CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Discussion in 'Fan Productions' started by Richard Baker, Dec 30, 2015.

  1. ThankYouGeneR

    ThankYouGeneR Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Thanks! Really do appreciate everything you do in allllll this documenting and organizing and researching and .... Everything.

    I do not understand a lot of what's on that list means. And sorta barely understand others among them. A couple, well, actually not at all. :lol: But if you ever consider putting each one of them in wayeasierthanlayman's wording give me a heads up. (and totally no worries if you don't) I'm reasonably certain I can understand wayeasierthanlayman's wording.
     
    RedForman likes this.
  2. carlosp

    carlosp Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    My recent tweets are more in layman' terms. @AxaMonitor
     
    Red Shirt and dmac like this.
  3. jespah

    jespah Commodore Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, the Gateway to the Galaxy
    Blog post is up re the ruling (which is rather bare bones so I'm afraid the post is as well) -
    http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-orders-motions-exclude-evidence/

    We may see more documents, particularly about plaintiffs' MIL #6, and we will probably see some sort of clarification from the judge regarding today's rulings. Rulings were mixed but mainly serve to improve the signal to noise ratio for the jury.

    And with that, I bid you all a fond good night. :)
     
  4. OtherGene

    OtherGene Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2016
    Location:
    Manchester & Salford CID, 1973
    <heads off to Twitter>
     
  5. OtherGene

    OtherGene Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2016
    Location:
    Manchester & Salford CID, 1973
    Thanks @carlosp, that was a great summary on @AxaMonitor.

    I have to say it all sounds very fair and reasonable for both sides. You can see the Judge is attempting to streamline the information, wheat from chaff etc etc. Chief Axanar blogger Mr Lane does appear to have enough to go on to produce another incredibly misleading and overly optimistic piece to keep the worms on the hooks, though, sadly.

    EDIT - And so it has come to pass. I only scanned it as my self loathing doesn't extend to that level of punishment but the gist appears to be if it's bad for Axanar then remember it's only tentative and if it's good for Axanar then it's a big win.

    Sigh.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  6. RedForman

    RedForman Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2016
    Location:
    Up your ass with my foot
    dmac likes this.
  7. Richard Baker

    Richard Baker Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Location:
    Warrior, AL
    KennyB likes this.
  8. jespah

    jespah Commodore Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, the Gateway to the Galaxy
    That's some awfully nice paint drying there.

    Also, on Monday the 9th, the judge did not hear oral arguments on the motions – it was a pretrial conference. Did they talk about the pending motions? Possibly. But it was not formal oral arguments. Pretrial conferences are for other purposes, such as tying up all the loose ends before trial, ironing out any possible scheduling conflicts that have cropped up (e. g. heaven forbid, a lawyer's kid has to have surgery on the scheduled start date for the trial and the date just came up and can't be moved, that sort of thing). It is also an opportunity for the judge to, yet again, knock heads together and try to get everyone to settle the case.

    As a courtesy (albeit not necessary), it can also be a moment for the court to receive word of any intended interlocutory appeals.

    But it was not oral arguments on the pending motions.
     
  9. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    Defense Motion #8 strikes me as unmitigated gall (Chutzpah?). Did I read right that they were asking to remove any references to Star Trek?
     
    jespah likes this.
  10. muCephi

    muCephi Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Location:
    dimensions 11, 17, and 23
     
    Pindar and wtriker1701 like this.
  11. Ryan Thomas Riddle

    Ryan Thomas Riddle Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Location:
    The Bay Area
    wtriker1701 and RedForman like this.
  12. Noname Given

    Noname Given Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    Yep - I believe their claim was Mr. Peters NEVER used the term 'Star Trek' to promote the film - it was always called just 'Axanar'

    (Of course this ignored the submitted 'casting call' sheet that was sent to agencies that had 'Star Trek Axanar' as the title, or the fact that the Axanar twitter account name is: @StarTrekAxanar - but again, that's a Defense lawyer for you when they really have nothing - they HOPE the Judge and/or his research attorneys don't really bother to research beyond whats stated by the Defense in a motion.)

