CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[muCephi]

Again, realize the following: 95% of ALL Civil cases settle and never see a trial.

It could be. How would you evaluate Alec's latest statement that includes references to bringing in copyright experts? He is implying they would support a "fair use" defense by saying the law goes too far...

“We have three different amazing experts who’ve offered to lend their services,” Peters said. “A lot of people have said to me they want to see this case go to trial, that it is an important case for Hollywood and artists’ rights.” Among them, he added, are “scholars [who] feel that copyright law has gotten out of hand in this country.”
​

I wouldn't really expect Alec to be originating legal strategies like defending fair use using academics who oppose the scope of current law. This looks to me like a W&S-sourced idea.

The article I shared a few notes up was on the bandwagon about artists rights. It claims copyright law as it exists now, coupled with media company monopolies, is crushing the bargaining power of artists. Again, I wouldn't expect this idea of the Axanar case being relevant to artists rights to come from Alec as a made up thing, or something he personally figured out. He couldn't even figure out what the words meant when CBS was telling him they would vigorously defend their rights against activities that commercialized fan films.

 

[Noname Given]

It could be. How would you evaluate Alec's latest statement that includes references to bringing in copyright experts? He is implying they would support a "fair use" defense by saying the law goes too far...

“We have three different amazing experts who’ve offered to lend their services,” Peters said. “A lot of people have said to me they want to see this case go to trial, that it is an important case for Hollywood and artists’ rights.” Among them, he added, are “scholars [who] feel that copyright law has gotten out of hand in this country.”
​

I wouldn't really expect Alec to be originating legal strategies like defending fair use using academics who oppose the scope of current law. This looks to me like a W&S-sourced idea.

The article I shared a few notes up was on the bandwagon about artists rights. It claims copyright law as it exists now, coupled with media company monopolies, is crushing the bargaining power of artists. Again, I wouldn't expect this idea of the Axanar case being relevant to artists rights to come from Alec as a made up thing, or something he personally figured out. He couldn't even figure out what the words meant when CBS was telling him they would vigorously defend their rights against activities that commercialized fan films.

Again, as I said before it's a tactic to try and scare CBS/Paramount Execs into telling L&L to get a settlement. I doubt it'll work, but we'll see.

 

[muCephi]

Again, as I said before it's a tactic to try and scare CBS/Paramount Execs into telling L&L to get a settlement. I doubt it'll work, but we'll see.

Axanar inaccurately suggesting to donors that it intends future actions?

 

[Karzak]

Hot damn Carlos, that was another fantastic article. Bravo!

 

[Ion]

Its been suggested that if it did happen, it could have been about the time that Desliu was sold to Paramount. So, wouldn't, in all practicality that mean that Star Trek belonged to Lucille Ball's estate?

Let's say, just for a moment, that Alec and co.'s "they don't own Star Trek" theory prevails. Would that vacate the entire copyright, or just the copyright on TOS (or whatever series they can prove this supposed murkiness with)?

If I remember correctly, contract law is very much about Intent. If it's clear to the judge that an instrument was intended to convey something, then they'll likely rule that it did convey that thing, regardless of any minor procedural errors. If that's true (lawyers? comments?), then I doubt it will be so easy to prove any break in ownership at all.

But if they manage it...

Wouldn't that only really affect things like the Garth character and the Enterprise and such? Couldn't one then say that Soval and the ship designs have a basis in a completely different copyright? I was under the impression that copyright is effective from the date of inception of – and regarding – a specific story or episode. If I create a series over the course of ten years, the last episode is going to have a copyright expiration date ten years after the first episode's expiration date. The whole series won't just magically expire.

The way Alec talks, you'd think that if there's this break in ownership, the entire franchise would suddenly be public domain. I'd contend that ALL of the newer series would be protected from that, even if the copyrights on TOS were (by some inexplicable method) invalidated. He has plenty of elements from those series in there...

And that leaves out the more likely case -- even if his theory does turn out to be true -- that the copyright would simply revert to an earlier owner. At which point Alec would be --

--still in violation.

He'd probably have to start all over again facing a new lawsuit from a different owner.

How much fun would THAT be?

And now I'm going to stop rambling.

 

[jespah]

Well, my understanding is that at least some of those are derivative copyrights.

But you're right, an instrument of conveyance (eek, you've got me talking like a lawyer again - MAKE IT STOP!) which is partly valid and partly not will be considered enforceable for whichever part is valid. If you and I enter into a contract for me to buy your house and we put the date: February 30, 2816 on it, then that date is invalid but if the remainder is then the incorrect date is not going to matter.

If your minor child (say, a 16-year-old) buys a car from an automobile company and finances it, technically that child is not old enough to enter into a contract. But the payments are still going to have to happen; the kid doesn't just get the car. But this is also where car dealerships are required to ask for ID for younger-looking folks. They have to make sure you're old enough to contract and take out a loan (so if you're under 18 you have to get a cosigner, usually a parent or guardian, to be on the hook if you, a minor, default).

