• 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.
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?
I think it's even less complicated than that. I think it's that the quick rulings are out so the parties know what to expect, but the rationale behind them will be released at a (soonish) later date. Anyway, that's how I read it. Could be wrong. Could be barkin' up the wrong maple.
 
Got it! Thanks again Whole Big Bunches!!



EDIT:
Oh shiiii.... ooot, @jespah. I'm just now reading the Semantic Shenanigans: Judge Klausner’s Axanar Orders on Motions in Limine to Exclude Evidence. Pulled up the ruling document you linked and there it says (I copied & pasted the following directly from the document so the capitalization is not my own): The Court makes the following TENTATIVE rulings on the Motions In Limine I must have blinked and missed your post that the blog about it was up. :lol:
 
Last edited:
@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.

I am wondering how sweeping this decision is. Willful infringement would be much clearer if the constant claims of being "professional not fan" were present. I don't even see how the fundraising project description could make sense if the word "professional" were removed. I think it would be like requiring the word "explosion" to be redacted from an Avengers CGI timeline.
 
I don't know. We're waiting on the minutes from the hearing/more detail (a little tough to tell what it will be). There's also opposition information, the responses to the motions, so it's a tad unclear how much they were taken into consideration.

But these things don't change often after being tentative, or at least they don't change significantly. So while we will get more detail, and hopefully some of the contradictions will be explained, I don't think we're gonna get War and Peace on this.
 
I am wondering how sweeping this decision is. Willful infringement would be much clearer if the constant claims of being "professional not fan" were present. I don't even see how the fundraising project description could make sense if the word "professional" were removed. I think it would be like requiring the word "explosion" to be redacted from an Avengers CGI timeline.

This misconception could be why he decided that in the first place.

"Professional" really has nothing to do with "willful." If Alec can convince the jury that he thought what he was doing was okay, then whether he was doing it for profit or not is irrelevant.

If I understand things correctly, all they need to prove for "willful infringement" is that he was fully aware that Axanar violated IP law, and that it was therefore illegal and was not okay, but then he went ahead and did it anyway.

If this is how Klausner is thinking, then I can kinda see the point. There's a whole sideshow about Alec's professional ambitions here, but that's not what the case is about. It's about whether or not he used someone else's intellectual property without permission, full stop. The financial data (the basics of which I presume are still allowed) would be enough to show that he was profiting monetarily when they get to assessing damages; whether he was profiting "professionally" doesn't really matter.

This is just off the top of my head. Someone with more knowledge, feel free to chime in.
 
But surely even Peters would have known that there's an imaginary line in the sand. Up till now, CBS/P left fan films alone, but on the other end of the scale it's fairly obvious that they'd sue if, say, Warners tried to make a Trek film.

The further up the amateur/professional scale Peters went, the more chance he had of crossing the line and therefore getting sued.

I'll wait on the Judge's clarification, but to my mind the 'professionalism' angle was a key point here: the very reason for this lawsuit is because he strayed too far from the fan film 'norm'.
 
If this is how Klausner is thinking, then I can kinda see the point. There's a whole sideshow about Alec's professional ambitions here, but that's not what the case is about. It's about whether or not he used someone else's intellectual property without permission, full stop. The financial data (the basics of which I presume are still allowed) would be enough to show that he was profiting monetarily when they get to assessing damages; whether he was profiting "professionally" doesn't really matter.

While it's not the core reason stamped on the paperwork, I think those ambitions should be quite relevant.

The plan for the studio and his future was tied very closely to this effort. Wilful infringement out of arrogance is one thing, wilful infringement our of greed or self service to this degree is another.

Maybe it's not relevant to the judge, maybe it's a case of simplifying it for the jury or to avoid a complete circus unfolding within the room, but the entire context given for Axanar's "Frak you guys, we can do this better and we'll launch our own for profit platform" isn't one that should be ignored. The intent behind the infringement seems incredibly important to me, not just for correctly establishing damages, but in ensuring no one tries it again with Star Trek or any other property that could be challenges in the same way.
 
I believe even the altered financials are going to show studio expenses. And these are going to be LA-area jurors. They don't have to be in the entertainment biz at all to know that there are a ton of places to rent studio space from in the area. Plaintiffs really just have to get across that the studio was being tricked out for something beyond the Axa feature to connect the dots from infringement to serious personal gain.

And, they don't even need to do that, as the showing of personal gain is accomplished by everything from the emails where AP and Mr. McIntosh complain their FB likes are down due to taking the 'Star Trek' name off their FB group, to the Netflix meeting.
 
Omitting the word "professional" and failure to connect the dots about how it explains so many actions beyond making a fan film allows defense to go back to saying "if you let other fan films do this, what's wrong with what Axanar did?"

I think that the "professional" intent is critical in separating Axanar from prior allowed conduct of fan films. Its absence invites the jury and press to sympathize with an "innocent" underdog.

Of course, the studios can just work around it, for example by calling out salaries, union dues, studio, business expenses, intent to rent the facility, etc, and let the jury fill in the word.

