• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Professor Zoom said:
To give some benefit of the doubt: it could be she is asking for WAY more than she needs to get more than she would've gotten if she just asked for exactly what she needs.

She's fishing.



@jespah can correct me, but, isn't showing the registration of copyright from the Copyright Office demonstration of claim? Is Axanar really hoping there's going to be some slip-up in sale?
Click to expand...
A valid copyright (e. g. documents filed with the copyright office) is generally seen to be as prima facie evidence that a copyright exists and is valid. If a copyright was issued without proof of ownership, that might be an issue. Hmm. I bet @mkstewartesq would know best - does proof of ownership have to be shown to file with the Copyright Office?
 
jespah said:
A valid copyright (e. g. documents filed with the copyright office) is generally seen to be as prima facie evidence that a copyright exists and is valid. If a copyright was issued without proof of ownership, that might be an issue. Hmm. I bet @mkstewartesq would know best - does proof of ownership have to be shown to file with the Copyright Office?
Click to expand...
I'm not "trained as an attorney" but as far as I'm aware, the first to file owns the copyright.

There was a case decades ago of an artist claiming that ZZ Top had ripped off a song. The claimant's song was similar, almost identical, but the Little Ol' Band from Texas had registered their copyright and the other artist had not. Case closed.

I can't see this as being any different.

But wasn't the original MTD denied based partly on CBS/P's obvious ownership of the IP?
 
muCephi said:
If the judge refuses broad discovery by the defense, I believe it could be used as grounds for appeal. Doesn't a copyright owner have to demonstrate that their claim is valid?
Click to expand...
Again they already did so to this Judge's satisfaction. The claim of 'C/P have no standing to sue because they haven't proved they own the Star Trek copyright...' was MADE ALREADY in W&S motion to dismiss the case -- a motion which was 100% denied by the Judge.

Is it a grounds for appeal? Yes - but that's how wide open the appeals process is - as ANY denied motion is a grounds for appeal. Again, when you appeal, the appeals court looks at the case transcript - and IF they find a Judicial ruling they feel the trial Judge did make in error - they'll act.
 
urbandefault said:
But wasn't the original MTD denied based partly on CBS/P's obvious ownership of the IP?
Click to expand...

I think that might be different. Dismissal I think means all the accusations are without merit. That bar isn't met. It seems obvious that C/P holds a whole big wheelbarrow of Trek copyrights, meaning their claims can't be dismissed as having no merit at all.
 
Noname Given said:
Again they already did so to this Judge's satisfaction. The claim of 'C/P have no standing to sue because they haven't proved they own the Star Trek copyright...' was MADE ALREADY in W&S motion to dismiss the case -- a motion which was 100% denied by the Judge.
Click to expand...

Is it perhaps that the judge ruled there is sufficient evidence of C/P holding Trek copyrights that there is no ground to dismiss, BUT this is not a ruling that the claim is fully proved across the entire scope of the property? Wasn't the judge addressing dismissal based on patently defective claims, not making a determination of whether the copyright claim is completely accurate?
 
Am I mistaken, or didn't CBS/P already produce evidence of decades of copyrights in the response to W&S' motion to dismiss? I'd think that even if it wasn't a complete history, it was comprehensive enough to establish ownership.

Even if there is a weak link in the copyright chain, CBS still owns all the trademarks in relation to Trek. If that can't be used as evidence of ownership, what can? Or is that irrelevant in a copyright case?
 
In their own words, with their own voices, July 11, 2015, AXANAR Feature Film - Indiegogo Pitch Video:
"I'm just excited that my character, Ambassador Soval was reprieved, was brought back, for this."
"Axanar is the first independent Star Trek film"
"It has literally been a life long dream for me to direct a Star Trek feature film.
Noun 1. feature film - the principal (full-length) film in a program at a movie theater; "the feature tonight is `Casablanca'"
Click to expand...
"he's written probably the best Star Trek film yet written." Emphasis by speaker
"We're using industry professionals with years and years, sometimes decades of experience. Some professionals who have actually worked on making Star Trek... such as our line producer Mike DeMeritt." VOY, ENT
"and we've been retrofitting this facility so that it can be used for a sound stage for years to come"
"So I say everybody go to the well, send us whatever you can afford and we'll make you a great movie."


From their own Idiegogo site promotion, in their own words, 2015:
"Axanar is not just an independent Star Trek film; it is the beginning of a whole new way that fans can get the content they want, by funding it themselves. Why dump hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on 400 cable channels"
"Hollywood is changing. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other providers are redefining content delivery, and Axanar Productions/Ares Studios hopes to be part of that movement."
^^^ Not 'fan films'. Not 'fan films' are changing. ^^^.... "Hollywood is changing."

"Axanar Productions/Ares Studio hopes to be part of that." With Star Trek fans' donor funds to build the soundstage, "and we've been retrofitting this facility so that it can be used for a sound stage for years to come" [for the] "beginning of a whole new way that fans can get the content they want, by funding it themselves."