 

[RedForman]

Alec's not going to be able to bluff his way out of this, nor are billion-dollar enterprises like CBS and Paramount likely to blink in the face of his blustering. Additionally, while smart and capable, I don't think Erin Ranahan is as smart as she thinks she is (I doubt thinking/focusing too hard on some of these minute technicalities is going to provide an opening wide enough for her to fit Alec & his ego through)

 

[Jedman67]

Well, my understanding is that at least some of those are derivative copyrights.

But you're right, an instrument of conveyance (eek, you've got me talking like a lawyer again - MAKE IT STOP!) which is partly valid and partly not will be considered enforceable for whichever part is valid. If you and I enter into a contract for me to buy your house and we put the date: February 30, 2816 on it, then that date is invalid but if the remainder is then the incorrect date is not going to matter.

If your minor child (say, a 16-year-old) buys a car from an automobile company and finances it, technically that child is not old enough to enter into a contract. But the payments are still going to have to happen; the kid doesn't just get the car. But this is also where car dealerships are required to ask for ID for younger-looking folks. They have to make sure you're old enough to contract and take out a loan (so if you're under 18 you have to get a cosigner, usually a parent or guardian, to be on the hook if you, a minor, default).

So TLDR, if lets say some aspect of the copyrights weren't transferred over properly or filed properly in the past 5 decades of ownership and corporate acquisitions etc, CBS would still be legally presumed to be the copyright owner since the intent of the various transactions were to transfer ownership of the properties to what is now CBS, and any bad paperwork is essentially irrelevant?

 

[Jedi_Master]

The "invalid copyright" argument will be incredibly weak, and Alec only discusses it because it fits his "fans versus the Big Bad Corporation" narrative, specifically it promotes the notion that "Trek should belong to the people" in which case said "people" should be able to do what they wish with it, including use it to subsidize a for-profit business wholly unrelated to Trek.
Such nonsense is repeated purely to churn the donor base.

The real and only angle remaining for the Ranahan to pursue is "fair use." An expansion of the "fair use" doctrine would indeed be the precedent setting, headline grabbing, reputation boosting victory that would justify the expense of the Axanar case to her fellow partners.

 

[MikeH92467]

I don't presume to know the internal politics surrounding pro bono work at big law firms, but I would think that in judging whether efforts were worthwhile, the firm's board would consider such things as whether there was a significant public service aspect (Fowler, White has an entire pro bono division strictly for serving disadvantaged clients being ground up by the legal sausage factory) or at least a reasonable chance of breaking new legal ground in a high profile fashion. I would guess that Ms Ranahan sold her partners on the latter possibility. From my standpoint it sounds like she was sold a load of bullshit by AP and she resold it to her partners. I think she hitched her horse to the wrong wagon and if this case blows up in her face the way I think it will, I would think she would have a very unpleasant time explaining to her fellow partners just what the hell she was thinking.
I could be wrong...

 

[dmac]

Raw off the newswire:

DJ CBS Corp: Board Receives Letter From National Amusements Requesting Consideration of CBS-Viacom Merger >CBS


(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires (212-416-2800)
September 29, 2016 12:11 ET (16:11 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2016 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.- - 12 11 PM EDT 09-29-16
Note: National Amusements is the holding/ family trust company that owns the controlling interest in Viacom.
Even if this was done quickly, you would be looking at mid 2017. Already we have seen major turnover in Viacom and Paramount's top management and this action would create even more turnover.
Nine months ago CBS had a lot of drive to vigorously pursue LFIM's methods, I'd consider the decision to bring a suit against Anaxar came from the upper management. As the older management is replaced and with LFIM's misguided media support, it's possible the new people may wish to "make this whole distasteful event go away". Of Course the newer management may also look to insure the next Anaxar event never happens.
The question is: Can LFIM stall the courts long enough until the sentiment changes?

 

[OtherGene]

Now this next comment I'm about to make isn't really connected to the lawsuit and only tenuously connected to the donors and their money so I won't be offended if some Trek BBS moderator gets the ban hammer out and gives me a good telling off.

This is all just something that occurred to me after looking at some recent images of our friend Alec Peters. He hasn't been seen for a short while and now I would swear that his face is a bit puffier than I've seen in the past, and I don't think it's as a result of a less sushi more doughnuts diet. Take a look yourselves and then ponder whether some money which ultimately could be described as donor money has, perhaps, been used for something more cosmetic.

I could be imagining it.

 

[RedForman]

Now this next comment I'm about to make isn't really connected to the lawsuit and only tenuously connected to the donors and their money so I won't be offended if some Trek BBS moderator gets the ban hammer out and gives me a good telling off.

This is all just something that occurred to me after looking at some recent images of our friend Alec Peters. He hasn't been seen for a short while and now I would swear that his face is a bit puffier than I've seen in the past, and I don't think it's as a result of a less sushi more doughnuts diet. Take a look yourselves and then ponder whether some money which ultimately could be described as donor money has, perhaps, been used for something more cosmetic.

I could be imagining it.

lol - might he be trying to pull a 'Bloefeld' ??