Sometimes its more powerful to let the listener connect the dots. Then it's their invested conclusion, not your suggested conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Omitting the word "professional" and failure to connect the dots about how it explains so many actions beyond making a fan film allows defense to go back to saying "if you let other fan films do this, what's wrong with what Axanar did?"

I think that the "professional" intent is critical in separating Axanar from prior allowed conduct of fan films. Its absence invites the jury and press to sympathize with an "innocent" underdog.

Yes, and fans of fan films should not be pleased with this development. C/P have taken great care to distinguish Axanar from other fan films by emphasizing its intent to be professional. Doing so allows them to protect both their business interests and fan works. If the defense is successful at undermining C/P's efforts, they may come to the conclusion that there is too much risk of IP parasites hiding behind expressions of fandom. In such a situation they would shut it all down.

If Alec Peters and his team care about fan films, they would settle now. Axanar would be up a creek, but the rest of the fan film community would have a chance.
 
I think that the "professional" intent is critical in separating Axanar from prior allowed conduct of fan films. Its absence invites the jury and press to sympathize with an "innocent" underdog.

I think the whole issue is that it doesn't matter what everyone else did, or what Axanar called itself. To the law, willful is a binary thing; it's either willful or it isn't. Stuff like calling the production "professional" goes to how willful it was, but that's largely irrelevant. In the damages phase, I don't believe that things like Alec's Netflix ambitions are excluded, and stuff like that is damaging enough.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with any of this, mind you. This is just my guess as to what the judge is thinking.
 
I think the whole issue is that it doesn't matter what everyone else did, or what Axanar called itself. To the law, willful is a binary thing; it's either willful or it isn't. Stuff like calling the production "professional" goes to how willful it was, but that's largely irrelevant. In the damages phase, I don't believe that things like Alec's Netflix ambitions are excluded, and stuff like that is damaging enough.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with any of this, mind you. This is just my guess as to what the judge is thinking.
I think there is a valid argument to be made to the Jury (if any other info on C/P's treatment of fan films prior to the Axanar situation is allowed) - as to the fact that PRIOR to the Lawsuit being filed 'Axanar' was being promoted as the 'First professional and independent Star Trek feature film...'

If the Judge doesn't allow any evidence as to how CBS/Paramount treaed Star Trek fan films prior to this whole Axanar situation; then yes, the 'professional' aspect has little to no bearing; but if the Defense gets it on the record that C/P treated other groups differently; the Plaintiffs should be able to tell hem "why" in full.
 
Last edited:
A little drama in the comments section of this vid (at least that's what I got from the Facebook group - not sure how many posts on both sides have been deleted)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
This thread has been an ongoing journey and I've appreciated most of the people's contributions on it be it witty humor, no nonsense insight, legal and/or journalistic acumen, fan production experience, ST fan, it's all been an interesting read this past year.

For the life of me I don't understand why you, Smoked Salmon, keep going after people on this thread with your straw man arguments. Once or twice alright, I guess, but it's a chronic behavior now that really sucks.
Straw man arguments, no, not at all, and while my review of his history may have been inaccurate even Carlos admits about that he had an issue with Peters from the outset of this case. His blog may not contain factual inaccuracies, but it's clearly designed to make Peters look bad by analysising pretty much everything he says. For instance, where and the "truth or fact" explorations on his blog for every move Loeb and Loeb make? There aren't. You don't need to lie to still promote a bias.

Look, I'm ok nobody's side, albeit that much view of Peters is such that I end to fall on the anti-Axanar side. But I just want honesty and I think it's disingenuous to pretend that there aren't people on the anti- Axansr side who are desperate to see Peters fall on his sword.
 
I think a cliche is in order here: "I have never wished anyone dead, but I have read many an obituary with great pleasure." I have to say I disagree that Carlos has claimed to be totally neutral. I think his feelings toward the conduct of AP are quite clear and have been from the beginning and those feelings should be factored into what he rights, but unless you can find some specific instance of his feelings leading him to publish incorrect, inaccurate or slanted material, I think it's grossly unfair to throw him into the same pool with some of the people who do seem to have no boundaries when it comes to attacking AP.

ETA: the exact quote is from Clarence Darrow's autobiography "All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction."
 
A little drama in the comments section of this vid (at least that's what I got from the Facebook group - not sure how many posts on both sides have been deleted)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Hinman and Peters are both posting. Of course there's drama.
 
Think what you will, @Smoked Salmon; I won't try to change your opinion of my work. It speaks for itself and whatever conclusions you choose to draw from it are, of course, your own. But your estimation of my "agenda" should at least be drawn from facts rather than supposition. Namely:

I've never had any "brushes" with Alec Peters. Ever. My time in fan films concluded before his began; I left Star Trek New Voyages in 2009 to begin working on the first of three independent feature films. Naturally, Peters and I know a lot of people in common but I've never met him.
I'm not a "reinvented" journalist. My degree is in journalism, and I was a working journalist for many years, including at The Associated Press, as well as the deputy press secretary for the governor of Washington state.
I've been up front from Day 1 about my perspective in covering this case; it appears in the About section of the AxaMonitor homepage: "AxaMonitor aims to inform readers about what’s at stake in this suit, and its possible impact on fan productions and U.S. copyright law."

