• 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.
Indysolo said:
It's interesting that the defense cites "Nosferatu" as looking like a Vulcan because he has pointed ears. Did you know that "Nosferatu" was a blatant Dracula rip-off and the Stoker estate successfully sued against it? All prints were ordered destroyed. But like the internet, as Alec is learning, things don't really work that way. You can read about that case here.

Neil
Click to expand...
Great point. Massive citation dumping means a lot of fun exercise for interns and paralegals, but when you start that process you risk citing precedent that doesn't help your case.

This process of attempting to ceaselessly nitpick the complaint amuses me. If Paramount and CBS are forced to amend their complaint get ready for 300 or more pages of such detail that even a Trek fan might get tired of reading it... and then the judge will force Axanar to answer, and then they will move to discovery and then Axanar will then claim that they have a "waiver" - an argument that will be defeated, then they will claim they haven't made anything "yet" - an argument that can be easily disproven thanks to discovery - and then they will claim "fair use" - an argument that will have already faltered due to the multiple amended complaints.

This is just a chance for AP's legal team to practice some new legal angles, and show their due diligence. This is not a winnable case, but I do look forward to seeing how AP's legal team argues in court. :)
 
This latest move strikes me as yet another delaying action. As this judge has a reputation for not suffering such tactics AP and company may be playing a dangerous game. I've only seen a federal judge raise his voice once in the direction of an attorney and it was a frightening experience, even though the tirade was not aimed at me.
 
Tom said:
Also the defense may be trying to push this out in hopes that CBS/P will feel pressured to cave and drop the suit, because they don't want this publicity happening at the same time that are going to do a major promotional push for STB (in July), the 50th anniversary, and then after the new series this January. There is going to be a heavy spotlight on Star Trek the second half of this year.
Click to expand...

I would think that when they filed a lawsuit at the end of 2015, they knew the possibility existed that they would still be in the legal process into 2017 and Beyond.
 
MikeH92467 said:
This latest move strikes me as yet another delaying action. As this judge has a reputation for not suffering such tactics AP and company may be playing a dangerous game. I've only seen a federal judge raise his voice once in the direction of an attorney and it was a frightening experience, even though the tirade was not aimed at me.
Click to expand...
If the goal of AP is to try this case before a jury, pissing off the judge with frivolous filings is not going to help you when Loeb & Loeb raise objections to your novel and unique defense strategy.
 
Tom said:
Also the defense may be trying to push this out in hopes that CBS/P will feel pressured to cave and drop the suit, because they don't want this publicity happening at the same time that are going to do a major promotional push for STB (in July), the 50th anniversary, and then after the new series this January. There is going to be a heavy spotlight on Star Trek the second half of this year.
Click to expand...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Indysolo said:
It's interesting that the defense cites "Nosferatu" as looking like a Vulcan because he has pointed ears. Did you know that "Nosferatu" was a blatant Dracula rip-off and the Stoker estate successfully sued against it? All prints were ordered destroyed. But like the internet, as Alec is learning, things don't really work that way. You can read about that case here.

Neil
Click to expand...
I'm missing something here, because Nosferatu would hardly be confused for being a Vulcan or anything else "Star Trek" related. Plus, AP is calling his "pointed ear" aliens Vulcans. They're not an alien race AP made up that just happen to have pointed ears because Vulcans don't have to be the only pointy-eared race. I mean c'mon.

And, minor characters should not be copyright protected because they aren't developed characters. Is that the argument? But these names (Garth, Chang, April) are selling points to the movie. They are recognizable to fans and draw attention to the project, garnering interest that it may not otherwise get. Further, if Garth, the major antagonist in a TOS episode, isn't copyright protected because he's not developed enough, then by that logic, Khan, Mudd, Jones, Trelane, the Horta, and so on wouldn't be, either. Right?
 
It's the space-suited mosquito's cousin, in lawyer-provided ricepaper armor now. Gotta give them props for figuring out how to get where they got, and how can you expect a mosquito to have a concept what a shuttle coming at them at 17.6k mph actually means, or surviving by staying in their ecosystem actually means. Shock and awe them by the fact you got a jab in, baby! (tiny)pew(tinyWingsSound)pew!
 
muCephi said:
It's the space-suited mosquito's cousin, in lawyer-provided ricepaper armor now. Gotta give them props for figuring out how to get where they got, and how can you expect a mosquito to have a concept what a shuttle coming at them at 17.6k mph actually means, or surviving by staying in their ecosystem actually means. Shock and awe them by the fact you got a jab in, baby! (tiny)pew(tinyWingsSound)pew!
Click to expand...

