CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[jespah]

Secondly, since they don't really have a case, the thrust of any legal advice would primarily be to cease production. This is even less of a reason to take a case on pro bono for a corporation because there wouldn't be an publicity involved. Personally speaking, I would never take on a case where the client insisted on litigating in spite of my advice because the consequence of doing so is that clients inevitably come back and complain afterwards that they lost and express unhappiness for the way you've handled the case.

Clients who litigate against the advice of counsel also have a tendency to turn around and sue said counsel for malpractice when they inevitably lose. Given Peters' public behavior to date, that risk is much more significant here, which is why I would be very surprised if a reputable IP firm took this case pro bono.

It's just not worth the hassle, especially on a pro bono basis. Also, to act in the course of litigation in spite of your own advice would make the client liable for massive costs in the event of loss and one has a professional obligation to ensure the client's best interests are served in terms of your advice, even if the client doesn't like what they're hearing.

Also keep in mind we're looking at dozens of possible individual defendants if the studios name the John Does. Will these "pro bono" attorneys represent all of them as well? If so, there could be a substantial conflict of interest.

I dealt with law firms a lot back in my antitrust days. The big firms usually have a "pro bono committee" to review such cases. As this attorney said, there's no negotiation. Either they approve the case or they don't.

Fourthly, pro bono work is designed for the needy and underprivileged.

Indeed. Here's how the California Bar defines pro bono work:

Generally, legal services that are provided without expectation of compensation to indigent individuals, or to not for profit organizations with a primary purpose of providing services to the poor or on behalf of the poor qualify as pro bono work

Is there any requirement to do pro bono to keep your license to practice? I ask because NY has an annual pro bono requirement (if you're retired, you don't need to follow it, but if you want to return from retirement, you need to make up any lost hours).

Not saying this is pro bono - 'cause it more or less isn't - just asking.

PS I agree with you that an established firm will not take this. I mean, seriously -

• Small chance of winning
• No big question of law to be settled (this ain't Gideon v. Wainwright, folks)
• Defendant is not popular or important
• Difficult client is agita they don't need
• Difficult clients tend to sue for malpractice when they don't get their way, also agita the firm doesn't need, as you said
• Modicum of mainstream press is nice, but this is far from the OJ trial when it comes to publicity for a firm.

The only lawyer(s) I can see taking this are young and inexperienced, but even then this is a boatload of work and the climb is exceptionally steep, with a difficult client who might end up suing you for malpractice as his thanks. Rewards are virtually zero. Anyone has got to be doing a cost-benefit analysis on this. And anyone without their thumb on the scale has got to be running for the hills.

If I was a possible Doe defendant on this one, I would be consulting my own lawyer and looking for separate representation.

 

[SeerSGB]

Realizing that shit just got real, Alec has moved to Plan B:

Change the conditions of the test.

He intends to reprogram the simulation so that it's possible to rescue Axanar Productions.


He can do it - he's a software engineer (thirty-five years ago, he taught himself Basic on a TRS-80 home computer).

The more I read from Peters, the more I think his goal has shifted to finding a way to keep as much of the money as he can for himself and fuck everyone else. I honestly don't have anything against the man on a personal level---don't know him to like him or hate him---but going on the stuff he's postinig online he's coming across less honest than a used car lot salesman. He trying to save his own hide, plus come out ahead of the game to boot.

 

[Balrog]

Donald Trump would sue you.

According to Peters, as long as you claim yourself a non-profit, you can take anything you want. And you can pay yourself too.

 

[Draculasaurus]

Donald Trump would sue you.

According to Peters, as long as you claim yourself a non-profit, you can take anything you want. And you can pay yourself too.

Yeah, that's what's wrong with the "Red Cross" defense.
It's like saying that you can put whatever fan art you want on a t-shirt and sell it. Saying; "It's not for profit 'cause I don't have shareholders, but of course the artist (me) gets paid."

 

[oswriter]

Is there any requirement to do pro bono to keep your license to practice? I ask because NY has an annual pro bono requirement (if you're retired, you don't need to follow it, but if you want to return from retirement, you need to make up any lost hours).

The California Bar "urges" lawyers to do 50 hours of pro bono work per year, but it's not a "requirement."

PS I agree with you that an established firm will not take this. I mean, seriously -

• Small chance of winning
• No big question of law to be settled (this ain't Gideon v. Wainwright, folks)
• Defendant is not popular or important
• Difficult client is agita they don't need
• Difficult clients tend to sue for malpractice when they don't get their way, also agita the firm doesn't need, as you said
• Modicum of mainstream press is nice, but this is far from the OJ trial when it comes to publicity for a firm.

