• 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.
Sgt_G said:
Except messages posted on Trek-BBS prove that he knew exactly where those boundaries are, and that he completely ignored them as he drove right thru them and kept on going.
Click to expand...

Shit pickles, I have screenshots of nearly everything Alec has ever said on this site on that subject, all his precious pontificating to his inferiors and pandering to those he thought he could con into helping him. I also know the people at CBS Legal Affairs. I'll happily send those screenshots right the fuck on over to them. Ol' Bug Eyes can go eat several dicks, as far as I'm concerned.
 
The only problem I see with using AP's posts here is that he will object based on the fact that it's not his name on them. It's easy enough to prove where they came from, but not who actually did the posting. I'm not "an attorney by training" but I think it should be easy to get that thrown out.

But I could be wrong. :)
 
jespah said:
@carlosp and I picked up on the same thing, that these documents are all well and good for proving or disproving claims of actual damages, but if the plaintiffs are going after statutory damages, then the whole exercise is a moot one.
Click to expand...
Okay. I'm googling statutory vs actual damages but I'm not understanding the difference. It saying "amount awarded is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm".

A statute is a law, right? Why isn't it just called a law? Are all laws statutes?
I found this:
"Law" refers to the entire body of statutory, administrative, and common law provisions that regulate our society. A "statute" is the specific, codified statement of some law that has been approved by the legislative body (and often endorsed by the executive body) of a government.
Click to expand...
But [throwing hands up in the air] what does that 'mean'? And what is the separation of harm to-or-from a law?
 
ThankYouGeneR said:
Okay. I'm googling statutory vs actual damages but I'm not understanding the difference. It saying "amount awarded is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm".

A statute is a law, right? Why isn't it just called a law? Are all laws statutes?
Click to expand...

The United States is a common-law jurisdiction. This means the law is a combination of customs (many inherited from England), judicial precedents (judge-made law), and statutes (laws made by Congress, state legislatures, and regulatory agencies).

Common law governs most tort claims--that is, lawsuits arising from injury or damages caused to another. Statutes can modify the common law, for example by limiting the types of damages a person may seek. Statutes can also create additional categories of damages that did not previously exist in common law. One example of this is a "wrongful death" claim--this exists only in statute, not common law.

Copyright, like a lot of U.S. law, tends to combine common and statutory law. "Actual damages" refers to the common law--i.e., what CBS and Paramount are seeking for the losses incurred due to AP's alleged infringement. "Statutory damages" refers to an additional category of damages specifically authorized by Congress.

Another way to look at this: Actual damages are restitution to the victim. Statutory damages are basically a fine.
 
Thanks @oswriter

See also: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

"(b) Actual Damages and Profits.—
The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement ..."

"(c) Statutory Damages.—
(1) ... in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. ...
(2) "In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200." ...
(d) "Additional Damages in Certain Cases.—
In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years."

To be honest, I kinda don't care what the damages are at this point, even if it's only $200 after a verdict, because if this matter goes to trial and there is a verdict against plaintiff, then that will be a matter of public record which future donors (Star Trek fans and fans of other IPs, such as Supergirl and BSG) would be able to find online without too much trouble. It would be a record which could not be expunged by defense and that particular piece of the narrative could not be controlled by them.

That having been said, I suspect plaintiffs are gunning for a finding of willfulness. And with the recorded statements about knowing infringement coming straight from AP's own mouth, I believe it won't be too hard for them to prove.
 
Wrt/ statutory damages, willful infringement is a factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement

I am confused how this would go. The descriptions of willful infringement online that I see seem to apply on both prongs to Axanar Productions. But W&S continue to push wrt/ the studios having made some sort of internal policy regarding fair use. How could an internal policy, even backed by its implementation as observed across fan films, alter the statutory law test for willful infringement? The law seems to be about whether there was intent "to infringe the copyright", not intent "to infringe patterns of prior enforcement of copyright".

Excerpt from http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_infringement :

Innocent infringement
If an infringer can show that he or she was not aware and had no reason to believe that the activity constituted an infringement, the court may find there was an innocent infringement.[41] Such a finding is a factual determination, and does not absolve the defendant of liability for the infringement.[42] It does, however, give the court discretion to reduce the amount of damages awarded to the copyright owner.[43]

Willful infringement
If a copyright owner can show that the infringement was willful, the court may increase statutory damages up to a maximum of $150,000.[44] An infringement may be found to be willful if the infringer had knowledge that the activity constituted infringement or recklessly disregarded the possibility of infringement.[45]​
 
Last edited:
muCephi said:
Wrt/ statutory damages, willful infringement is a factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement

I am confused how this would go. The descriptions of willful infringement online that I see seem to apply on both prongs to Axanar Productions. But W&S continue to push wrt/ the studios having made some sort of internal policy regarding fair use. How could an internal policy, even backed by its implementation as observed across fan films, alter the statutory law test for willful infringement? The law seems to be about whether there was intent "to infringe the copyright", not intent "to infringe patterns of prior enforcement of copyright".

