I clearly missed something.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I clearly missed something.
An acknowledgment that CBS has a "strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits". It's essentially an injunction and will likely remain stipulated for the duration.
things may change in the desire of fans to stay with the Trek universe if any random kickstarter project can graft itself onto the official continuity in any way it wants. Nothing completely open to infinite permutations in the the internet realm is ever left anywhere except driven into the ground, like spam.
Board won't let 'em have one until their two weeks are up.
Believe me, it annoyed the heck out of me until I could finally upload one...
This is what i've been driving at. That a respected IP litigator with some history of case winnings has accepted a pro-bono case suggests, for ME personally, that:
a) they believe they have a defense with merit-- that stands at least a 50/50 chance of an actual victory (whatever that defense may be, but the result being that they could move forward with the film, generally-speaking, in its current form, perhaps with some minor concessions)
OR
b) they hired this firm simply to help negotiate a settlement that is favorable, or at least not terribly one-sided. For a law firm, an out-of-court settlement is often seen as a win because it's not a loss.
It's really "A" that has me curious, though.
B) would mean that AP and company have been saying one thing in public and doing something else in private. 
I'm not educated on this past generalized internet searches to give me the smallest grasp of new things I'd noticed offered in various levels and types of schools & degrees. That in-turn later related to statements I'd heard mentioned in the last ax podcast I'd listened to.
I'm sure it's more involved than this but my limited interest in trying to understand at that time left me with the 'sense' that it relates to the new media platforms being 'invented'? and utilized by things like YouTube and other newly evolving internet and/or streaming and the entertainment rules enforced? in new digital productions trying to break into entertainment and/or find an entertainment niche, so are often bare bones budget, even non-profit at first.
What I found was hollywood Guilds are beginning to make concessions to their more strict union rules for at least wages & maybe other things for their union members working on these productions. And the productions themselves have to apply for union New Media reduced guidelines so their members can work on them.
I had bookmarked this and this if it helps. I wish I'd saved more to share, or more understanding because I'm sure there's much more to it. And there was much more to what I 'did' read and heard that I wasn't relating to so I didn't really retain details as much as the sense of what I was reading/listening to and that a lot of rules are currently in flux about it.
Last edited:
B) would mean that AP and company have been saying one thing in public and doing something else in private.
There's always a way to spin it. You'll notice of late his statements have swung from "we vow to fight this and produce Axanar for our amazing fans!" to "filming is on hold and we hope to find an amicable solution that works for everyone"...
They may see an opportunity to help shape case law... I mean that might be worth it even if their chances are lower than 50%
A lot to consider here for sure.
re new media law... not an expert, but consider VR. is there good case law in place about protecting just parts of an actor's presence? If I put a starfleetish uniform on a Bajoran and give them the kinematics model of wall-E and the voice tones of Bogart with the vocabulary of Trump, have I created something new? Would you pay to sit in court and see someone argue against that assertion? :-)
its something I am starting to look into.. what constitutes the smallest separate copyrightable element of a work? is a bajoran a bajoran if they simply have the nose but in all other respects have distinctly different characteristics? is a recognizable way of moving enough to trigger a copyright? I imagine this has been explored in the gaming and art 2d world, but media which more strongly support more finely painted, user-assembled avatar presences will likely complicate things.
, Peters has presented himself as, he DID denounce the threat on the Axanar FB page earlier. One would think that his ego would have forced him to take credit if he were responsible.......
I hope you report the matter to the authorities, oswriter. Please do not allow some fool(s) on the internet to manipulate you into silence.
Last edited:
Except Star Trek (all series and films) have been made available on Hulu and Netflix (and other digital internet services) for years. Thus I don't see how Axanar's lawyer would be able to argue CBS/Paramount have 'done nothing with Star Trek' in that regard.) Also, this ISN'T a Trademark suit - so that's not a defense; and unless someone else has seen something Axanar hasn't filed any sort of lawsuit to claim CBS/Paramount have abandoned their Star Trek trademarks <--- And that's what they'd have to do to make such an argument in court. This is a copyright infringement suit - not a trademark infringement suit - and no you can't mix the two.
- Status