CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Michael Hinman]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Have kept up with all 400+ pages of this and it's made for some quite interesting reading at times.

I'd like to throw my two cents in the ring regarding the Doe defendants and who they might possibly be (the biggest unknown still IMO).

From my reading of the initial complaint filed, I've picked up on the following (apologies if any of the below is rehashing old info).........

1) Prelude + Axanar = the 'Axanar Works' (para. 2)
Given how the 'Axanar Works' is used in this context, I would take this to mean the scope is narrowed to those who have/had involvement with Prelude and the main Axanar feature.

I'm no lawyer, but yes, the scope is limited, at least as established by the initial complaint.

2) Jurisdiction/Venue (para. 4)

The statement ".........because all Defendants conduct continuous, systematic, and routine business within this state and this District" seems to imply (to me at least) that if the 'defendants' don't reside in CA, then they have some kind of regular/ongoing (as opposed to one-time/casual) business in CA and/or LA which further narrows the scope.

I am not sure that would limit the scope of their location. The reason why jurisdiction is brought up, typically, is to inform the court why this case was filed with them, and not elsewhere. Even if people worked remotely, from what I understand, they can still be sued through this case, because the primary infringing activities took place through this business. They are just establishing why they chose to file with this particular federal district.

I'm sure the lawyers here will correct me if I'm wrong.

3) "The Doe Defendants include......" (para. 10)

Here it's kind of obvious as it specifically calls out "persons who aided in the writing of the scripts for the Axanar Works, or producing or directing the films, and those persons who designed or caused to be designed the infringing sets, costumes, props and other elements in the Axanar works that infringe copyrighted elements."

Now what 'other elements' refers to is up in the air, but I would think, given points 1 and 2, that it would be easily recognizable elements of Trek canon.

... or what the lawsuit specifically claims as infringing work.

Paragraphs 24 and 34 reinforce this while paragraphs 29 and 39 shed more light on what are considered to be copyrighted elements (Section III, paras. 40-50 expand on this)

Yeah, that!

4) Second Cause of Action (paras. 59-61)

This is strict conjecture/speculation on my part, but the statement "defendants knew or had reason to know that the Axanar Works are unauthorized derivative works.........." would seem to point to people reasonably close to/moderately-heavily involved in the production. As a previous poster mentioned, someone on the periphery might just be in it for a small shred of recognition perhaps and wouldn't necessarily have reason to question or raise suspicion about anything (prior to August at least).

Well, this might be here more for the fact that in a copyright infringement case, there are certain thresholds you have to meet to have something actionable. It was something the IP attorney we talked to for our 1701News piece had mentioned: one of the conditions is that you have to have been aware of the infringement.

So let's say I wrote a story, and I copyrighted it. But I've never really published it. Maybe circulated it with some friends. And suddenly you have something that has elements I can protect (like specific characters, organizations, etc.), and you publish. One of the things I would have to do, before anything else, is prove that you had knowledge of my work first. Without that knowledge, it's independently created, and not infringement.

So here, CBS/Paramount is demonstrating that they have established the defendants had knowledge of their copyright.

5) Third Cause of Action (para. 64)
The "Defendants enjoy a direct financial benefit....." bit is pretty specific......(i.e. who else besides A.P. is reaping a financial reward/getting paid)

Well, according to the unaudited spreadsheet of financials Axanar provided just ahead of the lawsuit, several people were paid.

6) Fourth Claim For Relief (para. 67)

"Defendants are in the process of producing the Axanar Motion Picture......."

This is obvious as it references the 'defendants' (rather than just A.P. who is actually named), as those who are actively involved with making the film.

There are actually two named defendants listed, so instead of saying "defendant," it would be proper to use "defendants." But yes, this would include the Does as well, because they are defendants, although unnamed.

 

[RedForman]

Great points. My head was kind of spinning after pg 200 or so, so I'm not able to keep much straight anymore

 

[jespah]

Does that include the judge's rule about in-person filing? (It was in an early post--don't have time to look for it now.)

