CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Franklin]

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Peters has carpet laid.

I think about this waaaay too much, but the only thing I can figure is they may hold the hope that they can reach some agreement with CBS/Paramount that allows them to keep the studio (with its carpeted offices) in exchange for stopping Axanar and doing nothing in the future even remotely related to "Star Trek". Not saying that's a viable or even rational idea, but I wonder if that's what they at least think is possible.

 

[Albinator]

the only thing I can figure is they may hold the hope that they can reach some agreement with CBS/Paramount that allows them to keep the studio

Well technically-- and again i'm no lawyer-- the studio itself is not the dispute. They only want to stop the production. When he is forced to stop production, there is nothing (to my knowledge) that will force him to shutter the studio he's building.

Correct me if i'm wrong, of course, anyone who might know better.

 

[Squiggy]

 

[Ion]

One way or another, although it seems like the end to us, Alec will hide assets, find a way to keep the building, and continue on without a care. He has been posting on his prop blog a lot lately. I think his Hollywood Producer days are over, but Prop King is baaaaaaaaack.

I'm not sure he'll get away with that so easily this time.

As far as I understand it, last time it was just Propworx that declared bankruptcy -- and how an auction house managed to get into that level of financial trouble, I have no idea. It's not "just business", as Alec puts it. Yes, organizations occasionally go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons and often recover, but it is never considered the normal course of business. If Alec truly believes that, I've got a bridge or two to sell him.

This time, though, it won't just be Ares Studios or whatever in bankruptcy.

As I mentioned in one of my snark-fests earlier, they named him personally. An actual lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that says they can (and likely will) go after Peters' personal assets. Meaning that they could take him for millions personally, forcing him into personal bankruptcy.

I highly doubt that the bankruptcy court would let him keep the various assets purchased for Ares studios -- and I doubt he'll have the savings or income left to pay the lease on the building.

When he is forced to stop production, there is nothing (to my knowledge) that will force him to shutter the studio he's building.

The aforementioned lack of money. If the business has no assets left, all he'll be left with is the name. Nothing to pay the rent with.

Maybe that's why he's firing up another prop auction? He needs the money?

 

[Tom]

Legal question, Would an injunction shut down the physical studio itself? or just all the Axanar websites (including Social Media) , promotions, puling of Youtube video's Etc.?

The reason I ask is, I'm wondering if this particular scenario can take place:

- The Injunction is executed and 'Star Trek Axanar' is effectively dead , however the injunction does not effect the studio and it can still be used for filming.
- A trial date is set for a year from now (or maybe a little sooner, give or take)
- Alec creates a new company, Partnering with someone else, and announces a new independent production not involving trek at all, lets call it 'AxanotTrek'. It is basically Axanar with the serial numbers scratched off.
- Alec runs a crowdfunding drive for his production and announces it will be filmed in July 2016.
- Using money from the Axanar donors and money from the new AxanotTrek drive, Alec films the this production in the summer.
- Post work happens in the fall of 2016, production is almost done by the end of the year.
- Alec sells Aries Studios to his new business partner (who has no connection to the Axanar situation) and uses funds to help his upcoming trial.
- December 2016 or January 2017, Alex goes to trial and loses (as expected) and has to pay damages and attorney fees. Alec declares bankruptcy, since he has no money left to pay damages.
- The new film AxanotTrek is released to the all Donors, DVD's go on sale for others etc.. (since the partner will still be running Alec's new company and owns the studio now etc..).
- The studio continues and plans further AxanotTrek related productions and also plans to rent the studio to others etc.. Alec manages to slowly buy his way back into the studio etc.. and thus continues on in the industry.


There could be variations on this scenario as well. Alec has donor money currently and support from thousands of donors. If they can accept the film not being Star Trek he may be able to give them something before the trial takes place. As mentioned, he would need a partner he trusts to help carry out this scenario.

 

[Ion]

- Alec creates a new company, Partnering with someone else, and announces a new independent production not involving trek at all, lets call it 'AxanotTrek'. It is basically Axanar with the serial numbers scratched off.

I would think that any injunction would require that nothing at all be done with the Axanar IP. Filing the serial numbers off would be doing something with it. So if they tried this, it would be in contempt of court or something.

Jespah or someone want to comment? I'm now also curious.

 

[muCephi]

From Facebook, FYI
Lyn Wright shared Propworx's photo.
January 4 at 12:51pm ·
MGM lost over $300,000 in Propworx bankruptcy. Do some investigating before trusting Propworx. He just posted this yesterday.

Alec puts a lot of stock in the insider relationships he has built up with the core Trek people. They may not, by and large, have been affected by Propworx stiffing MGM, but it seems likely they are going to be taking notice of this, and its toxicity, and who caused it. The opinions of Propworx customers and fans and fellow enthusiasts may be squashable in Alec's view, but the opinion of the people he wants to be "in" with will probably be hard to regain even if he holds onto some assets.

