CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
It's DOA even before opening statements.
Blog post on the Request for Judicial Notice is up!
http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-defense-request-judicial-notice/
As always, I thank you for your kind support.
http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-defense-request-judicial-notice/
As always, I thank you for your kind support.
I doubt it. Any Axanar pledgers/donors that still support Alec Peters 100% at this point are beyond any logical reasoning with - with regards to the legal realities of the case in chief. They'll keep throwing money at him as long as he keeps saying: "Trust me, C/P will settle and you'll get Axanar...as soon as I have the real funds I need to realize my 'vision'...."
And not only broke it, but flaunted doing it. Peters wants to be painted as the one poor schmuck pulled over for speeding in a pack of cars all doing 55 in a 45 zone with few speed limit signs reminding them of the speed. The thing is, if he had been doing 55 with the rest of the pack on that rural four-lane road in good conditions, the worst the trooper may have done is flash his lights at the entire group to slow them down. But, Peters wasn't running with the pack, he was separating himself from them. He was doing 70 and weaving in and out around them as he tried to pass.
I can actually see a little of what his lawyer is trying to do. They seem to be saying trying to deal with what's allowed and not allowed in the CBS/P IP world is impossible to know and follows no logic. Kirk has been used, but April (who's even non-canon), can't be? The Enterprise has been faithfully reproduced, but the Ares is an IP violation? Spock has appeared, but "Vulcan pointy ears" are an IP violation? The only sin Peters probably thinks he's made is that he was overly-ambitious. And he certainly thinks he shouldn't be punished for that.
Did all the fan films violate IP? In the exact usage, yes. Did CBS/P set itself up for an "Axanar moment," yes, in my opinion. But be fair to CBS/P. A record company isn't going to come down hard on a garage band for satisfying its personal rock itch by playing the company's artist's records. A teacher will give a student an "F" on a paper for plagiarizing a work, but the copyright holder of the piece isn't going to sue the student for IP violation on a school assignment.
I will say one thing, the Axanar case shows that fan film makers were never playing in the CBS/P sandbox, the more appropriate analogy is they were playing in the CBS/P mine field. Realizing that, everyone walked around gingerly, spoke softly, and acted respectfully. Peters just strode right in with wads of money and yelled as loud as he could that he was going to out-Trek Trek. BOOM!
Don't do that. PropWorx will sell them and tack on a hidden fee for shipping.
Go to your room!Don't do that. PropWorx will sell them and tack on a hidden fee for shipping.
The thing that jumps out at me is this: Take any one of the exhibits by itself and no big deal. Put any of them together and it starts to look like Star Trek. Trek is so ingrained in popular culture that almost everyone is familiar with at least a few of those terms.
If I didn't know better I'd almost think that W&S are trying to lose this case.
If I didn't know better I'd almost think that W&S are trying to lose this case.
Yup, and this shit does not go unnoticed either.
And, to echo a previous poster here. The money raised actually goes to make and complete the fucking production! The money is not to pay salaries, or to build a 'for profit studio', it's for the dam production so can get done sometime this decade.
You want transparency? Here is the completed film, is that transparent enough for you my lord?
Last edited:
Yup, and this shit does not go unnoticed either.
And, to echo a previous poster here. The money raised actually goes to make and complete the fucking production! The money is not to pay salaries, or to build a 'for profit studio', it's for the dam production so can get done sometime this decade.
You want transparency? Here is the completed film, is that transparent enough for you my lord?
That's my position. If you fulfill your promises to backers and release a completed film in line with the amount you have available then I'll be reasonably confident that the money was spent as intended. If you keep talking about making a film, showing off all of this cool stuff you didn't have before making the film, going back to raise more money for making a film, and doing everything under the sun except for making a film, then I am going to side-eye your project.
Sounds like a fantastic deal. In lieu of cash I will trade you some excellent dry land in the Everglades, my good sir.BTW, I'm selling a bridge, if anyone is interested? I can't tell you where it is right now because of Umm.. security and stuff. But, if you send me cash directly, its all yours!
The flaw in this argument is that copyright allows that the IP holders CAN choose 1 or all in the pack of "speeders". They are not bound by law to prosecute lawsuits uniformly. They can pick who they want to go after.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I doubt Paramount has much to hide where this whole circlejerk is concerned. Ranahan might need to brush up on her bluffing skills before this thing reaches trial.......
I can see the headlines now:
"Copyright suit reveals that Paramount is interested in profit"
"Copyright suit reveals that Paramount is interested in profit"
- Status