CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
now that would be interesting, to be out of money exactly when in their plan they were scheduled to start filming. seems a little unlikely to me, but I never saw any officers in charge of finance, or a board, in the company rundown, and at least one of their leaders seemed to be interpreting 'due diligence' to mean time spent silencing questions about the money...
Chuckle. I waded through the unholy mess of the Axanar response, and my comments are below.
Their argument breaks down into 3 basic pieces
1) Lack of specificity precludes a response on the behalf of the Defendants - otherwise known as the "Well honey, since you didn't specify what kind of sexual relations would constitute adultery in our pre-nuptial agreement I figured that it would be ok to pay that hooker $20 for a BJ" defense.
Considering the fact that the Plantiffs DID specify which copyrighted elements were used by the Defendants, asking for additional details so that the Defendants can stretch this case out for few months arguing about each and every instance is a clear delaying tactic, and one that the Plantiffs will likely be able to strike down by the use of previous case law that (I assume) will show that collective instances of copyright infringement are sufficient for injunctive relief.
2) Lack of specificity in the copyright "chain of custody" means that there isn't objective proof supplied that CBS and Paramount are the IP holders. This is a very weak argument. CBS can prove it holds the copyrights, and Paramount can prove that it holds the license. Both entities are threatened by the infringement, CBS as the IP holder and Paramount as the license holder. There is no need to specify a "chain of custody" and as both CBS and Paramount are joint parties to the suit there is no need to run the gamut of who owns what and who licenses what. They both filed suit and they both can stand for each other. I imagine something along those lines will be stated by the Plantiffs
3) The third argument is the most interesting. By claiming that no film exists the Defendants are attempting to say that you can't get relief until we make the film. In essence they are attempting to preclude discovery, which would of course be able to introduce into evidence page after page of screen shots, press releases and videos that show work being done on the film and the actions and words of the production team that clearly show their intent to make a film that would violate the copyrights of the IP.
From a donor's perspective this argument is DEVESTATING because it reveals that the Axanar team has nothing, not one single thing to show for 1.2 million dollars.
The resolution of this argument will hinge on the Plaintiffs being able to demonstrate that clear intent is sufficient basis for injunctive relief. The intent of the Axanar team is clear, as evidenced by their public comments and actions. At least now we know why Axanar has quickly made various videos and pages private. They are attempting to build the idea that "Axanar" is in the conceptual phase, thus no injunction can apply without restricting their First Amendment rights.
I don't see that working because Alec and his team were too stupid and are making this up on the fly, but I must admit it is a creative defense, one that will set a legal precedent for future IP law.
In conclusion,
I can see argument (1) and (2) being rather easy to overcome, either through a detailed amendment to the complaint, or being rejected wholecloth by the judge.
Argument (3) will likely also fail, as the Plaintiffs will be able to demonstrate intent or argue that they have enough available evidence to justify additional discovery.
So all in all, the response is a good one, the best the legal team could do with the garbage handed them by AP and Co. but it clearly shows that Axanar has bupkus and has done nothing with the money sent to them other than make "rewards" and live the high life and it also shows that the best the legal team representing Axanar can do is delay and try their best to prevent an injunction.
Side note - the strenuous efforts on the part of the Axanar team to prevent an injunction shows how much they are depending on those donor funds. Interesting... isn't it?
Their argument breaks down into 3 basic pieces
1) Lack of specificity precludes a response on the behalf of the Defendants - otherwise known as the "Well honey, since you didn't specify what kind of sexual relations would constitute adultery in our pre-nuptial agreement I figured that it would be ok to pay that hooker $20 for a BJ" defense.
Considering the fact that the Plantiffs DID specify which copyrighted elements were used by the Defendants, asking for additional details so that the Defendants can stretch this case out for few months arguing about each and every instance is a clear delaying tactic, and one that the Plantiffs will likely be able to strike down by the use of previous case law that (I assume) will show that collective instances of copyright infringement are sufficient for injunctive relief.