(the opening scenes of 007's Diamonds Are Forever has Ernst Stavro Bloefeld preparing to go under the knife and get some cosmetic work done that would ultimately make him unrecognizable)

 

[Jedi_Master]

Now this next comment I'm about to make isn't really connected to the lawsuit and only tenuously connected to the donors and their money so I won't be offended if some Trek BBS moderator gets the ban hammer out and gives me a good telling off.

This is all just something that occurred to me after looking at some recent images of our friend Alec Peters. He hasn't been seen for a short while and now I would swear that his face is a bit puffier than I've seen in the past, and I don't think it's as a result of a less sushi more doughnuts diet. Take a look yourselves and then ponder whether some money which ultimately could be described as donor money has, perhaps, been used for something more cosmetic.

I could be imagining it.

Meh. Stress can have a severe impact on your physical health and overall appearance.

 

[carlosp]

DJ CBS Corp: Board Receives Letter From National Amusements Requesting Consideration of CBS-Viacom Merger. Note: National Amusements is the holding/ family trust company that owns the controlling interest in Viacom.

Even if this was done quickly, you would be looking at mid 2017. Already we have seen major turnover in Viacom and Paramount's top management and this action would create even more turnover.
Nine months ago CBS had a lot of drive to vigorously pursue LFIM's methods, I'd consider the decision to bring a suit against Anaxar came from the upper management. As the older management is replaced and with LFIM's misguided media support, it's possible the new people may wish to "make this whole distasteful event go away". Of Course the newer management may also look to insure the next Anaxar event never happens.
The question is: Can LFIM stall the courts long enough until the sentiment changes?

Interesting hypothetical. However, the decision to sue Axanar wasn't one lightly made. It had to have a strong economic component to it, not an emotional one. And a change in management won't make the economic imperative underpinning the suit go away.

The stakes are high here: losing exclusive control over derivative works of your copyrighted property poses a big-picture threat to the studios far beyond the piddling million dollars Alec Peters himself has convinced fans to part with.

This was a growing concern even without Axanar, as one of my favorite bloggers, Jonathan Bailey of Plagiarism Today, pointed out six years ago, and has revisited now in the Age of Axanar. It seems to me that CBS/Paramount are willing to take a temporary punch in the gut from outraged "fans" in order to protect, not just Star Trek, but all intellectual property.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Interesting hypothetical. However, the decision to sue Axanar wasn't one lightly made. It had to have a strong economic component to it, not an emotional one. And a change in management won't make the economic imperative underpinning the suit go away.

The stakes are high here: losing exclusive control over derivative works of your copyrighted property poses a big-picture threat to the studios far beyond the piddling million dollars Alec Peters himself has convinced fans to part with.

This was a growing concern even without Axanar, as one of my favorite bloggers, Jonathan Bailey of Plagiarism Today, pointed out six years ago, and has revisited now in the Age of Axanar. It seems to me that CBS/Paramount are willing to take a temporary punch in the gut from outraged "fans" in order to protect, not just Star Trek, but all intellectual property.

And I'm sure the other studios are glad they are doing it. If not Paramount, it would be someone else.

 

[dmac]

Interesting hypothetical. However, the decision to sue Axanar wasn't one lightly made. It had to have a strong economic component to it, not an emotional one. And a change in management won't make the economic imperative underpinning the suit go away.

The stakes are high here: losing exclusive control over derivative works of your copyrighted property poses a big-picture threat to the studios far beyond the piddling million dollars Alec Peters himself has convinced fans to part with.

This was a growing concern even without Axanar, as one of my favorite bloggers, Jonathan Bailey of Plagiarism Today, pointed out six years ago, and has revisited now in the Age of Axanar. It seems to me that CBS/Paramount are willing to take a temporary punch in the gut from outraged "fans" in order to protect, not just Star Trek, but all intellectual property.

That's the other side of the coin. The easy fix for the next Alex that comes along (and I'm sure they are out there) is to simply quit allowing the use of their intellectual property 100%. We know the old guard attempted to find a middle ground with the guidelines, it's hard to say what a new team might do.

 

[jespah]

So TLDR, if lets say some aspect of the copyrights weren't transferred over properly or filed properly in the past 5 decades of ownership and corporate acquisitions etc, CBS would still be legally presumed to be the copyright owner since the intent of the various transactions were to transfer ownership of the properties to what is now CBS, and any bad paperwork is essentially irrelevant?

Basically, courts don't get too hung up on not every I being dotted, or T being crossed. At some point (God only knows when), enough errors would make a conveyance invalid. But you would have to be an exceptionally incompetent lawyer (as the sale obviously went through C/P's predecessors' legal departments prior to execution) to royally f up like that.

 

[Search4]

And let's be clear. Does anyone believe Alec and crew actually researched copywrite status before raising money etc? It's a nonsense argument made up after the fact.

 

[Jedman67]

And let's be clear. Does anyone believe Alec and crew actually researched copywrite status before raising money etc?

of course! Alec Peters is a very diligent and efficient researcher with broad knowledge of legal principles. I'm sure he researched this very thoroughly!