"information relevant to the market harm element of the fair use analysis"

In their own words & with their own voices direct unambiguous intentional Market Harm. Relevant. Market Harm element of Fair Use.




---Thanks to muCephi & Carlos for posting this information and easy access/ links
 
Last edited:
Could they actually give the Axanar people all of the actors, directors, and producers salaries without their permission? Would they need to get those people's permission to release it, and if the people didn't want that stuff released could they stop it? I know if I was one of them, I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone near Axanar to know how much I was paid.

I'm glad to see the CBS/P lawyers calling Peters and co. out on all of the "not a fan film" stuff. I still love how it went from not a fan film before to lawsuit, to just another fan film after.
 
JD said:
Could they actually give the Axanar people all of the actors, directors, and producers salaries without their permission? Would they need to get those people's permission to release it, and if the people didn't want that stuff released could they stop it? I know if I was one of them, I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone near Axanar to know how much I was paid.
Click to expand...

Unless the material is used at trial, the information is to remain confidential as a part of discovery. So, it's not like--in theory--the information would be released to the public.
 
Noname Given said:
It's clear Ms. Ranahan either doesn't know how Copyright Infringement law is - or she hopes the Judge doesn't because as L&L said, whether or not CBS/Paramount have enforced Star trek copyright in the past against other Star Trek Fan Film producers is irreverent to the issue of whether infringement has occurred. Copyright law as it stands today ALLOWS selective enforcement. That's currently how the law is written.

Also, Judge's don't take kindly to attorneys who blissfully try to feign complete ignorance of their client's public statements - IE her continued characterization of the 'Axanar Works' as 'just another fan film' - when that definitely wasn't how Alec Peters was describing it prior to the lawsuit - and he's continued to waffle back and forth AFTER W&S and Erin Ranahan signed on to the case. I know many TV procedural court dramas like to make a big dramatic deal about a some 'i' not being dotted, ot 't' crossed <-- And that makes the case; and that the Judge views the attorney as a totally aloof entity only responsible for what his/her client says in court - but in the real world - IF it's out there (and in Alec Peters case, it is) - where the attorney would know what his/her client is saying/doing in public; the Judge will take a dim view of an attorney that continues to pile on the B.S.
^^^
THIS is the main reason ANYONE WITH A BRAIN REPLIES WITH "No comment..."; or "I can't/refuse to comment due to pending litigation.." - as it gives the attorney virtual free reign to say whatever narrative they want where it counts (IE in the courtroom) - and really forces the other side to prove that narrative false.

Both Alec Peters and RMB talk so f*cking much about this (and record themselves doing so) - it makes it impossible for Erin Ranahan to stand in front of the Judge (or file a motion) and credibly feign ignorance as to Alec Peters actual intent or actions with regard to the Axanar Works.

It's clear her strategy is to just try and pile on and pile on - and hope the Judge agrees with her on her request for Star Trek financial and other material dating back 50 years. It would be a BIG burden to produce everything - and I can guarantee no matter what documents she got, she would continue with "This can't be ALL you have from the past 50 years..." If the Judge rules for her in this motion it more then anything else would get C/P back to the settlement talks table.

In the end, I think it's pretty clear W&S know if this case gets to trial, it's over and they loose. They're doing all they can to force C/P back into settlement talks and really cave to whatever Alec Peters is demanding that they refuse to agree to.

It'll be interesting to see what the Judge rules here, but it could be the ruling here that ultimately decides the case.
Click to expand...
I think you're right. Few judges would give the defense such a blank check for discovery. But this motion clearly is angling for something. Probably more than one thing. And one of those, I think you're right, is leverage in a new round of settlement talks, which they'd clearly lost before this point.
 
carlosp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hadn't heard that bolded phrase in the quote above, so to cheer people up amongst all the serious stuff and reading that @jespah is doing, and with apologies to J Micheal Straczynski...

"It was the dawn of the Age of Axanar, ten years after Starship Exeter and Star Trek: New Voyages started.

The Axanar Project was a dream not given form. It's goal, to make a mockumentary preluding a film where Humans and Klingons could work out their differences at point blank range!

It's a fan film, no, an independant Star Trek production made in a warehouse/studio. Home away from home to greenscreens, plywood, entrepreneurs and patches.

Creator and studio wrapped in 1 million, three hundred thousand dollars of donors cash, all alone in the fandom.

It can be a dangerous place, but it's the last and only hope for the movie being made!

This is the story of the last of the Axanar saga. The year is 2017. The name of the place is Ares Studios/Valkyrie Studios/Industry Studios...the court of Judge Klausner!"

Allegedly!



carlosp said:
Also (finally!) the plaintiffs put it in black & white: the case is about Axanar's commercialization, they explicitly call out the studiowarehousestudio and Donor Store, they reveal Alec Peters spent money on personal expenses, and they reject Axanar's convenient post-lawsuit identity as a "fan film."
Click to expand...

Hallelujah!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top