    So yeah, the Judge properly denied this Defense request to exclude.
     
    Coloratura and jespah like this.
  13. CaptGrumpy

    CaptGrumpy Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    Beyond the 8th Dimension
    So he never used the name Star Trek to promote Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar? :shrug:
     
    jespah likes this.
  14. Professor Zoom

    Professor Zoom Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Location:
    Idealistic
    He never used Star Trek when he was saying he was making a professional Star Trek film?!
     
    CaptGrumpy likes this.
  15. ThankYouGeneR

    ThankYouGeneR Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Anybody :lol: I'm needing some clarification on this ruling thing.
    If I'm understanding it right AxaMonitor is saying there had been a ruling on these points. It reads, at least to me I mean, that the judge had, you know, said 'On these points this is the way it is, guys.' Now fff is agreeing that the judge made the ruling but is also saying that the judge went to all in caps measures adding the word tentative to the word 'ruling'... to make sure everyone understands this is a tentative ruling and not to consider it a 'This is the way it is, guys' ruling yet.

    I know AxaMonitor would have made it absolutely clear that this ruling is a tentative ruling if that what it is. That point would most assuredly not been omitted. But Mr. Lane is persuasive about the judge taking measures to make sure everyone is clear that these rulings are, at this time, tentative. He's really clear on this and that the judge and all....

    And 'judge makes tentative rulings' and 'judge makes rulings' carry different, to me I mean, connotations. So I'm somewhat confused and need a bit of help understanding.

    [EDIT: Oops, my bad. The rulings document does actually confirm it is fff that is correct. It says the rulings are tentative and has the word tentative written in all caps.]
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
    Potemkin_Prod and jamestyler like this.
  16. jamestyler

    jamestyler Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Don't feel bad - this laymen also has that question! :p I assume this will stand, but know Carlos will make corrections when needed and wondered if Lane would just want to re-assure his readers of his importance since he was banished from the room.

    My curiosity is.... the 'drama' thing. This still means their depositions are in evidence, right? It's a stupid question, I know - but I'd rather have the answer of people in the know before I say anything out loud. And there are good people in the know here!
     
    ThankYouGeneR likes this.
  17. ThankYouGeneR

    ThankYouGeneR Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    The 'drama'. Now that's one of the places in the Rulings list I wasn't clear on. In the 'granted' Defense Motions to Exclude #5 is it saying that the drama part of Mr. Gossett & McIntosh's testimony is to be excluded from being examined in court but the 'this is what he said & did regarding intent & infringement, et al., is allowed? Surely they will still be permitted to testify regarding those things. Right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
  18. muCephi

    muCephi Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Location:
    dimensions 11, 17, and 23
    " 9. Motion to preclude Plaintiffs from introducing evidence as to the professional nature of Defendants’ Works — GRANTED. "

    Could this impact ability to present the fundraising claims of being a professional project, the fact that professionals were sought out to do the work, etc.?
     
  19. jespah

    jespah Commodore Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, the Gateway to the Galaxy
    @jamestyler @ThankYouGeneR - the drama part seems to be what is being left out of the Gossett/McIntosh testimony. However, they are material witnesses (they were there!). They should be allowed to testify.

    As for the 'tentative' bit - more likely it means that the court will issue an explanation and hasn't written it yet, and then that will be the ruling. I doubt this means Klausner will change his mind between now and trial.

    @muCephi yes. However, I have little doubt that, say, the entire cast list could make it into evidence without redaction, even though professionals such as Tony Todd, JG Hertzler, and Gary Graham are on that list. I believe the ruling on #9 is more to peel away the quality argument although Prelude and the Vulcan Scene most likely will be shown in their entirety anyway. Hence the jury will draw their own conclusions on subjective substantial similarity without getting any (to the judge's mind) extraneous info about professionalism.
     
  20. Sean_McCormick

    Sean_McCormick Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Thankfully, i know of the right tool for such an occasion ;).

    http://fontbomb.ilex.ca/
     
    RedForman likes this.