I spoke to a source this morning who is a litigator at a well-known (i.e., "top 20") law firm. We didn't go much into the Axanar specifics, but he said as a rule, his firm would not take on a corporation as a pro bono client unless (1) it was a Supreme Court case or (2) there was some "marketing opportunity." The first is inapplicable here and I don't see any real positive marketing potential here.


Based on my conversation with this source, I also believe Peters is not really seeking a "pro bono" attorney. His reference to "deep talks" suggests he's really seeking representation at a substantially discounted fee, which is not pro bono.

If I was a possible Doe defendant on this one, I would be consulting my own lawyer and looking for separate representation.

Absolutely. And I hope Burnett and the others are doing just that.

 

[oswriter]

Donald Trump would sue you.

According to Peters, as long as you claim yourself a non-profit, you can take anything you want. And you can pay yourself too.

Every time Peters says Axanar is non-profit, I think of that scene in "The Office" where Michael Scott declares bankruptcy by literally walking into the bullpen and saying, "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!"

 

[Tim Thomason]

Donald Trump would sue you.

According to Peters, as long as you claim yourself a non-profit, you can take anything you want. And you can pay yourself too.

Yeah, that's what's wrong with the "Red Cross" defense.
It's like saying that you can put whatever fan art you want on a t-shirt and sell it. Saying; "It's not for profit 'cause I don't have shareholders, but of course the artist (me) gets paid."

No, you don't sell the artwork. You give it away for free, in exchange for a donation. The donation can then be used to produce more artwork, minus of course the salary you give yourself as this is your full-time job.

This is the complete opposite from how a for-profit business is run.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Donald Trump would sue you.

According to Peters, as long as you claim yourself a non-profit, you can take anything you want. And you can pay yourself too.

Every time Peters says Axanar is non-profit, I think of that scene in "The Office" where Michael Scott declares bankruptcy by literally walking into the bullpen and saying, "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!"

According to Peters, as long as you claim yourself a non-profit, you can take anything you want. And you can pay yourself too.

Yeah, that's what's wrong with the "Red Cross" defense.
It's like saying that you can put whatever fan art you want on a t-shirt and sell it. Saying; "It's not for profit 'cause I don't have shareholders, but of course the artist (me) gets paid."

No, you don't sell the artwork. You give it away for free, in exchange for a donation. The donation can then be used to produce more artwork, minus of course the salary you give yourself as this is your full-time job.

This is the complete opposite from how a for-profit business is run.

Let's remember that not all nonprofits are created equal. After all, the NFL was a nonprofit up until last year. And they certainly went for profit, strong-arming cities for stadiums and selling merchandise.

Must've been the shinning example of a nonprofit that Peters was really molding his "nonprofit" after.

 

[oswriter]

According to Peters, as long as you claim yourself a non-profit, you can take anything you want. And you can pay yourself too.

Every time Peters says Axanar is non-profit, I think of that scene in "The Office" where Michael Scott declares bankruptcy by literally walking into the bullpen and saying, "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!"

Yeah, that's what's wrong with the "Red Cross" defense.
It's like saying that you can put whatever fan art you want on a t-shirt and sell it. Saying; "It's not for profit 'cause I don't have shareholders, but of course the artist (me) gets paid."

No, you don't sell the artwork. You give it away for free, in exchange for a donation. The donation can then be used to produce more artwork, minus of course the salary you give yourself as this is your full-time job.

This is the complete opposite from how a for-profit business is run.

Let's remember that not all nonprofits are created equal. After all, the NFL was a nonprofit up until last year. And they certainly went for profit, strong-arming cities for stadiums and selling merchandise.

Must've been the shinning example of a nonprofit that Peters was really molding his "nonprofit" after.

The NFL was never a 501(c)(3) charity, however. It claimed a tax exemption as a trade association under 501(c)(6). The exemption also only applied to the league office, not the individual teams, which are separately incorporated for-profit businesses.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Every time Peters says Axanar is non-profit, I think of that scene in "The Office" where Michael Scott declares bankruptcy by literally walking into the bullpen and saying, "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!"

No, you don't sell the artwork. You give it away for free, in exchange for a donation. The donation can then be used to produce more artwork, minus of course the salary you give yourself as this is your full-time job.

This is the complete opposite from how a for-profit business is run.