That might just the judge's own rule.

Ah, looks like I read the above wrong - everything is under electronic filing; the mandatory paper filings are the exception and far from the rule, see: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/e-filing/faq/general-questions

BUT - this judge (Gary Klausner) wants paper, see: http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/JudgeReq.nsf/courtesy copies?openview where it says:

Mandatory chambers copies of ALL e-filed documents are to be delivered to Judge Klausner’s Courtesy Box (located outside of the Clerk’s Office, Room 181-L) not later than 12:00 noon the day following e-filing. Please mark the document “Mandatory Chambers Copy", E-filed on (fill in the date). Failure to comply may result in the document being stricken from the record.

 

[JWPlatt]

Have kept up with all 400+ pages of this and it's made for some quite interesting reading at times.

Yep, it's Alec Peters' world and you're all just living in it. This thread is Alec Peters's ego's wet dream. How many more hours of their lives will people who don't actually like Alec Peters willingly give over to Alec Peters by discussing Alec Peters in Alec Peters threads like this one? Think about it.

 

[RedForman]

Yep, it's Alec Peters' world and you're all just living in it. This thread is Alec Peters's ego's wet dream. How many more hours of their lives will people who don't actually like Alec Peters willingly give over to Alec Peters by discussing Alec Peters in Alec Peters threads like this one? Think about it.

I'm trying not to.......

 

[Michael Hinman]

That might just the judge's own rule.

Ah, looks like I read the above wrong - everything is under electronic filing; the mandatory paper filings are the exception and far from the rule, see: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/e-filing/faq/general-questions

BUT - this judge (Gary Klausner) wants paper, see: http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/JudgeReq.nsf/courtesy copies?openview where it says:

But unless I'm reading that wrong, they can still e-file (and it will still be up by 3 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. island time) ... they just need to make sure a paper version is in his box by the next day.

 

[Trekkin]

Yeah. They've nailed Enterprise and BSG - but that's not really ground breaking - or popular.

What I don't get is that they rabbit on about their major appeal being that they go back to the 'soul' of Star Trek, yet then turn around and hold up the look of their footage as proof of quality. It almost comes across as if some people involved were prioritising style over substance!

I'm not really putting down what they've achieved in that area, considering the circumstances. I also think visuals are (mostly) very important in film. But the total lack of self-awareness on display is somewhat amusing.

 

[jespah]

But unless I'm reading that wrong, they can still e-file (and it will still be up by 3 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. island time) ... they just need to make sure a paper version is in his box by the next day.

That's what I'm taking from it, too. E. g. file electronically before end of business on Monday, so long as the paper goes in the box before end of business on Tuesday. No paper, then the pleading can be rejected, which seems to be what had happened earlier with the plaintiffs' attorney's pro hac vice motion.

 

[urbandefault]

That might just the judge's own rule.

Ah, looks like I read the above wrong - everything is under electronic filing; the mandatory paper filings are the exception and far from the rule, see: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/e-filing/faq/general-questions

BUT - this judge (Gary Klausner) wants paper, see: http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/JudgeReq.nsf/courtesy copies?openview where it says:

But unless I'm reading that wrong, they can still e-file (and it will still be up by 3 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. island time) ... they just need to make sure a paper version is in his box by the next day.

Ok, gotcha.

 

[JD]

All this talk about the Doe defendants got me wondering, if there are people who donated hundreds or thousands of dollars, could they be Does? Would that be considered helping to produce the movie?
I know I've seen some of these kinds of crowdfunding movies and things say that you will get a producer credit if you donate a big enough amount.

 

[Squiggy]

What I don't get is that they rabbit on about their major appeal being that they go back to the 'soul' of Star Trek, yet then turn around and hold up the look of their footage as proof of quality. It almost comes across as if some people involved were prioritising style over substance!

I'm not really putting down what they've achieved in that area, considering the circumstances. I also think visuals are (mostly) very important in film. But the total lack of self-awareness on display is somewhat amusing.