Obviously, I believe the stakes are high or I wouldn't dedicate the amount of time to this case that I have. This case has always had an important precedent-setting aspect to it, and CBS' promulgation of restrictive fan film guidelines because of what Axanar has done has, as blogger Bjorn Munson put it in his commentary the other day, "helped decimate an entire ecosystem of fan productions."

Fan films were how I got my start as a professional screenwriter and producer. I've made cherished lifetime friendships and professional connections having been part of the community. Axanar and its lawsuit hurt a community I'm proud to have been a part of, and people I'm proud to call colleagues and friends.

Perhaps such sentiments give me something of a personal stake in this story but demeaning them as a mere "axe to grind" is unfairly reductive, particularly since Peters has never done anything to me that I believe would warrant such a characterization. As I mentioned, we've never met. I was not an Axanar donor. Other than his public denunciations of my work, that's about it.

I started AxaMonitor almost a year ago because I saw fans' increasingly vitriolic debates about Axanar were generally ill-informed about what fan films are and how they operate, and about copyright law in general. My intent was to offer an information resource that could inform such discussions. I freely admit that my bent as a journalist has been to call out inaccuracy, particularly when it's deliberate. And I think the record is pretty clear Axanar engages in such behavior in an effort to control the public narrative about the case.

In large measure, Peters has been successful. Given not one but two PR professionals at his command, his hundred thousand Twitter followers, tens of thousands of fans on Facebook, claimed 14,000 donors and the national (even international) positive news articles from such outlets as Space.com, Newsweek, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and Wired, you might understand why I've become so passionate as a voice in such a media wilderness.

Finally, I admit I was offended by how thoroughly Peters hides or squashes dissent — even simple questions about his actions. And I'm not talking about me. Since the lawsuit was filed more than a year ago, Peters has purged hundreds of former fans from his various Facebook pages, blocked many from Axanar's Twitter feed and, after failing to silence critics with a combination of refunds and non-disclosure agreements, forced refunds on backers in order to delete their critical posts in Axanar’s Kickstarter comment section and posted dozens of spam messages on Kickstarter in order to obscure critics’ comments by moving them down the web page.

Yes, this got my dander up, and yes, it does color the manner in which I cover the case. But I have only ever been absolutely committed to purveying only facts (opinion, analysis and commentary on AxaMonitor are explicitly labeled as such). I firmly believe that facts pose the greatest threat to Axanar, not whatever measly opinions I may hold.

Your accusation that I have an axe to grind implies that I have done ill service to the facts in favor of my so-called agenda. In a year, not one Axanar supporter has pointed to an inaccuracy on AxaMonitor that I haven't corrected. Instead they seek to discredit the work only through personal attacks and name-calling. When confronted on the facts, they reliably deflect or ignore them.

I appreciate your admiration of the effort I expend, but I'm not trying to "seem neutral"; I'm trying to inform and provide perspective. Readers get to decide how effectively I do that, and I won't try to change whatever conclusions they come to. But they should get to do that without intimations that somehow my motivations are anything less than honorable and without having me lumped together with anti-Axanar people out there with their own agendas likely quite different from mine.

Good day.
Straw man arguments, no, not at all, and while my review of his history may have been inaccurate even Carlos admits about that he had an issue with Peters from the outset of this case. His blog may not contain factual inaccuracies, but it's clearly designed to make Peters look bad by analysising pretty much everything he says. For instance, where and the "truth or fact" explorations on his blog for every move Loeb and Loeb make? There aren't. You don't need to lie to still promote a bias.

Look, I'm ok nobody's side, albeit that much view of Peters is such that I end to fall on the anti-Axanar side. But I just want honesty and I think it's disingenuous to pretend that there aren't people on the anti- Axansr side who are desperate to see Peters fall on his sword.
Carlosp replied to your baseless accusations, read the above quote. I don't know why you continuously use your straw man of people are desperate to see Peters fall on his sword, you just want to see him fail, your biased, your prejudiced, blah blah blah derail over and over again. Maybe some do maybe some don't, everyone can speak for themselves. The point is you don't ask, you jump in pointing your finger at someone using the same pointless arguments repetitiously derailing the thread.

I like carlosp and oswriter's (and Jespah's) contributions on this thread. They offer topical conversational insight and they each have a fun sense of humor getting along with everyone. Let's please resume discussing the thread topic.
 
Last edited:
Wow---that seems like a lifetime ago. Going to sleep downloading a trailer in glorious Quicktime to view the next day.
I literally did this for First Contact, and it was something like a 30x50 resolution.

Anywho, this is getting tedious. I wonder what the Ares would look like with blue nacelles.
 
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