensed Trek. No other production that I'm aware of used donated funds to travel the world, buy tires and sushi, and build a for-profit studio. The list goes on.

Sure, other productions have infringed. But that's not what's at issue here.
 
urbandefault said:
The difference being, and we can all recite it from memory by now, that Axanar is an "independent, fully professional Star Trek film."
Click to expand...
I recall on one of the Axanar podcasts (pre-lawsuit), LFIM and RMB were laughing about whether or not they were a fan film, and one of them said something like, "Well we're fans and we're making a film, so I guess it's a fan film." But they clearly saw what they were doing as an independent, professional film with no connection to the larger ST fan film community.
muCephi said:
What would be L&L's motive? All I can imagine so far is a chance to argue in front of the Supreme Court. Maybe they don't know what the resolution should be, or maybe they know in the end that copyright law needs to be improved to deal with the Alecs of the world who look for ways to get at the money without consequence.
Click to expand...
I won't speak to motive, but after reading Axanar's reply brief, I'm starting to worry about Erin Ranahan's soul. Personally, I would resign rather than sign my name to that brief. But that's just me.
 
muCephi said:
In the first document, most the way down, the defense is arguing that in absence of a definition of profit by plaintiffs, a dictionary definition must be used. And by that definition, defendants did not profit because all the money from fundraising was put into the production costs of the film, which is not by definition a profit.

Kid you not.

They are actually trying to sell Alec's "non profit" concept that money spent on acquiring tangible assets and salaries and etc. is not profit.

And they are rejecting plaintiff's phrasing of "personal benefit" and instead saying the discussion is about the word "profit".
Click to expand...
^^^^
It's the only argument she can make - and believe me I'm SURE she knows that in the end, said argument WON'T fly with the Judge. But again, she's doing her best as Alec Peters'/Axanar's lawyer to provide the best defense she can given the evidence available. That's why the Defense in also trying to exclude Axanar financial statements (such as they are) from Trial as well. Again, something she also probably knows won't fly; but she's working with/in the situation she finds herself.
 
Noname Given said:
^^^^
It's the only argument she can make - and believe me I'm SURE she knows that in the end, said argument WON'T fly with the Judge. But again, she's doing her best as Alec Peters'/Axanar's lawyer to provide the best defense she can given the evidence available. That's why the Defense in also trying to exclude Axanar financial statements (such as they are) from Trial as well. Again, something she also probably knows won't fly; but she's working with/in the situation she finds herself.
Click to expand...

He probably was pretty insistent that what he wishes would be true should be said in the filings.
 
oswriter said:
I won't speak to motive, but after reading Axanar's reply brief, I'm starting to worry about Erin Ranahan's soul. Personally, I would resign rather than sign my name to that brief. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

It isn't just the arguments, I wouldn't want to put my name on such sloppy work. Wikipedia? Really?
 
oswriter said:
I won't speak to motive, but after reading Axanar's reply brief, I'm starting to worry about Erin Ranahan's soul. Personally, I would resign rather than sign my name to that brief. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
After an especially heated go around with Blue Cross of Florida over a denied claim (long story) I told the person I was dealing to get out of the business before she started looking in the mirror and not seeing a reflection. That's probably one she hadn't heard before. (Happy ending...the practice wrote off the amount even though they got bad info from FBC) ah well. I wonder if that's one of the reasons our Right Honorable Madam Chief Justice decided to find other work?
 
Earthrise said:
It isn't just the arguments, I wouldn't want to put my name on such sloppy work. Wikipedia? Really?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it sloppy per se - I might call it desperate. And again, it's not up to a lawyer to decide the case (even though they will certainly have their internal opinion of how they expect the case to ultimately go.) Under our civil legal system someone's going to 'win' and someone's going to loose. <-- That's the way it works (unless the parties settle of course.)

The system provides that each litigant has the right to argue a defense and a lawyer retained by a litigant is ethically bound to argue that side's case to the best of their ability using the evidence and whatever legal theory (good or bad) they can find that supports their litigant's position. Again, they will have an educated opinion as to how well these arguments may ultimately be received by a Judge - but they are ethically and professionally bound (if the litigant REFUSES to settle and wants their day in court) to do the best job they can for their client.

