Until there's announcement that the case is pro bono, don't assume it is because the firm has done it in the past.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Until there's announcement that the case is pro bono, don't assume it is because the firm has done it in the past.
Yes, I have blogged about this for the G & T Show.
http://www.gandtshow.com/fan-dance-sound-fury-and-axanar/
Now with more bad cell phone pictures of my diplomas!
Seriously, many thanks for your kind support.
http://www.gandtshow.com/fan-dance-sound-fury-and-axanar/
Now with more bad cell phone pictures of my diplomas!
Seriously, many thanks for your kind support.
Agreed, but considering they're willing to and he claimed it, i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I am trying to be fair.
@Maurice -- please see my post previous page. Any thoughts on him possibly using a parody defense if he claims the movie would be "all-documentary"? You're a lawyer, right?
Erin Ranahan isn't listed as part of their "pro-bono" committee.
http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/firm-profile/pro-bono.html
Well. Maybe then.
I wonder if they are going to go with the defense they used in the Games Workshop case. That Axanar and fan films are "add ons"
Again, just trying to be fair. If he's a jerk, that's one thing, but it doesn't mean he's always wrong. If he keeps saying he can win, and he's gotten a prominent attorney, then maybe he's right. Maybe we've been wrong. I don't want to be the type of person we've seen supporting him. I want to be open to fairly discussing any possible outcome.
There's a reason i'm agnostic-- i'm willing to admit I could be wrong. Crazier things have happened.
Ah, thought I saw many many many pages ago you saw something about credentials. My bad!
OK, @jespah, having read your credentials: does a parody defense hold up even a little, if they make the entire film in documentary style? Is that transformative enough or "commentary" enough to qualify? Not all parody must be funny.
Of course he is.
Peters seems to be sort of an ass in any forum he frequents on the Internet.
Is agreeing to such a stipulation typical? I would think it would be, and that this is really kinda a non-event (with the exception of Axanar now having representation, which is interesting).
I just did a quick skim, but most of the interesting bits listed under "experience" seem to be related to fair use and/or safe harbor (and the latter couldn't possibly apply here)...
Interesting, yes, but I believe that, in the end, the two parties settled out of court. I also wouldn't expect this to be nearly so clear-cut, given that Axanar's violations seem (IMO) a lot more direct. Info from here:
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/ChapterHouse_Studios#Result
If it did work out that way, that fan films could use Trek to some level, it could be interesting -- but I'm not holding my breath, and such a case could probably take half a decade more to make its way through the courts.
"The jury deliberated for more than two days and found that Chapterhouse could continue to make and sell more than a hundred products without fear of copyright infringement. The jury also confirmed that Chapterhouse could continue to use most of Games Workshop’s asserted trademarks when selling compatible parts, including all nine of Games Workshop’s registered trademarks."
Jury came down on Chapterhouse's side.
Not quite the same. I'm actually a little bit familiar with this case, having been a part of the gaming community for a while. As I recall, the products in question were just add-on items to GW products. They didn't actually use the IP in the product itself.
It's like when non-Lego companies create lego-compatible accessories-- there's one I think called Brick Warriors, another called BrickArms. They even use real Legos in their photography.
But their products themselves do not use Lego IP.
Interesting. Her spin seems to be on media usage rights vs. the big corporations.
What's interests me in the link:
It seems there settled because Chapterhouse wasn't reproducing copyrighted material, but, ideas that could fit INTO a copyrighted universe. Ideas that GW hadn't produced, i.e., copyrighted.
But, Axanar isn't doing that. They are using specifically copyrighted material. Soval, for example. Not, a brand new Vulcan.
Thanks for the blog posting. I found it quite informative and makes the issue very understandable.
Speaking as someone who I think it can be fairly said has gone out of his way to try to get Peters a fair hearing on this forum, jerk or not: I'd say it's pretty hard to avoid concluding at this point that he's delusional.
And even a brand new Vulcan is still a Vulcan-- with pointed ears and logical personality. Ramirez is a Federation captain. Both copyrighted.
True.
Ultimately, what I'm saying is: the defense that Axanar's attorneys used for Chapterhouse won't really work here, I think.
- Status