CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Michael Hinman]

Something to note from a layman.
Dismissal motions like this are common. They are designed to try and find a technical way out of a suit. That doesn't mean the plaintiff can't re-file in the rare chance the case IS dismissed.
But basically it involves a lawyer throwing out every technical arrow she (in this case) can find. And all she needs is one to come anywhere near the target, and she gets a hearing. If she ends up landing at least one of them on the target (even if it's in the very outside edge), she could at the very least get some parts of the complaint stricken, if not the whole thing released.
So just think of it as sperm ... eventually one of them will reach the egg, and not every explosion is thanks to Sophia Vergara.

 

[muCephi]

Yes, the same way in which a "mock trial" is not a comedic version of court proceedings.

I'm starting to wonder if the Axanar people actually hate fan/independent/whatever movies, and the whole thing was really an insidious plot to get TPTB to put their foot down on the whole concept once and for all. I mean, there's no way they couldn't have seen it coming. Amiright??

Kor

You mean, like, all the Axanar people are secretly working for CBS?

 

[Michael Hinman]

Something to note from a layman.
Dismissal motions like this are common. They are designed to try and find a technical way out of a suit. That doesn't mean the plaintiff can't re-file in the rare chance the case IS dismissed.
But basically it involves a lawyer throwing out every technical arrow she (in this case) can find. And all she needs is one to come anywhere near the target, and she gets a hearing. If she ends up landing at least one of them on the target (even if it's in the very outside edge), she could at the very least get some parts of the complaint stricken, if not the whole thing released.
So just think of it as sperm ... eventually one of them will reach the egg, and not every explosion is thanks to Sophia Vergara.

Why is my spacing so weird on that post?

 

[Franklin]

This is the definition of "mockumentary" referenced in the document, from dictionary.reference.com. Nothing implies that it means "parody."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mockumentary?s=t

"mockumentary
[mok-yuh-men-tuh-ree, ‐tree] /ˌmɒk yəˈmɛn tə ri, ‐tri/

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, Movies, Television.
1.
a movie or television show depicting fictional events but presented as a documentary.
Also called mock documentary."

True on the first, but for what it's worth, the British definition farther down on the page defines it using "satirical," and "parody" (from Collins English Dictionary). The definition given at the bottom of the page from Dictonary.com's 21st Century Lexicon describes it as usually "satirical."

So, the lawyers actually cited a source that gives three slightly different definitions of the word on the same page. Nice work.

 

[Franklin]

Did someone say "minions"?



Neil

Get in line, Universal.

 

[muCephi]

True on the first, but for what it's worth, the British definition farther down on the page defines it using "satirical," and "parody" (from Collins English Dictionary). The definition given at the bottom of the page from Dictonary.com's 21st Century Lexicon describes it as usually "satirical."

So, the lawyers actually cited a source that gives three slightly different definitions of the word on the same page. Nice work.

which might be an issue of itself for IP since a documentary is a transformative use of IP, but what is a documentary about newly authored content by the authors of the documentary (the Garth story by Axanar Productions)? Is it still a "documentary" or is it simply a direct work of fiction as a whole with the story it purports to document, the whole guilty of using IP? the term mocumentary seems misleading to me, if it is trying to suggest IP fair use protection. Snake eating its tail and all that...

 

[CaptGrumpy]

which might be an issue of itself for IP since a documentary is a transformative use of IP, but what is a documentary about newly authored content (the Garth story by Axanar Productions)? Is it still a "documentary" or is it simply a direct work of fiction as a whole with the story it purports to document, the whole guilty of using IP? the term mocumentary seems misleading to me, if it is trying to suggest IP fair use protection. Snake eating its tail and all that...

I think if they'd made a documentary about a movie relating to Axanar, they'd be ok. However, they are using the style of a documentary to tell the story. It's still fictional and falls under Star Trek's IP, if I understand things properly.

 

[Noname Given]

Boy, after reading that, if W&S think the case is going to be summarily dismissed, or parts stricken they're in for a big shock come 3/21. Their defense is nonsense. IF the 3 minute scene didn't exist, they might have a chance at getting the claim amended not to include the Axanar feature - but the 3 minute scene exists - and in itself contains numerous copyright infringements. Also to claim that the film might not even be in production... wow. I guess W&S don't have a problem with leaving Axanar (and Alec Peters) open to criminal fraud charges were they to prevail and get the copyright case dismissed on
those grounds....

Hypothetical situation of that hearing with Mr. peters on the stand:

Mr. Peters: "Yes, your honor, I raised 1.2 million dollars, but I had NO INTENTION of actually producing the film because I didn't have a license to do so..."

CBS/Paramount should have TONS of evidence available to show that Axanar was in fact being produced; and sorry the defense of: "The film doesn't exist yet, so we have no idea if the result would be infringing copyright.."

Yeah, if the Judge dismisses on that point, he'll have basically invalidated copyright across the board as there are indeed infringing elements like the costumes, the script, and the 3 minutes scene exists and contains infringements too. The Judge MIGHT have CBS/Paramount make a list of what they feel was infringed on in the existing "Prelude to Axanar" and the 3 minute scene; and may allow 'discovery' basically forcing Peters and Co to turn over all script drafts, costume designs, etc. so that CBS/Paramount can give Axanar's lawyers a list of all infringements they see, and they can try to defend against each infringement individually - but we'll see.

I also find referring to "Prelude to Axanar" as a Mockumentary hilarious because it just shows that IF they get the Axanar feature claims stricken/dismissed - they go to a defense of: "And "Prelude to Axanar" was actually a parody so it falls under 'fair use'..."; but again - I don't think you can make the claim, oh yeah, anyone looking at "Prelude to Axanar" would instantly conclude it's a Star Trek parody...

