Thanks. An interesting and informative read!
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
But think of how much exposure and goodwill it would generate! Surely the shareholders can agree that everyone benefits from such an arrangement.
![15209230785_7c40ef685a_o[1].png](https://www.trekbbs.com/data/attachments/0/608-b924b9fe78564ce436556195e0156e3f.jpg "15209230785_7c40ef685a_o[1].png")
Also (I realize this is a few pages ago, but I did want to get it out there), if either/both attorneys are admitted in a jurisdiction requiring regular pro bono work, or are looking to be admitted in one such jurisdiction, this case provides the results rather handily and is probably more interesting than a child custody claim or divorce, which are a bit more likely to be handled pro bono in the overall world of law.
They're certainly entitled to do that. And I have seen people (not so much here) claiming the firm would never have taken the case if they didn't 'believe in it'.
That's not a prerequisite to taking a case.
There is nothing ethically unsound for an attorney to take a case s/he feels has a 0% chance of success (hell, those people are more in need of a defense than anyone, yes?). The only line that is drawn is if the client pushes for a zealous defense (allowed, and even required under ethics) based upon nonfactual information and pushes the lawyer to participate in the lies.
The lawyer is not required to suborn perjury or commit contempt in order to provide a zealous defense.
But folks should also know that taking this case does not throw a seal of merit on it.
That's not a prerequisite to taking a case.
There is nothing ethically unsound for an attorney to take a case s/he feels has a 0% chance of success (hell, those people are more in need of a defense than anyone, yes?). The only line that is drawn is if the client pushes for a zealous defense (allowed, and even required under ethics) based upon nonfactual information and pushes the lawyer to participate in the lies.
The lawyer is not required to suborn perjury or commit contempt in order to provide a zealous defense.
But folks should also know that taking this case does not throw a seal of merit on it.
^^^
Oh thank goodness.
Oh thank goodness.
Last edited:
That's a little disingenuous of a comparison. They didn't all START at 1 million each. The only reason they get that is because the show makes a TON of cash. Because, with the exception of the cast salaries, it's not that expensive to produce. Standing sets. Modern day.
I would bet that even with three of the principals, Big Bang would still be more profitable than a new Star Trek show.
And profit is all that matters. Not cost.
Hmm...absent money, what's the motivation for taking the case then? Supposedly California doesn't require pro bono work and I'm not sure how losing what is a very silly case to begin with elevates the image and reputation of the defendant's lawyers.
Actually I think Mr. Peters would balk at that (and I believe that what you describe would probably be the best result they could get) as that would mean destroying "Prelude to Axanar" which was a work named in the lawsuit - and I doubt Mr. Peters ego would allow the destruction of such an "award winning" piece of work).
The firm might require pro bono hours to rise through the food chain.
I'm not sure if it's true in California, but, I believe in some states, pro bono hours are required. This might be that.
But, of course, that means they are doing the case for other reasons than stated. And that is certainly something we all want to believe because most of us think there's no defense. So. We might be very biased in subscribing motivation.
"Destroy" in what sense? Axanar productions can no more destroy a movie that's been released onto the Internet and copied than I can destroy the Moon.
(I'm working on it, I'm working on it - my masters at Bad Robot command it!)
Even if they're expecting an overall loss, they may hope the court will respond favorably to certain aspects of their argument, creating precedent that will be beneficial to them in the long run. It's hard to speculate about this without knowing what the argument will be, of course.
I've been dipping in and out of this thread, so I don't know if we've discussed the lawsuit over the Harry Potter Lexicon, which has some interesting parallels to Axanar: fan project that was tolerated until it crossed a line, big corporation vs. small but mouthy enterprise. The Lexicon's publisher was represented against Warner Bros. by the Fair Use Project, a group of lawyers dedicated to clarifying and extending fair use. The Lexicon had a somewhat better case than Axanar, but I still doubt the Project expected a win; I would guess that they anticipated what they got, which was a decision against the Lexicon but affirming that as a general matter reference guides are allowed under fair use.
Publicity and exposure to potential future clients. Big entertainment companies like CBS and Paramount throw millions of dollars a year in business to outside legal counsel. W&S would love to get a piece of that pie. They don't need this to be a take no prisoners slamdunk win to do their jobs professionally and well and impress potential future PAYING clients.
The "its not all that different from other fan films" defense which seems to be shaping up makes the "in process" [for 6 months] 501(c)3 application potentially relevant, because it casts Axanar in the light of being similar to other productions and gives the appearance of intending to guide income into a nonprofit context.
They may be planning to argue that the scale of their production is not that different from funding others have gotten.
They may try to cast all the blog and interview comments about making profit as being off the cuff speculation and try to establish the nonprofit framework as the actual intent.
They may be planning to argue that the scale of their production is not that different from funding others have gotten.
They may try to cast all the blog and interview comments about making profit as being off the cuff speculation and try to establish the nonprofit framework as the actual intent.
Yeah. Getting publicity is nice. But my guess would be the main reason they took it pro bono was for the chance to influence future policy in this area. They could also see themselves as working to protect some greater good in this area -- working for a solution that doesn't jeopardize the future of fan films or at least creates known limits. That, and even mitigating Axanar's losses in what looks like an open and shut case would be a victory.
It also could help establish a niche for the firm - an area of law for which they are uniquely experienced in and qualified for.
- Status