That's pretty much it. They (and their supporters) rant about JJ Trek but not only did they copy a lot of the ascetic they even copied some effects shots.

Then they go on about that Roddenberry's true vision bullshit even though this looks no.thing.like TOS. Neither in style nor substance.

 

[#1RealTrekFan]

Are "these kinds of crowdfunding movies" all Star Trek? I donated to Star Command and look at how that has turned out. Plus Marc Zicree wrote right after about the Axanar law suit how CBS should basically do what David Gerrold has in mind. So I'm done donating to anybody. I wish I could ask for my money back because it was $100 and that Space Command sucks donkey breath. So very amateur that has turned out to be and looking like.

All this talk about the Doe defendants got me wondering, if there are people who donated hundreds or thousands of dollars, could they be Does? Would that be considered helping to produce the movie?
I know I've seen some of these kinds of crowdfunding movies and things say that you will get a producer credit if you donate a big enough amount.

 

[jespah]

All this talk about the Doe defendants got me wondering, if there are people who donated hundreds or thousands of dollars, could they be Does? Would that be considered helping to produce the movie?
I know I've seen some of these kinds of crowdfunding movies and things say that you will get a producer credit if you donate a big enough amount.

I doubt the donors, even very large ones (er, donations, not necessarily the fifty-foot woman here) would be targeted as Does unless they had more than a title card credit (I'm not in the plaintiffs' heads, naturally, but I think a card with someone's name on it is not going to be a point of contention). If any of the donors were given a means of swaying decisions on the production, then maybe. But I think that is stretching it.

By the complaint itself, it appears the Does are people who were intimately involved in the making of the movie and in the copying of Trek elements. It may seem like hair-splitting, but that potentially eliminates a makeup artist who only did Kate Vernon's makeup as it's just standard female movie/video makeup, but not the one who did Richard Hatch's, assuming they were different persons. Giving someone mascara, blush, and foundation is going to be way, way down the list of infringements (if it makes it to that list at all), whereas putting ridges on someone and then blending to match their skin coloring is a far more direct act.

 

[muCephi]

What I don't get is that they rabbit on about their major appeal being that they go back to the 'soul' of Star Trek, yet then turn around and hold up the look of their footage as proof of quality.

Where in the "soul" of Star Trek did any principals try to scam those around them? It was isolated into particular outsiders from that "soul". This claim of ideological authenticity is what I find not just dismaying, but insulting.

 

[Squiggy]

People question Axanar.

Question gets deleted.

People question the deletion.

Admin responds.

Questioner will soon be deleted.

 

[Squiggy]

The previous question has been deleted.

 

[RedForman]

......smacks of some desperate/overly-paranoid butt-covering on the part of the Axanar folks (who probably don't want the questioners to turn the heat up hotter than it already is)

 

[Noname Given]

Where in the "soul" of Star Trek did any principals try to scam those around them? It was isolated into particular outsiders from that "soul". This claim of ideological authenticity is what I find not just dismaying, but insulting.

I guess you never attended one of Gene Roddenberry's college campus Star Trek Blooper Reel shows (where he brought and showed the 16mm Star Trek Blooper reels made for cast wrap parties) in the late 1970ies - early 1980ies where they charged between $5 - $20 a head- to cover GR's 'appearance fee'), did you?

(I did, on two separate occasions as that was when I was IN college.)

 

[Mudd]

Do you suppose the order of events - ie, answer-will-be-followed-by-injunction - has been made clear to the drones? Because Terry DickIntosh is even more humorless than usual.

 

[Squiggy]

What I love is how they answer the question - it was a shit answer but an answer none the less.

Then deleted it all.

Brilliant use of social media, guys.


Honest question. Besides the one blogger a couple of weeks ago who had no idea any of this was going on - has anyone spouted up being on their side? Their fan groups aren't expanding. There seems to be no press (or blogs) covering them favorably.