 

[Squiggy]

Legal question, Would an injunction shut down the physical studio itself? or just all the Axanar websites (including Social Media) , promotions, puling of Youtube video's Etc.?

The reason I ask is, I'm wondering if this particular scenario can take place:

- The Injunction is executed and 'Star Trek Axanar' is effectively dead , however the injunction does not effect the studio and it can still be used for filming.
- A trial date is set for a year from now (or maybe a little sooner, give or take)
- Alec creates a new company, Partnering with someone else, and announces a new independent production not involving trek at all, lets call it 'AxanotTrek'. It is basically Axanar with the serial numbers scratched off.
- Alec runs a crowdfunding drive for his production and announces it will be filmed in July 2016.
- Using money from the Axanar donors and money from the new AxanotTrek drive, Alec films the this production in the summer.
- Post work happens in the fall of 2016, production is almost done by the end of the year.
- Alec sells Aries Studios to his new business partner (who has no connection to the Axanar situation) and uses funds to help his upcoming trial.
- December 2016 or January 2017, Alex goes to trial and loses (as expected) and has to pay damages and attorney fees. Alec declares bankruptcy, since he has no money left to pay damages.
- The new film AxanotTrek is released to the all Donors, DVD's go on sale for others etc.. (since the partner will still be running Alec's new company and owns the studio now etc..).
- The studio continues and plans further AxanotTrek related productions and also plans to rent the studio to others etc.. Alec manages to slowly buy his way back into the studio etc.. and thus continues on in the industry.

I don't see how the injunction could kill Axanar but allow the studio set up for Axanar to continue.

That aside, it sounds like you've described a few felonies here. Embezzlement, money laundering, contempt, etc.

 

[jespah]

An injunction can be as restrictive or expansive as the plaintiffs request and the judge rules. Plaintiffs would probably have to demonstrate a connection between the businesses, more than just residing in the same space. Names on the leases and names of the owners would be where I would start.

I'll be firing up PACER on Friday morning my time, in order to account for the time difference (East Coast representin' here). And then we shall see. A general denial could be fairly readily filed and then, as suggested above, the matter transferred to another firm. The original attorney(s) would get a slice of the fees, BTW, even though they wouldn't do much more than act as a courier to the court.

The creation of a shell corporation and hiding assets would be significant maneuvers and I can tell you right now they would not please the court. Any speculation in that area is, of course, pure speculation.

So we shall see. I'll post whatever I see (even if it's nothing, which would mean a default judgment would be on its way), release my blog post to G & T, and then run off and try to figure out Adobe InDesign for class.

 

[BillJ]

The money we know Axanar collected from Indiegogo and Kickstarter: $1,212,905. The total amount of available footage: 3 minutes. The money that we know they've spent on a warehouse: $156,000 (13 months rent times $12,000), that doesn't count the capital improvements they've made. They have now said that shooting won't start before March, which is another 2 months at $12,000 a month where the warehouse will be used solely as Propworx home base. Then a three month shoot at another $36,000. Which brings the total just to rent the facility to $204,000. That doesn't count any utilities.

I don't call any of this using your donors money wisely.

 

[Squiggy]

I'll be firing up PACER on Friday morning my time, in order to account for the time difference (East Coast representin' here). And then we shall see.

What's the latest time when something could be posted on PACER? Is it fairly instantaneous?

 

[muCephi]

Legal question, Would an injunction shut down the physical studio itself? or just all the Axanar websites (including Social Media) , promotions, puling of Youtube video's Etc.?

The reason I ask is, I'm wondering if this particular scenario can take place:

if Axanar waives right to discovery, trial might be a lot sooner. if Axanar goes the route of discovery, inquiring as to the information CBS has upon which they base their case, they'd have to pay fees for the time it buys. Yet to be seen is whether a case is filed from the consumer protection or class action side, which might be more directly able to freeze the physical studio asset. Maybe it will become stereo, or even 7.1.

 

[Indysolo]

I'll be firing up PACER on Friday morning my time, in order to account for the time difference (East Coast representin' here). And then we shall see.

Thank you for keeping up with this.

Neil

 

[jespah]

What's the latest time when something could be posted on PACER? Is it fairly instantaneous?

No idea - hence I figure waiting for Friday should cover it. In particular, I figure it would cover whatever happens with Axanar, as their answer is due, erm, tomorrow.

N. B. Pacer says, "Case information is available in PACER once it has been filed or entered in the courts Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system."

PS My pleasure @Indysolo

 

[Ion]

The money we know Axanar collected from Indiegogo and Kickstarter: $1,212,905. The total amount of available footage: 3 minutes.