Let's remember that not all nonprofits are created equal. After all, the NFL was a nonprofit up until last year. And they certainly went for profit, strong-arming cities for stadiums and selling merchandise.

Must've been the shinning example of a nonprofit that Peters was really molding his "nonprofit" after.

The NFL was never a 501(c)(3) charity, however. It claimed a tax exemption as a trade association under 501(c)(6). The exemption also only applied to the league office, not the individual teams, which are separately incorporated for-profit businesses.

The more you know! Thanks.

 

[wtriker1701]

AXANAR: The Downfall Of A Legend

 

[Cranston]

Oh hey, the whiny Instagram post is gone.

FOR POSTERITY:

(click for larger)

I know this is peripheral to the whole thing, but why does the schematic on the panel behind him show a Constitution-class ship?

 

[Khan 2.0]

its probably the enterprise bridge

 

[Tim Thomason]

Oh hey, the whiny Instagram post is gone.

FOR POSTERITY:

(click for larger)

I know this is peripheral to the whole thing, but why does the schematic on the panel behind him show a Constitution-class ship?

3 possible answers:
1) They were temporary graphics from a Constitution-class design not yet changed for the Ares-class
2) The story involved scanning a Constitution-class ship or looking it up in the databanks or something
3) The super-secret ending to the story was supposedly that the newly-built Enterprise would show up and save the day. This may have been the graphics doubling for the Enterprise (as Khan 2.0 posted)

 

[Karzak]

Again -- these guys are utter buffoons and idiots when it comes to public relations.

I almost want to join that "Axanar Fan Group" just to post this so the sheep over there can get a dose of much needed cold water.

 

[Jon1701]

Oh hey, the whiny Instagram post is gone.

FOR POSTERITY:

(click for larger)

I know this is peripheral to the whole thing, but why does the schematic on the panel behind him show a Constitution-class ship?

Can't help feeling they could have borrowed/painted/repainted the NV Enterprise sets for $5000 rather than build a new one for $120,000 or whatever they spent.

You could have blown the difference on sushi.

 

[SeerSGB]

Oh hey, the whiny Instagram post is gone.

FOR POSTERITY:

(click for larger)

I know this is peripheral to the whole thing, but why does the schematic on the panel behind him show a Constitution-class ship?

Can't help feeling they could have borrowed/painted/repainted the NV Enterprise sets for $5000 rather than build a new one for $120,000 or whatever they spent.

You could have blown the difference on sushi.

He'll never leave down either the coffee or the sushi, well he?

 

[David cgc]

3 possible answers:
1) They were temporary graphics from a Constitution-class design not yet changed for the Ares-class

I'll bet my now-regrettable donations to Axanar that those are temps and placeholders they just put in to make sure the screens all turned on and were mounted right-side up, and to make the photo a bit more lively.

 

[SuperSpaceMan]

Oh hey, the whiny Instagram post is gone.

FOR POSTERITY:

(click for larger)

I know this is peripheral to the whole thing, but why does the schematic on the panel behind him show a Constitution-class ship?

3 possible answers:
1) They were temporary graphics from a Constitution-class design not yet changed for the Ares-class
2) The story involved scanning a Constitution-class ship or looking it up in the databanks or something
3) The super-secret ending to the story was supposedly that the newly-built Enterprise would show up and save the day. This may have been the graphics doubling for the Enterprise (as Khan 2.0 posted)

Those are monitors, as opposed to static displays... So I imagine they just threw what they had ready, and usable, up there.... After all aren't those engineering screens.. not Comm screens on the comm station....

 

[BillJ]

I'm amazed they let him get this far. Peters was taking the piss when he started doing things like selling coffee

if Paramount hadn't done anything I wonder what other products would've become available? Axanar uniforms? (all different versions), Axanar movie poster (teaser and movie one sheet 27x40), Axanar starlog official movie magazine, Axanar/Prelude to Axanar official comic adaptations, Axanar comic range (Gold Key style, with Marvel/DC styles to follow. all with cover variants), Axanat/Prelude novels, Axanar action figures (several different version of each character including the older version 'Prelude to Axanar' figures), Diamond Select style Axanar phasers/communicators/tricorders, Axanar lunchboxes, Axanar underoos, Axanar viewmasters, Axanar hb annual 2016, Axanar chocolate bars (one for each character), Axanar marsh mallow dispenser

I imagine large velvet paintings of Peters as Garth of Izar. Sorta like the one's you used to be able to find of Elvis or Jesus.