I know, but after reading the denial of the MTD I think it's gonna take some real fancy lawyerin' for AP to win. And so far, I haven't seen much fancy.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
But it didn't stay non-commercial. THAT is the problem.
I know, but after reading the denial of the MTD I think it's gonna take some real fancy lawyerin' for AP to win. And so far, I haven't seen much fancy.
No kidding!
This may be a moment where Axanar's arguments meet The Wrath Of Nitpicking Fans.
That much should be screamingly obvious to the judge.
Ooooh - we're talking about Gene's Vision™ again! Time to roll out the ol' "What would Genus R. Christ Do?" pic...
Ooooh - we're talking about Gene's Vision™ again! Time to roll out the ol' "What would Genus R. Christ Do?" pic...
Now if someone could do this for His Holiness Lord Alec...........
I want that on a tee shirt.
Okay, time to read this insanity.
/covers keyboard and monitor with clear plastic/
We are (me and Shanna Gilkeson, who is getting her PhD in Communications (Fan Studies is the concentration, I believe) also going to be writing about potential fan film guidelines, but I will work on this first.
Many thanks for your patience and support!
Okay, time to read this insanity.
/covers keyboard and monitor with clear plastic/
We are (me and Shanna Gilkeson, who is getting her PhD in Communications (Fan Studies is the concentration, I believe) also going to be writing about potential fan film guidelines, but I will work on this first.
Many thanks for your patience and support!
from paragraph 46 "...and further deny that Soval’s robe in Prelude to Axanar contains “ancient Vulcan script” (the robe contains Chinese letters)." REALLY? So Vulcan is now a province of China? Tell me how Vulcan script looks Chinese to anybody who's seen Chinese script?.
well gosh golly. maybe they meant characters CBS claims are woven into the fabric. Because the ones they are WEARING are not Chinese. Jump to 1:40:
I await with baited breath your analysis. BTW, Jespah, where's the podcast. Haven't seen it this week?
EDIT: Oops, it just came up in my poscast cue. Never mind
Thanks for all you do!
I like the quote of Roddenberry in the Nature of the Action section, on page 16...
"it is now a source of great joy for me to see their view of Star Trek, their new Star trek stories, reaching professional publication here." Emphasis mine.
two things.
1. Professional... i.e., people were paid for their work by the license holder of the IP.
2. The license holder put out the book, because they paid for the rights to do so.
So, Roddenberry might not be totally in their corner.
"it is now a source of great joy for me to see their view of Star Trek, their new Star trek stories, reaching professional publication here." Emphasis mine.
two things.
1. Professional... i.e., people were paid for their work by the license holder of the IP.
2. The license holder put out the book, because they paid for the rights to do so.
So, Roddenberry might not be totally in their corner.
From an article on fair use. Is THIS is not transformation how is putting Garth 21 years before TOS make this anything new?
-------------------------------------
At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work. For example, in a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court primarily because the work was not transformative. Aging the character and placing him in present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. (Salinger v. Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).) - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#sthash.koBLfwMd.dpuf
-------------------------------------
At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work. For example, in a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court primarily because the work was not transformative. Aging the character and placing him in present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. (Salinger v. Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).) - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#sthash.koBLfwMd.dpuf
Erin didn't get the memo...
Well, Alec Peters is a member of SAG (and from the Axanar expense report - it appears his SAG dues (~$9000 U.S.) was paid using Pledged funds too. So he could take something for the role of 'Garth'; but he's NOT in the Producers guild; so paying himself as a 'Producer' is not what he should have been doing.
To be fair, you can't expect someone to use a quote in a trade publication to be the deciding factor to shut down the production. CBS should have sent them a C&D or at least a registered letter to warn them about proceeding etc.. Now, perhaps, CBS did communicate this to Alec in some official form, we don't know, or will probably ever know if that happened or not.
I await with baited breath your analysis. BTW, Jespah, where's the podcast. Haven't seen it this week?
EDIT: Oops, it just came up in my poscast cue. Never mind
Thanks for all you do!
bated breath. baited breath is Aquaman
Not if this settles
I told you there was a REAL possibility that Alec Peters ego would derail any real settlement chance; if he assumed the JJ Abram's/Justin Lin's 'influence' meant he could ask for whatever he wanted. Seems that's exactly what happened. Also, I have to say, the 'Defense Response' doesn't cast the W&S law firm in a good light as it honestly reads:
"We still deny EVERYTHING and because we STILL believe 'Star Trek' isn't copyrightable and don't believe C/P had cause to bring the lawsuit, they should pay all our legal fees too. (BTW JJ Abrams and Justin Lin like us and agree with us.)"
There's a professional way to conduct a response to a lawsuit; W&S really don't demonstrate that as they really seem to assume the Judge doesn't know or understand copyright law. IF CBS/Paramount decide not to settle; you can be sure the Judge and a Jury will be 'schooling Axanar, Alec Peters and the Winston and Strawn legal team come January 2017.
I stand corrected. (well, actually, I sit corrected)bated breath. baited breath is Aquaman
I have found to my surprise in the last few years that legal filings aren't necessarily about putting your best foot forward, unless it is to trip your opponent.
- Status