<heads off to Twitter>
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
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.
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:
I'd give real money if he'd shut up (seriously, who does Slow Lane expect to keep lapping up this drivel?)
http://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/01/11...s-on-exclusions-in-the-axanar-lawsuit-part-1/
http://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/01/11...s-on-exclusions-in-the-axanar-lawsuit-part-1/
Tried to read that through and just gave up-
I think I will just join that whinny kid over there and watch some paint dry instead...
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.
Defense Motion #8 strikes me as unmitigated gall (Chutzpah?). Did I read right that they were asking to remove any references to Star Trek?
A wall of letters, characters and words. I just can't get past two paragraphs in this passive-aggressive, condescending drivel.
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.
So he never used the name Star Trek to promote Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar?
So he never used the name Star Trek to promote Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar?
He never used Star Trek when he was saying he was making a professional Star Trek film?!
Anybody 
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.]
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:
Don't feel bad - this laymen also has that question!
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!
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:
" 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.?
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.?
@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.
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.
.
.
Actually the one question I have is:
Given that the Plaintiff's can't introduce evidence about the "Professionalism' of the Axanar works - does that means a question like:
"Mr. Peters, did you ever promote 'Axanar' as an 'Independent, professiossional Star Trek film' verbally, in print, interviews, or in any on-line internet tweets, posts or blogs?"
would be out of order to ask Alec Peters should he take the witness stand?
Actually the one question I have is:
Given that the Plaintiff's can't introduce evidence about the "Professionalism' of the Axanar works - does that means a question like:
"Mr. Peters, did you ever promote 'Axanar' as an 'Independent, professiossional Star Trek film' verbally, in print, interviews, or in any on-line internet tweets, posts or blogs?"
would be out of order to ask Alec Peters should he take the witness stand?
Probably. But the word 'independent' - I think that might be all right. It's tricky. So much of this stuff is just so intimately linked. I mean, you allow the podcasts in, and he's the one saying 'professional', over and over again. But if you parse out the podcasts and bleep out this, that, and the other thing, they lose their impact and the jury doesn't know why the f they're listening to a bunch of disconnected dead air. You avoid the podcasts, and a great source of proof of willful infringement for plaintiffs is just lost. So plaintiffs will fight to be able to use the podcasts, I suspect, and in as close to a full form as possible.
I would not want to be the sound engineer, if they do have to be bleeped or otherwise aurally redacted.
Thanks!
So if or since the judge did in fact tack on the tentative bit in all caps to the ruling he is indicating this isn't a real ruling yet until [something] brings him to the point he is firmly settled on and/or fully explained the what's why's & wherefore's.... and then he will hand down the actual real ruling. And the actual ruling may not differ at all from this tentative ruling in any way. And by tacking on the tentative bit he's hedged it or alerted the parties involved that the actual ruling reserves the possibility of having differences from the tentative ruling if he so chooses.
Did I get that right?
Last edited:
- Status