Oh, agreed, @Krandor. But it technically could be seen as another revenue stream, and I suppose, alledgedly in a way, profit?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
The "studio" was created by using the Star Trek brandname to, illegally, raise funding for a "independent" [their words] "Star Trek film" that they didn't have the legal rights to produce, and now they're trying to make money with something that was funded by illegally CBS/Paramount's IP? Yeah, I'd called the profit or financial benefit.
Who is that?
Yep and it also goes to what the judge said in the MTD about the use of the IP being able to "draw people in". If he does rent the studio out, you know he is going to promote whatever the project is on the Axanar page and encourage people to support it. Now not only is AP getting a financial benefit, but this other production is getting a financial benefit in terms of marketing to people who would likely never have heard of the production if not for those being getting drawn in by the original copyright infringement of Axanar.
I understand AP needs to do something to keep being able to pay the rent on the studio, but right now pretty much everything he does only makes his situation worse.
Overall, Ares Studios is the big problem here.
I think they would, but it wouldn't be terms AP would like. it would have to be he hand over Ares Studios, any money in the bank, plus a fine (but a smaller fine then he would get if he loses). I think C/P would take that but don't see them taking anything less.
The big thing IMO is they cannot let him keep Ares Studios.
I really doubt anyone wanting to shoot a film would want to sublet from a guy in the situation LFIM is in. At any moment you could have to pack up and find another "studio/warehouse" if things go badly. I'm sure there are other places available in LA.
What would the legal position be if the Plaintiffs wanted that, but there had been a transfer of that 'asset' to the hinted at 'investors'?
Someone with a big mouth
I know in collections cause if you transfer an asset with in X so many months (depends on the type of case it can be anywhere from 3 months to 18 months) the course can order the new owner to surrender the to the court.
Good question and I don't know. I'm sure the plantifs would demand a list of who the investors are. I would think they could make an argument that the transfer to the investors was being done to try to shield it from the litigation and I have a feeling the list of investors could make that easy to prove.
I would think another possible route would be something like stolen properly. If I have something that is stolen and sell it, it can still be returned to its owner and then the buyer could sue me (as the seller). Since the studio was built off the copyright infriengement, I would think a similar argument could be made and the investors would have the ability to sue AP.
Sorry, I only see nice, respectful people here on TrekBBS. Everyone else is ignored...
I don't think they'd necessarily make him hand over the studio, in fact they wouldn't even need to............all they'd need to do is make the monetary damages/penalties high enough so as to dry up all of AP's funds/those of his 'investors' and make further activities cost prohibitive
(even the most hardcore group of follower would eventually run out of $$$$.......)
After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.
I got a promotion!
PS Thank you @Earthrise
PPS Look up fraudulent conveyances. For bankruptcy in California, the look-back period is 4 years. See: http://www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/2014/06/30/fraudulent-transfers-iv/
This includes conveyances made in order to defraud creditors who come into existence due to lawsuits (e. g. judgments). Of course a settlement would be a means of someone becoming a creditor. See:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB161
This isn't really related to Axanar and what they've done, but there is another copyright infringement situation brewing with Game of Thrones. I just thought I'd share it for anyone who is interested in this sort of stuff.
Apparently there's a guy who's been leaking detailed plot descriptions of future episodes that could be sued by HBO for copyright infringement.
Does this mean if I got my hands on the Axanar scripted and posted a detailed scene by scene description I could end up being sued or at least threatened by Alec Peters?
Apparently there's a guy who's been leaking detailed plot descriptions of future episodes that could be sued by HBO for copyright infringement.
Does this mean if I got my hands on the Axanar scripted and posted a detailed scene by scene description I could end up being sued or at least threatened by Alec Peters?
Sounds like the YouTube wars about ad-monetizing hijackers taking entire works posted by others, playing them and then providing "commentary" in a tiny window in a corner, and monetizing this display of the entire work, which sometimes is not available otherwise.
They claim this is fair use commentary/tranformation, but ignore the "limited" criteria of fair use, and the financial gain measurement of copyright infringement as well.
I could see CBS/Paramount settling, as long as it is on THEIR terms.
- Status