2) Lack of specificity in the copyright "chain of custody" means that there isn't objective proof supplied that CBS and Paramount are the IP holders. This is a very weak argument. CBS can prove it holds the copyrights, and Paramount can prove that it holds the license. Both entities are threatened by the infringement, CBS as the IP holder and Paramount as the license holder. There is no need to specify a "chain of custody" and as both CBS and Paramount are joint parties to the suit there is no need to run the gamut of who owns what and who licenses what. They both filed suit and they both can stand for each other. I imagine something along those lines will be stated by the Plantiffs
3) The third argument is the most interesting. By claiming that no film exists the Defendants are attempting to say that you can't get relief until we make the film. In essence they are attempting to preclude discovery, which would of course be able to introduce into evidence page after page of screen shots, press releases and videos that show work being done on the film and the actions and words of the production team that clearly show their intent to make a film that would violate the copyrights of the IP.
From a donor's perspective this argument is DEVESTATING because it reveals that the Axanar team has nothing, not one single thing to show for 1.2 million dollars.
The resolution of this argument will hinge on the Plaintiffs being able to demonstrate that clear intent is sufficient basis for injunctive relief. The intent of the Axanar team is clear, as evidenced by their public comments and actions. At least now we know why Axanar has quickly made various videos and pages private. They are attempting to build the idea that "Axanar" is in the conceptual phase, thus no injunction can apply without restricting their First Amendment rights.
I don't see that working because Alec and his team were too stupid and are making this up on the fly, but I must admit it is a creative defense, one that will set a legal precedent for future IP law.
In conclusion,
I can see argument (1) and (2) being rather easy to overcome, either through a detailed amendment to the complaint, or being rejected wholecloth by the judge.
Argument (3) will likely also fail, as the Plaintiffs will be able to demonstrate intent or argue that they have enough available evidence to justify additional discovery.
So all in all, the response is a good one, the best the legal team could do with the garbage handed them by AP and Co. but it clearly shows that Axanar has bupkus and has done nothing with the money sent to them other than make "rewards" and live the high life and it also shows that the best the legal team representing Axanar can do is delay and try their best to prevent an injunction.
Side note - the strenuous efforts on the part of the Axanar team to prevent an injunction shows how much they are depending on those donor funds. Interesting... isn't it?
It seems to me that a film in the process of shooting exists, they put out what they plainly called the first released scene shot for the movie and stated the lawsuit prevented them from continuing shooting by now; atop which a script exists and sets are in preproduction, which would have no reason to exist except to support the film which has already had a portion shot and released. And just yesterday Alec claimed they were continuing to work on preproduction, which gives momentum to this interpretation. And besides, Variety, etc.
Perhaps they are arguing that the entire film has to exist for full penalties to be exacted? Maybe they could limit the damages that way. I think the argument about precluding discovery is the key, and it says a lot. Rather than storming the court with defenses of the right of fan films to exist, like the attorney suggested defenses would stand upon, they are just trying to prevent any details from becoming public, by claiming their hand hasn't extracted the cookie from the jar, so far it is only in the jar, and they never intended to actually remove a cookie. Talk about giving up -- all those claims made in order to raise funds, they drop like overloaded phasers when faced with serious legal challenge.
Seems that the 'prelude' already had enough violations to clean out their bank account anyway.
The intent argument I don't know enough about and it is interesting. Perhaps they will have to spin it to the donors with "just wait and see, this is what we have to do to preserve your investment, nudge nudge wink wink". Good luck intimidating all disaffected donors into keeping any such pitch private within the secret clubhouse.
Perhaps they are arguing that the entire film has to exist for full penalties to be exacted? Maybe they could limit the damages that way. I think the argument about precluding discovery is the key, and it says a lot. Rather than storming the court with defenses of the right of fan films to exist, like the attorney suggested defenses would stand upon, they are just trying to prevent any details from becoming public, by claiming their hand hasn't extracted the cookie from the jar, so far it is only in the jar, and they never intended to actually remove a cookie. Talk about giving up -- all those claims made in order to raise funds, they drop like overloaded phasers when faced with serious legal challenge.
Seems that the 'prelude' already had enough violations to clean out their bank account anyway.