3Y6tw.gif
 
Jedi_Master said:
It is interesting when you look back at the amended complaint, the copyright registry numbers listed are for specific episodes or films, not for "Klingon" or "Vulcan" or what have you.
What Axanar seems to be claiming is that unique elements of "Star Trek" can be surgically lifted from the IP, and then used at will without violating copyright - even if those surgically used elements are then recombined into a framework that was also surgically lifted from the IP.
They also claim that "minor" copyrighted characters aren't that special and don't need to be defended.

Can you imagine the precedent that would be set if the judge grants their MTD? You could create an animated mouse, have him wear red pants and white gloves name him "Mickey", and then create a series of films around his adventures.
The entire concept of copyright is that a content creator has taken disparate elements and combined them to make a protected intellectual property. To attempt to dissolve that concept may be courageous in principle, but in practice it's asinine. This newest MTD is just an attempt on the part of AP's pro bono attorneys to show how willing they are to strike new legal ground.
Click to expand...

I heard something about Mickey Mouse falling into public domain in the near future. Of Course, Disney will probably lobby for the laws to be changed before then.

Kor
 
Jedi_Master said:
It is interesting when you look back at the amended complaint, the copyright registry numbers listed are for specific episodes or films, not for "Klingon" or "Vulcan" or what have you.
What Axanar seems to be claiming is that unique elements of "Star Trek" can be surgically lifted from the IP, and then used at will without violating copyright - even if those surgically used elements are then recombined into a framework that was also surgically lifted from the IP.
They also claim that "minor" copyrighted characters aren't that special and don't need to be defended.

Can you imagine the precedent that would be set if the judge grants their MTD? You could create an animated mouse, have him wear red pants and white gloves name him "Mickey", and then create a series of films around his adventures.
The entire concept of copyright is that a content creator has taken disparate elements and combined them to make a protected intellectual property. To attempt to dissolve that concept may be courageous in principle, but in practice it's asinine. This newest MTD is just an attempt on the part of AP's pro bono attorneys to show how willing they are to strike new legal ground.
Click to expand...

I guess W&S pretty much realize they have no real defense - so their strategy is to just get the case dismissed - but I really don't think that's going to happen as do so in this case would set a legal precedent that effectively invalidates the majority of existing copyright law - and even if the Judge did grant the motion here; it would most likely NOT stand up when appealed (which I can guarantee C/P would do were the motion granted.)

If Mr. Peters is a 'lawyer by training' - again, he's not a good one if he thinks this strategy is going to be effective. I really have to wonder what W&S next move will be when the MTD is denied - I would suspect they will attempt to 'paper' this Judge and try to get a different Judge assigned to the case so they can keep filing MTD's and hope they get a Judge that will grant it. (Of course what can you expect from a group of attorneys that cite the POTUS Nixon 'Pentagon Papers' case as part of their argument to dismiss this lawsuit in the first MTD they filed? They must be smoking some good s**t in their offices when they write these motions up.)
 
Noname Given said:
(Of course what can you expect from a group of attorneys that cite the POTUS Nixon 'Pentagon Papers' case as part of their argument to dismiss this lawsuit in the first MTD they filed? They must be smoking some good s**t in their offices when they write these motions up.)
Click to expand...

I imagine this is pretty much the scene when they're writing up these motions.......

vlcsnap-501188.JPG
 
Franklin said:
I...

And, minor characters should not be copyright protected because they aren't developed characters. ...
Click to expand...

I would argue that the best-developed character in copyright who is also in the Axaverse isn't Garth at all.

It's Soval. 11 appearances. 4 additional references. Plus 2 appearance as Mirror Soval. Hard to ague that the character isn't developed. I'm sure Gary Graham would agree that the character has a distinct personality, the hallmark of a developed character.

The others are developed, too. But Soval really is. Even if you dismiss the others as gimmes for the defense, it is hard to argue with a character seen or referenced in about 20% of its originating series.
 
I was just thinking... is there any chance the estate of Lee Erwin, writer of "Whom Gods Destroy," could have some IP claim on the character of Garth of Izar?
Those were the days when the writers of episodes still retained certain rights like that (cf T'Pau).

Kor
 
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