I may not agree with the arguments or how they're framed; but I will commend Erin Ranahan for doing the best legal job she can (given the evidence) to see her litigant either prevails; or gets the best result (read: minimal damages judgement against him) given the situation. I'm sure Ms. Ranahan tried to get Mr. Peters to accept a settlement - but if he doesn't want to, no matter what the reason; that's his right - and any attorney's job is to represent the wishes of their client to the best of their ability - even if/when they have a pretty good idea of what the ultimate result might be.
 
Last edited:
muCephi said:
From the first doc:

"Plaintiffs have sought federal copyright protection for characters central to the Star Trek universe, such as Spock and Kirk. SAMF 82-84. Plaintiffs have not, however, sought federal copyright protection for either Garth of Izar or Ambassador Soval. SAMF 85-86. Indeed, these characters are so minor and esoteric that Justin Lin and J.J. Abrams—Star Trek fans who are intimately familiar with the Star Trek universe—have admitted that they are unfamiliar with them or otherwise consider them unimportant. The director of the latest Star Trek movie, Justin Lin, despite being a Star Trek fan since childhood, testified that he had never heard of Garth of Izar. SAMF 87-88. J.J. Abrams, the producer and/or director of recent Star Trek films, testified that while he would consider Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Zulu, Chekov, and Scotty to be central characters, he would not consider Garth of Izar a central character. SAMF 89-95." [Redacted sentence ends paragraph]
Click to expand...
In other words W&S and JJ & Lin have no idea of what they are talking about. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
BTW, if Alec and company want to play the selective enforcement defense they should cite stuff like this which is now clogging Facebook live feed ads leading up through the holidays. Imagine a thousand Axanar Coffee style products, all bootleg, all running completely uncontested.

http://teecity.com/trekthehallswithspok

Limited time offer! Not available in stores! In other words, nab a quick profit and scurry away before CBS/Paramount even figures it out.
 
Last edited:
MikeH92467 said:
His eyes red, his face black! (His usual state from what I can tell)
Click to expand...
We need to form a "Children of Tama Language Society" so we can file the most awesome (and incomprehensible) amicus brief in history.

Red Shirt said:
In other words W&S and JJ & Lin have no idea of what they are talking about. :rofl:
Click to expand...
And there's no reason they should know anything about Soval. The relevant question would be to ask Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, the writers who created the character and produced the "Enterprise" pilot, whether they considered Soval an integral part of their story.
 
Last edited:
oswriter said:
Red Shirt said:
In other words W&S and JJ & Lin have no idea of what they are talking about. :rofl:
Click to expand...
And there's no reason they should know anything about Soval. The relevant question would be to ask Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, the writers who created the character and produced the "Enterprise" pilot, is whether they considered Soval an integral part of their story.
Click to expand...
That IS a very strong point.
 
oswriter said:
We need to form a "Children of Tama Language Society" so we can file the most awesome (and incomprehensible) amicus brief in history.
Click to expand...

Trek Fans, Their Arms Open

1. Godwin and Mudd at Goldrush
2. Ares' Warehouse, Its Vision Green
3. The Beast at Kickstarter
4. CEO and Girlfriend, their Faces Full
5. The River Lexus, at Maintenance
6. JJ and Justin, their Shoulders Shrugged
7. Folly, When it Rises
 
MikeH92467 said:
After an especially heated go around with Blue Cross of Florida over a denied claim (long story) I told the person I was dealing to get out of the business before she started looking in the mirror and not seeing a reflection. That's probably one she hadn't heard before. (Happy ending...the practice wrote off the amount even though they got bad info from FBC) ah well. I wonder if that's one of the reasons our Right Honorable Madam Chief Justice decided to find other work?
Click to expand...

I felt like I was losing my center, truth be told. As I told my boss at the time, "I don't like the person I'm becoming."

PS Defense S/J Motion analysed because there is a metric ton of stuff to read and blog about so this will hopefully even it out just a smidge.
Axanar Defense Summary Judgment Motion
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-defense-summary-judgment-motion/
Thanks for readin' (and for asking @MikeH92467 ) :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top