Got a link to go with the story on that????
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
FWIW, the "objective" Mr. Lane has stopped allowing critical or mixed comments on his blog. He allowed about 6 of my posts and has denied the rest.
I mean, seriously, if Peters is to defeat his already toilet based reputation for online discourse, why set up a sock puppet and demand the puppet plays the same game? I find it very bizarre.
It amazes me that even when you try and give Peters any level of fairness he or his minions immediately come along, drop their trousers and take a dump on you. What possible benefit can that bring?
I mean, seriously, if Peters is to defeat his already toilet based reputation for online discourse, why set up a sock puppet and demand the puppet plays the same game? I find it very bizarre.
It amazes me that even when you try and give Peters any level of fairness he or his minions immediately come along, drop their trousers and take a dump on you. What possible benefit can that bring?
This is intriguing as it's not the first time I've seen it (edit: as a defense from Camp Axanar). and it baffles me - this was perhaps the most disgusting thing to be allowed to happen, completely and utterly bullshit on every level and it's been very openly criticised in far less polite terms. It's not the best message to send out. "Hey, the asshole won, we're assholes too so we'll be fine!"
It's really frustrating.
Frustrating, yes. It also speaks to the intellectual capacity (lack of critical thinking skills among other things.....) of Reece and other sock-puppets who choose to parrot such ill-informed arguments and thus, demonstrates the overall absurdity of the defense's position/assertions.
So the case cited here, Cariou v. Prince, was a 2013 decision from the Second Circuit in New York. The gist of the case was that the plaintiff "appropriated" the defendant's photographs for his own work. The Second Circuit decided this was fair use because, despite using the plaintiff's photographs, the defendant nevertheless "transformed" them by changing the context in which they were presented.
The court noted the defendant presented "an entirely different aesthetic" from the plaintiff's original and that were was basically no overlap in the markets for the plaintiff's and defendant's works:
I don't see how this decision helps LFIM. He's repeatedly stated that he is making a film for Star Trek fans (if not a "fan film"), which is "usurping" the market, as the Second Circuit put it. Similarly, the "aesthetic" of Axanar is identical to that of Star Trek. He's not taking "Whom Gods Destroy" and re-imagining it as French impressionism.
Agree. Totally disagree with 'that' lawsuit. It was wrong... and that person got away with it. And I ever keep it in mind that IP lawsuits can, and indeed sometimes do (as in 'that' case), highlight what can go very wrong in the case by case IP battles. Not just IP either. Take the upskirt cameras 'do not violate privacy laws' in Georgia for instance. How could this even be in question? And yet it is. Or murders who escape conviction. And yet some do. Or for that matter persons 'innocent' of murder... who are convicted. And yet.
Court and trials are never a 'given'.
"Hey, [he] won,...... so we'll be fine!"
Distressing that a supporter of the production would use 'that' case in support of the production and defendant. But, to me at least, it speaks much about Mr. Watkin's mental and moral qualities; his character.
Last edited:
actually, he is saying "..so we ARE fine!"
Because the Georgia criminal statute in question did not apply to that specific situation, according to a majority of the state's Court of Appeals. The law prohibited filming someone in a "private place." The victim in the Georgia case was walking in a pubic shopping mall.
I would caution against the simplistic view that just because someone is being an a**hole, that means their conduct must be illegal. Similarly, in the Second Circuit case, the court presented a credible analysis of why the defendant's conduct was protected by "fair use." It doesn't mean he's not also a jerk.
Yes, agree. And I am familiar with the walking in public/private aspect of the law & decision. Though I remain steadfast that while that camera use may have credible fair use aspects, upskirt filming of the victim is not one of them.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone disagrees with you. I would say that it's up to the Legislature to spell out more clearly what an illegal invasion of privacy is.
Oh yes. Agree. I 'think' that is what there is no crime without a law spelling out the crime means. (I forget how that's actually worded. Latin, 'nulla' something I 'think') Which sometimes allows the vile or nefarious to comply with the letter of the law while exploiting the spirit of say, in that particular case, the violation of privacy law intent... because of the letter interpretation.
Which, to me anyway, is to my own point in thinking about the IP case by case going on in media at this time. The law when laid down says something which would be deemed clear.... at least until something new happens. Then the law is challenged due to [attorney states case]. Upheld or Overruled. Another attorney in another court somewhere comes at it from a new examination of what constitutes fair use or whateversomething. That case is won. A tiny movement. A different court makes a different judgment. Etc.
That what one court may be led or just inclined to infer about the literal law as down on paper, another can sometimes be successfully challenged into deciding that wording isn't spelled out enough (or something). Thereby coming to a different ruling.
And while the count of these successful challenges in IP violations may be small they still keep at least the thought, for me I mean, that what I see as clear violation by this production and defendant might not be as clear as I would have it be when argued by attorneys whose specialties are to get the Court and jury to consider an acceptable challenge to what the IP law specifically spells out.
Last edited:
A bunch of documents have been filed yesterday and today, basically each side responding to the other's statements in support of summary judgment. I've uploaded a few of the C/P filings here if anyone wants to read them.