Excerpt from http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_infringement :

Innocent infringement
If an infringer can show that he or she was not aware and had no reason to believe that the activity constituted an infringement, the court may find there was an innocent infringement.[41] Such a finding is a factual determination, and does not absolve the defendant of liability for the infringement.[42] It does, however, give the court discretion to reduce the amount of damages awarded to the copyright owner.[43]

Willful infringement
If a copyright owner can show that the infringement was willful, the court may increase statutory damages up to a maximum of $150,000.[44] An infringement may be found to be willful if the infringer had knowledge that the activity constituted infringement or recklessly disregarded the possibility of infringement.[45]​
Click to expand...
I'm planning on publishing an Explainer on willful infringement to counter Jonathan Lane's rose-colored-glasses view of the case, in which he actually believes the infringement was innocent. Until I do, this article based on an interview RMB gave a few months back does some description of willful infringement.

You may also find our Copyright Primer helpful on other matters regarding copyright law.
 
Layman's question.
Is there such a thing as conspiracy to commit infringement?
I know that in criminal law conspiracy to commit is a crime is a big no no but does it work the same way in civil law?
 
dmac said:
Layman's question.
Is there such a thing as conspiracy to commit infringement?
I know that in criminal law conspiracy to commit is a crime is a big no no but does it work the same way in civil law?
Click to expand...
No, but given that Peters misrepresented to his "donors" (read contractual party) that his movie was authorised by the IP holder, there is an argument that there is conspiracy to defraud - which is a criminal offence. Depending on what comes out during the trial, you never know. He might find himself in hotter water....
 
Smoked Salmon said:
No, but given that Peters misrepresented to his "donors" (read contractual party) that his movie was authorised by the IP holder, there is an argument that there is conspiracy to defraud - which is a criminal offence. Depending on what comes out during the trial, you never know. He might find himself in hotter water....
Click to expand...
True but that's criminal.
Most people involved in fan films have always known you can't purchase unlicensed Star trek goods or services to create a fan film. You can't pay someone to create VFX work, uniforms, patches, devices, build sets, ADR work ect.
Shortly after Prelude came out you started hearing rumors that Axanar was basically a 3rd party creation and that was fairly well backed up when Axanar released their financial spending. I was a bit surprised CBS/Paramount didn't go after all the 3rd party providers for infringement. This leads to the question of when does it become infringement, when it's created or when the product becomes available (goes live).
 
Ion said:
How to Understand the Differences Between Statutes, Regulations ...
Click to expand...
oswriter said:
The United States is a common-law jurisdiction. This means the law is a combination of customs (many inherited from England), judicial precedents (judge-made law), and statutes (laws made by Congress, state legislatures, and regulatory agencies).
Common law governs .........
Copyright, like a lot of U.S. law, tends to combine common and statutory law.........
Another way to look at this: Actual damages are restitution to the victim. Statutory damages are basically a fine.
Click to expand...
jespah said:
See also: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
"(b) Actual Damages and Profits.—The copyright owner is entitled ........"
"(c) Statutory Damages.—
(1) ... in a sum of ........
(2) "In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving.........
In any case in which the court finds ................"
To be honest....................
That having been said........
Click to expand...
muCephi said:
Wrt/ statutory damages, willful infringement is a factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement
Excerpt from http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_infringement :
Innocent infringement.....
Willful infringement.....​
Click to expand...
carlosp said:
I'm planning on publishing an Explainer on willful infringement.........
You may also find our Copyright Primer helpful on other matters regarding copyright law.
Click to expand...
This is great! Thanks to all of you for all the information and all the links!!!

And so begins a new segment of law-stuff literacy and research for me to dig into. Awesome
 
dmac said:
Most people involved in fan films have always known you can't purchase unlicensed Star trek goods or services to create a fan film.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. People making the films have all known that from the word go. But fans, the donators, may not know that. New Voyages / Phase-2 had the backing the Gene Roddenberry's son, giving them the appearance of legitimacy even though they admitted they were working without official approval. They never claimed to be something they weren't and tried to correct people who thought otherwise.. Mr. Peters on the other hand implied and even flatly stated he had or was seeking written permission from CBS, even after he was told straight up he would never get such permission. His donors gave money believing he had the legal ability to finish the project. I am of the opinion a case could be made for fraud / theft by deception.
 
I never had any regrets when supporting Phase II and when I brought it to the attention of another studio that one of their actors was selling signed star trek themed photo's, it was taken down in a heartbeat.
There are things you just don't do and I don't know if Peters understood the do's and don't but I know he had a lot of people around him that did. From what I'm hearing Peters either got very poor counsel or he didn't listen to it.
 
By his own words here on Trek-BBS, he was fully aware and understood the rules. And from reports of people who left the project, he received very good counsel and simply ignored it. He even ignored his lawyer's (the one before Ms. Ranahan) demands that he stop posting comments here and on other forums.
 
dmac said:
True but that's criminal.
Most people involved in fan films have always known you can't purchase unlicensed Star trek goods or services to create a fan film. You can't pay someone to create VFX work, uniforms, patches, devices, build sets, ADR work ect.
Click to expand...
There have been plenty of fanfilms who paid for such services, so I'm not sure that''s a valid point.
 
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