CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[carlosp]

Speaking of this going to court, I keep wondering what the pro-bono law firm gets in the wider context of copyright cases by winning some 'fair use' claims in fan films. What would such a precedent imply outside fan films?

Unlike trademark, which is governed by a lot of laws written by Congress, copyright law is more generally based on (sometimes contradictory) precedents set by courts. There's relatively little fair use case law, especially, so disputes are decided on a nearly case-by-case basis.

And there's virtually no case law governing fair use with regard to fan fiction, art or films. I believe that the incentive for Winston & Strawn (even if Axanar loses) is at least helping shape copyright law. There's so much unexplored territory surrounding fair use and transformativeness.

If Axanar wins? It upends copyright law, granting people the same kind of access to intellectual property to produce films, fiction and art that they currently get for things like parodies, research or journalism. You could then expect every Hollywood studio and a lot of indies filing amicus briefs in the appeal, especially if Axanar's victory goes so far as to allow fan films to make money.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

Unlike trademark, which is governed by a lot of laws written by Congress, copyright law is more generally based on (sometimes contradictory) precedents set by courts. There's relatively little fair use case law, especially, so disputes are decided on a nearly case-by-case basis.

And there's virtually no case law governing fair use with regard to fan fiction, art or films. I believe that the incentive for Winston & Strawn (even if Axanar loses) is at least helping shape copyright law. There's so much unexplored territory surrounding fair use and transformativeness.

If Axanar wins? It upends copyright law, granting people the same kind of access to intellectual property to produce films, fiction and art that they currently get for things like parodies, research or journalism. You could then expect every Hollywood studio and a lot of indies filing amicus briefs in the appeal, especially if Axanar's victory goes so far as to allow fan films to make money.

Just goes to show. Facts mean nothing to those who are full of crap

 

[wtriker1701]

Alec Peters wanted to be better than James Cawley, Vic Mignogna and Randall Landers.
In short? He wasn't and he isn't.

He will never, ever be more than a "Would Have Been".

 

[muCephi]

@muCephi and @OtherGene

Winston & Strawn may be seeking to get some cachet with the nerd crowd. I don't know. Not necessarily to defend more fan films, but if they look nerd-friendly, they might feel it will translate into startup business. If they represent a tiny startup which turns into the next Instagram, then it's all worth it.

This is an interesting idea. If a startup got into a patent dispute, I could see it being the case that they might look at W&S. "We do IP" is a message they are sending out, even if its entertainment IP rather than tech IP that the Axanar case promotes.

My own impression is W&S looks like a firm that would represent well-established companies with deep pockets. If I were a in a startup I probably would look for firms that are more exclusively focused on patent law, unless I were somewhere close to IPO and thought I needed to armor up.

 

[Professor Zoom]

This is an interesting idea. If a startup got into a patent dispute, I could see it being the case that they might look at W&S. "We do IP" is a message they are sending out, even if its entertainment IP rather than tech IP that the Axanar case promotes.

I suspect, though, patent law is different than copyright.

 

[jespah]

This is an interesting idea. If a startup got into a patent dispute, I could see it being the case that they might look at W&S. "We do IP" is a message they are sending out, even if its entertainment IP rather than tech IP that the Axanar case promotes.

My own impression is W&S looks like a firm that would represent well-established companies with deep pockets. If I were a in a startup I probably would look for firms that are more exclusively focused on patent law, unless I were somewhere close to IPO and thought I needed to armor up.

Well, they might be trying to shake up a stodgy image. Obviously, I'm not privy to their marketing decisions, but the next companies right now are coming out of the startup scene. If your firm looks like a bunch of jerks in suits, the next Mark Zuckerberg will just go somewhere else.

 

[OtherGene]

Indeed, we have no idea what the terms between W&S and LFIM are. He may say it's a "pro bono" deal, but as with all matters related to finances and this case, I take nothing at face value.

Holey buckets, you're quite right. Here I am actually believing something Alec Peters said! I'm infected! Save yourselves! Kill it with fire! Nuke it from orbit!

Suffice to say, I'm annoyed at myself.

 

[jespah]

Come back to the light, @OtherGene , we've got pie!

 

[OtherGene]

Come back to the light, @OtherGene , we've got pie!

Hmm. Not trying to start some trans-atlantic conflict here, hands across the ocean and all that, but most of those are technically cakes not pies.

 

[Campe]

You dare defy Justice @jespah ?!?

Okay, you're right, @OtherGene

Come on, Janet!

 

[CaptGrumpy]

Come back to the light, @OtherGene , we've got pie!

Pies, cakes, who cares? they look so good!

 

[Khan 2.0]

is it possible Prelude Axanar (along with other fan films that don't conform to the new rules) could be removed from YouTube etc eventually or are they safe?

 

[cultcross]

is it possible Prelude Axanar (along with other fan films that don't conform to the new rules) could be removed from YouTube etc eventually or are they safe?

It's ridiculously easy to remove videos from YouTube, they won't usually even investigate copyright claims if it appears legit on first glance. So if they wanted films removed, they could do it.

 

[Warped9]

The GUIDELINES (not rules) are not retroactive.

 

[cultcross]

The GUIDELINES (not rules) are not retroactive.

That only means those that predate them had no permission at all.

 

[jespah]

Hmm. Not trying to start some trans-atlantic conflict here, hands across the ocean and all that, but most of those are technically cakes not pies.

Ack! I Googled too fast! I crossed the streams!!!!

Better now, Ryan @Campe98 and @OtherGene ?

/hides in pieless corner/

I have been pieshamed.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

Ack! I Googled too fast! I crossed the streams!!!!

Better now, Ryan @Campe98 and @OtherGene ?

/hides in pieless corner/

I have been pieshamed.

Welp, I'm off to the bakery now. Thanks for ruining my diet

 

[carlosp]

Holey buckets, you're quite right. Here I am actually believing something Alec Peters said! I'm infected! Save yourselves! Kill it with fire! Nuke it from orbit!

Suffice to say, I'm annoyed at myself.

Winston are in fact representing Axanar pro bono, as stated in their news release at the time.

 

[oswriter]

Winston are in fact representing Axanar pro bono, as stated in their news release at the time.

Big firms usually have committees that oversee pro bono work. I occassionally dealt with them in my antitrust days, and I know there tends to be pretty strict oversight of time and hours spent on these cases. Add to that a potentially difficult client, and I wonder if some of the senior partners at the firm may not be wondering if they made a mistake here. For all this talk of potential PR benefits, I honestly don't see how taking on this particular client can help any established law firm.

 

[Noname Given]

Big firms usually have committees that oversee pro bono work. I occassionally dealt with them in my antitrust days, and I know there tends to be pretty strict oversight of time and hours spent on these cases. Add to that a potentially difficult client, and I wonder if some of the senior partners at the firm may not be wondering if they made a mistake here. For all this talk of potential PR benefits, I honestly don't see how taking on this particular client can help any established law firm.

I'm sure Alec Peters can be very convincing and charming. The W&S Board might have thought that at best a settlement would be reached; and THAT would be great PR ("Yes, we worked out a favorable settlement with a large Hollywood studio over a beloved IP...")
^^^
I'm pretty sure now that they've actually gotten to know both the actual situation, as well as how Alec Peters ACTUALLY views things (especially after they got an intervention by JJ Abrams/Justin Lin where C/P WERE actually willing to make one or more settlement offers <--- All refused if Alec Peters blog comments are to be believed); I'm sure they're thinking - "Wow did we misread this..."

I think the issue with the overall response to the W&S tweet about the case (and the fact W&S removed said tweet after the replies really shows the firm believed the whole situation would be different than what it's become.