Again, not a lawyer, but I do work in a court and have seen Judges rule on these types of cases; and if anything this Judge will see that W&S are flinging ANYTHING they can (no matter how ridiculous) and will probably rein that in a bit. I think about the most they'll get is an order for Paramount/CBS to list the specific instances of infringement they find AFTER full discovery.

If that motion was W&S's attempt to 'scare' CBS/Paramount into a settlement, I'm pretty sure it failed - but again, we'll see.

 

[therealsb63]

Question for jespah when she drops back in - what is the Certificate Of Interested Parties that was also filed? Is that the official response to the Complaint, or a verification of the people involved in the case?

 

[jespah]

Question for jespah when she drops back in - what is the Certificate Of Interested Parties that was also filed? Is that the official response to the Complaint, or a verification of the people involved in the case?

I think (not sure) it's just to add anyone else who might not have been named, e. g. if AP had a silent partner in Axanar, which apparently he does not. I am operating under the belief that he is the sole owner.

Anyway, back to reading the rest of it - that's the easiest of the three documents.

 

[carlosp]

I find it amusing/interesting that nowhere in the answer are other fan films referenced or cited.

I guess AP was satisfied with just throwing his own fans under the bus by revealing they haven't done ANYTHING with 1.2 million bucks.

I think the dismissal motion doesn't read as "nothing's been done with $1.2 million," but rather, "we've barely done anything." This articulation is key to their hope for prior restraint as a defense against the injunction CBS really wants. To win the case, CBS really only needs the injunction because that grinds Axanar to a halt.

 

[wtriker1701]

Well, this thread is known to the Axanar fandom as the Queen Bitch Whore of the internet.

 

[#1RealTrekFan]

"A very cogent argument," said Leslie Owens.

 

[carlosp]

Question for jespah when she drops back in - what is the Certificate Of Interested Parties that was also filed? Is that the official response to the Complaint, or a verification of the people involved in the case?

The Certificate of Interested Parties appears to be a pro forma filing that spells out all the possible parties who may have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case. In this case, for the defendants, it is just the so-far named defendants, Alec Peters and Axanar Production Inc.

The Certificate could also list other interested parties like an insurance carrier who might be liable to pay all or part of any judgment.

The idea behind the Certificate is that it's full disclosure for the judge to assess whether he may have any conflict of interest with any of the listed parties, and if so, disqualify or recuse himself.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

Well, this thread is known to the Axanar fandom as the Queen Bitch Whore of the internet.

And, loving it!

 

[#1RealTrekFan]

"As a literary agent and an author, this case is going to prove to be a landmark in getting every fan film wiped out of existence," is what Leslie Owens should have said.

 

[muCephi]

Well, this thread is known to the Axanar fandom as the Queen Bitch Whore of the internet.

that appellation from the original script says so much about its originator fanboys, its embarrassing.

 

[carlosp]

Doubtful. All "locking" a script (in hour-long TV dramas, anyway) means is that the writer(s) have completed at least one full draft that has been revised by all interested parties.

I think more than anything, Peters was doing there what he does best: brag. He wanted to celebrate having something to show off and threw around some industry verbiage he probably overheard or read somewhere without fully understanding its meaning. It's entirely possible they locked the pages on the draft in the photo, but Peters triumphant announcement, the way its worded, clearly belies his lack of understanding, especially now that we know a) the script has been heavily rewritten at the direction of Robert Meyer Burnett (who has admitted as much several times across the internet and social media) and the fact that the "mission creep" of this whole farce has necessitated (in Axanar's view) expanding the project. What we do know is that there are several versions of the script, including one distributed to talent and casting agencies in L.A.

It's incredible that they think they can get away with this particular fib, honestly, but not altogether surprising given the general lack of intelligence or forethought Peters usually has on display.

Great post. Couple things, though... "Locking" a script means something different for an indie film. A locked script, if you're trying to hold costs down, is needed in order properly do your preproduction (budget, schedules, set and costumes, etc.) so that everything is ready come principal photography.

So there is definitely some fibbing here, either by Peters first saying the script is locked then telling his lawyer that it's not because Hollywood, or by Burnett claiming he's still doing ongoing rewrites but that the Vulcan scene required a ton of preproduction to get ready (storyboards, previz CGI, final CGI) designing specific visual evidence (e.g., Mt. Seleya and the city of ShiKahr), all in advance. You can't do that without a script. And you can't change that script in any substantial way without having to redo those other elements.

Burnett is an actual director. He knows you have to have extensive preproduction complete before cameras roll, and the lawsuit was filed only just before shooting was due to begin. It's insane to claim that your "fully professional" independent feature hasn't completed this work so close to its expected shooting date.

 

[muCephi]

"A very cogent argument," said Leslie Owens.

re RMB comment above: I think Axanar management's hubris *is* going to find out just how far CBS is willing to go, CBS with unlimited pockets and all the law on their side, and the potential to clean out Axanar and its studio down to the bare walls, as well as set the Axanar principals up for fundraising lawsuits.

There you are, grenade. Take that pin pulling! Take that setting on the table!! Lets see just how far you are willing to go!!! Marines, observe!!!!

 

[Karzak]

I think if they'd made a documentary about a movie relating to Axanar, they'd be ok. However, they are using the style of a documentary to tell the story. It's still fictional and falls under Star Trek's IP, if I understand things properly.

Precisely. Prelude to Axanar is in no way a legitimate documentary about anything any more than The Office, Parks & Recreation, Modern Family, Arrested Development or Battlestar Galactica are/were.

A documentary is "a movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report." Nothing in Prelude to Axanar is factual, apart from meaningless Star Trek trivia "facts" and more importantly, nothing included that Prelude purports to document falls under the ownership of anyone other than CBS.