To be generous, if we include Prelude, the total amount of footage is now ~24 minutes. That means donors have (so far) paid right around $50,000 per minute of footage.

Ouch.

 

[MatthewD]

I've been in quite a fascinating discussion with one of the festivals which awarded "Prelude to Axanar" an award, as I was curious as to whether the current lawsuit would have any effect on the status of that award, particularly as this film would seem to also be in violation of the festival's own terms and conditions.

Here is what one festival's response was:

"I myself have many things trademarked and copyrighted. But it's such a small nothing issue. No one's life is in jeopardy here. It's just entertainment. Plus, if Gene Roddenberry asked us what you are asking, I would consider it. If Majel asked us, I'd consider it. But, CBS is a corporation, not a person. So, in my eyes, their wishes are not considerable. And there comes a time, I believe, when an iconic project must allow the "flattering imitation" of their HIGHLY successful project, that has been made highly successful by their fans, and to allow room for those fans to add their voice to the project.

Secondly, aren't the 13 points of infringement there for a reason? And do they actually matter? If I make a pink sweater, does that mean no one else is ever allowed to make a pink sweater? And what about the case of Les Paul and his 4 track recorder. Shouldn't all of those rights have reverted back to him?

Thirdly, you used my quotes in your emails to show me which rules they were breaking at our festival. Should I now sue you for using my copyrighted language without my permission? If I ask you cordially to please stop reproducing them and remove them, would you be able to erase them from every computer that now has them? Where does it end?

And finally, maybe they are doing all of this...just for publicity. Either way, shouldn't you and I just step out of the way, and let them duke it out on their own? It's really none of our business."

-----

Delusional...

 

[jespah]

This is why watching lawyers on TV isn't the same as going to law school.

 

[Squiggy]

I've been in quite a fascinating discussion with one of the festivals which awarded "Prelude to Axanar" an award, as I was curious as to whether the current lawsuit would have any effect on the status of that award, particularly as this film would seem to also be in violation of the festival's own terms and conditions.

Here is what one festival's response was:

"I myself have many things trademarked and copyrighted. But it's such a small nothing issue. No one's life is in jeopardy here. It's just entertainment. Plus, if Gene Roddenberry asked us what you are asking, I would consider it. If Majel asked us, I'd consider it. But, CBS is a corporation, not a person. So, in my eyes, their wishes are not considerable. And there comes a time, I believe, when an iconic project must allow the "flattering imitation" of their HIGHLY successful project, that has been made highly successful by their fans, and to allow room for those fans to add their voice to the project.

Secondly, aren't the 13 points of infringement there for a reason? And do they actually matter? If I make a pink sweater, does that mean no one else is ever allowed to make a pink sweater? And what about the case of Les Paul and his 4 track recorder. Shouldn't all of those rights have reverted back to him?

Thirdly, you used my quotes in your emails to show me which rules they were breaking at our festival. Should I now sue you for using my copyrighted language without my permission? If I ask you cordially to please stop reproducing them and remove them, would you be able to erase them from every computer that now has them? Where does it end?

And finally, maybe they are doing all of this...just for publicity. Either way, shouldn't you and I just step out of the way, and let them duke it out on their own? It's really none of our business."

-----

Delusional...

To be fair, most people who run film festivals are total idiots.

 

[Campe]

I've been in quite a fascinating discussion with one of the festivals which awarded "Prelude to Axanar" an award, as I was curious as to whether the current lawsuit would have any effect on the status of that award, particularly as this film would seem to also be in violation of the festival's own terms and conditions.

Here is what one festival's response was:

"I myself have many things trademarked and copyrighted. But it's such a small nothing issue. No one's life is in jeopardy here. It's just entertainment. Plus, if Gene Roddenberry asked us what you are asking, I would consider it. If Majel asked us, I'd consider it. But, CBS is a corporation, not a person. So, in my eyes, their wishes are not considerable. And there comes a time, I believe, when an iconic project must allow the "flattering imitation" of their HIGHLY successful project, that has been made highly successful by their fans, and to allow room for those fans to add their voice to the project.

Secondly, aren't the 13 points of infringement there for a reason? And do they actually matter? If I make a pink sweater, does that mean no one else is ever allowed to make a pink sweater? And what about the case of Les Paul and his 4 track recorder. Shouldn't all of those rights have reverted back to him?

Thirdly, you used my quotes in your emails to show me which rules they were breaking at our festival. Should I now sue you for using my copyrighted language without my permission? If I ask you cordially to please stop reproducing them and remove them, would you be able to erase them from every computer that now has them? Where does it end?

And finally, maybe they are doing all of this...just for publicity. Either way, shouldn't you and I just step out of the way, and let them duke it out on their own? It's really none of our business."

-----

Delusional...

And there is the Art side of the Art vs. Commerce debate.

 

[Squiggy]

Now I want to copyright a pink sweater.