The big document in this batch is a 179-page reply to Axanar's response to the studios' proposed statement of undisputed facts. The first item of contention is on page 9 regarding the use of Soval. Axanar "disputed" C/O's claim that Soval "wore virtually identical makeup and costumes" in the Axanar works. Axanar disputed this. (This was the infamous "Japanese lettering" on the robes claim.) C/P's reply:
The next point of dispute (or non-dispute, as it were) involves C/P's statement that "Garth of Izar, like Captain Kirk, was a Starfleet Captain." Axanar disputed this fact, responding, "Garth of Izar was a Fleet Captain, and thus closer to an Admiral, commanding many ships, than a ship captain like Kirk."
Before going any further, I just want want to say that in nearly 20 years of writing about litigation, that may be the saddest "disputed" fact I have ever come across. Moving on, here is C/P's reply:
The big document in this batch is a 179-page reply to Axanar's response to the studios' proposed statement of undisputed facts. The first item of contention is on page 9 regarding the use of Soval. Axanar "disputed" C/O's claim that Soval "wore virtually identical makeup and costumes" in the Axanar works. Axanar disputed this. (This was the infamous "Japanese lettering" on the robes claim.) C/P's reply:
C/P then provides pictures for comparison.
The next point of dispute (or non-dispute, as it were) involves C/P's statement that "Garth of Izar, like Captain Kirk, was a Starfleet Captain." Axanar disputed this fact, responding, "Garth of Izar was a Fleet Captain, and thus closer to an Admiral, commanding many ships, than a ship captain like Kirk."
Before going any further, I just want want to say that in nearly 20 years of writing about litigation, that may be the saddest "disputed" fact I have ever come across. Moving on, here is C/P's reply:
More to come...
Skimming and caught this...
An objection from the Defendants.
lol
Plaintiffs’ Response:
more lols
An objection from the Defendants.
lol
Plaintiffs’ Response:
more lols
I'm on page 150 of 179. Some more highlights:
1. There's a bunch of bickering over whether Axanar used the Four Years War supplement to the FASA RPG as a source. The defense disputes this fact, arguing they "had a copy of the Four Years War, but did not use [it] to create Axanar works besides in a de minimis way with respect to the name of a planet." C/P replies:
2. Axanar disputes that Prelude featured Klingons, insisting it "features only one Klingon, Kharn." C/P replies:
There's similar back-and-forth with respect to the Vulcans.
3. During his deposition, Gossett testified that Prelude was "an infringing work." Axanar disputed this fact, stating it called "for a legal conclusion" and that Gossett "had a personal vendetta against Mr. Peters...so his credibility on these issues at the very least creates yet another factual dispute." C/P replies:
This is why I only really discuss Axanar here. There's actual law stuff to talk about!
That particular case came on my radar at the time because, much like others in my field, it was a devastating blow. I've even had clients try and use this as a means for dodging payments - one who was a gem and refused to settle because they had a friend take my draft, trace it and call it their own transformative work (and if someone else did it, there's no need to pay me in their mind).
My lawyer didn't agree, nor did their boss (who the work was commissioned for) thankfully.
But I've always found the fact this guy won under transformation use utterly mental. There's surely got to be some degree of effort or change - aside from format - to qualify as transformed.
....anyway (I ramble more than I should in the mornings
) the universal disgust for the decision was pretty clear at the time. And what I'm finding frustrating is that so many people within the camp who are artists - and who felt the same disgust - are now using it for their defence.Especially as - as said - when one has described it as a Star Trek work, even going by the route of saying it's a Trek work that's never been done before (aside from all the licensed original stuff he used to create it :/ ) still goes against the very basic high school level teaching of copyright law.
Yes. That's actually a very important correction. I've noticed the psychology of the defence has swung back to the vibe of winning. But I've also noticed the defense also seems to be fighting a different war in public than they are in the court papers,.
I'm going to have to google this later. It's gone under my radar not being American, but I'm curious about the laws there. Here I've had to have waivers/noticed of filming in public places, and even taking a photograph in a shopping centre will risk you having your phone conviscated.
In my brief stint in security (mall cop after my daughter was born - safer payday than freelancing
) it was policy to confiscate any cameras or recording equipment and directly erase anything taken on our grounds to ensure the privacy and safety of the public.Edit: and now I see more files. This is gonna take a day or two :|
"I'm a lawyer!" "No I'm not!" "Yes I am!" "No I'm not!"
Somebody convince me that AP isn't writing these disputes himself.
Exactly!!!!
It certainly seems that way, especially once you get to the "Statement of Additional Material Facts" proposed by the defense. So let's talk about some of those now.
1. Axanar states, "The Vulcan Scene features an original plot never before used in Plaintiffs' Works." C/P disputes this:
2. Axanar states that Prelude "features an original 'mockumentary' style never used before by Plaintiffs." C/P says this is "disputed and irrelevant":
3. There are a bunch of attempts by LFIM to claim other "inspirations" for his story outside of Star Trek. For example, he claimed he "modeled his performance of Garth of Izar after the veterans depicted in 'Band of Brothers,'" the HBO war documentary mini-series. He also claims Axanar was "inspired" by an episode of MASH called "The Interview," that was "shot like newsreel footage that gave an intimate look at the characters feelings on the war." C/P dismisses all of this as "irrelevant" and points out "Prelude speaks for itself."
4. There are a number of statements taken from J.J. Abrams' deposition regarding how only certain characters are "central to Star Trek." C/P objects to all of this as irrelevant, but there is one section here worth mentioning:
- Status