The intent argument I don't know enough about and it is interesting. Perhaps they will have to spin it to the donors with "just wait and see, this is what we have to do to preserve your investment, nudge nudge wink wink". Good luck intimidating all disaffected donors into keeping any such pitch private within the secret clubhouse.
Last edited:
If argument 3) is as you state (I don't have access to the actual legal response); I would think Mr. Peters shot himself in the foot by making the 3 minute 'Axanar feature' opening scene with Gary Graham reprising his role as 'Ambassador Soval' <--- That right there shows clearly how what already exits of the Axanar feature film clearly violates/infringes on the CBS/Paramount 'Star Trek' copyrights. That scene (plus the 20 minute 'Prelude to Axanar' feature, which was also mentioned by the Plaintiffs in the original filing should be enough to blow the third argument out of the water/make it a non-starter.
not to mention that when all the press occurred about the lawsuit, Axanar Productions never once went to any news outlet to correct them and say "you got it wrong, we aren't actually making the film" (!)
the argument, if not the situation, seems a bit in a smaller way to be like arguing that you haven't robbed the bank because you were still filling bags in the vault when the police came.
Last edited:
I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread by bringing in all the information and presenting / explaining them in a way that also people who are not a lawyer / attorney can understand. I am following this thread closely since the first day for worry what it would and could mean for other fan films that are close to my heart. The worry isn’t that big anymore as it was in the first few days, also thanks to all those valid arguments in here.
It made for a weird (knot-in-stomach) beginning of the year though. So thank you all also for the well needed chuckle and comic relief once in a while. For shining a light into the darkness.
I have learnt a lot. Not bad for someone who only started to watch Star Trek one year ago…
Well, they clearly are going to try to argue that the Vulcan scene was "spec" created for their personal entertainment purposes and not as part of a larger film that would violate the IP rights of CBS/Paramount.
It's a terrible argument for their donors, but they have pared their faithful down to the most idiotic sheeples so there is no real chance those left will rebel.
By pulling the video from YouTube, and hiding all their donor groups, and FB groups, etc. and scrubbing any mentions of an upcoming film they are trying to pretend they weren't actually DOING anything, but instead were just PLANNING to do something, and CBS can't stop them from using their First Amendment rights and spending donor dollars PLANNING to do something.
Keep in mind folks that this is all about the money. AP and Co want to be able to use all the funds they have left AND keep getting more so they can maintain their lifestyle and eventually reintroduce Propworx to the world of prop sales/auctions. As long as they can hold off the dogs, they can keep taking in those funds.
Just a quick disclaimer: I am not An Attorney™ and I hope you didn't think of getting legal advice from a stranger on the I-nets anyway. 
Whether Todd is or isn't, the fact remains that he has an enormous body of work on professional, legitimate productions in Hollywood spanning the last 25, 30 years. He has enough experience, contacts, and proof of talent that this isn't going to affect his ability to get work.
Point of relevance: This is not a claim Alec Peters can make at all. This lawsuit has squelched his career on Hollywood, and he has no one to blame but himself for it.
Just more bluster from Peters playing the victim I'll wager. And hilarious as well, as he finally (after four years) put two and two together and messaged me implying he'd figured out who I was/my real name, perhaps to resume his private harassment he gave me here. Equally hilarious because at any time he could have queried any number of his friends in the fan film community who knew me to get the information, something I spelled out for him on numerous occasions. I have to admit ... It was oddly satisfying how easy it was to block the dipshit on FB, and it gave me a good reason to update my security/privacy settings on FB as well.
Last edited:
I wonder who will be their pro-bono defendant against the donors and/or state AG now that they seem to be asserting that they never intended to go through with a trek film.
and propworx is alive and kicking, several auctions in the works, the first this next month.
Karzak the Undying.
As to the point of donors suing to get money back.... I don't see that being something very many Axanar donors will pursue. Perhaps one or more of the three who contributed $10,000?
Last edited:
Glad to have our favorite Klingon/British secret agent on hand for all the fun.
He is where He needs to be.Almost preternatural timing
- Status