• 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.
If there is a settlement after Summary Judgment, can the Judgment and the filings around it be cited by other cases, or is it as if it all never existed? What about if the Plaintiff withdraws the case with court permission (not saying it will happen in this case, but wondering generally).
 
Last edited:
Obiter dicta is just kinda incidental stuff, but even that is sometimes cited particularly, as @MikeH92467 says, when a judge is hunting around for something or other to hang his decision hat on.

A regular old summary judgment ruling probably won't make it into a standard case law reporter (like Fed. Supp. 2nd), at least, not at the district court level. Not that they never make it into the case law reporters (because those decisions do), but the lower down you are, the less likely it is.

For pretty much all records of California Central, beyond PACER and PACERMonitor, there's this: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/records
 
carlosp said:
Fan Film Factor, as the only online source of lawsuit news "approved" by Alec Peters, neatly sidesteps the "direct financial benefit" part of the legal complaint and how that plays into the four-factor fair use analysis and determination of infringement.
Click to expand...

"...'approved' by Alec Peters..."—i.e. Lane is Axanar's shill and chief propagandist.

Moreover, I wouldn't call what Lane does writing. It's typing, a lot of words that don't amount to anything in the end.
 
Yeah. I get what you're saying. Sure. Though I am enjoying reading a supporter/advocate talking about this production, this defendant, and this litigation from his/her POV so different from mine who is not yet exhibiting disdain for my own. Mr. Lane will necessarily be biased in his writing. Of course he will. But he is the only avenue I've found to listen to a supporter/advocate POV just talking about this stuff without them getting all shouty or raging or petty vindictive. And I am very interested in seeing this through their eyes. I don't find I feel I need to agree with him/them in order to appreciate this whole thing from their viewpoint. I still want to like people with a POV different from mine. I want to have a shared friendship with the supporter/advocates of this production. I 'definitely' want to understand them in their differences from my own. This is important to me living as I do in such a diverse world. And I'm not yet noticing him reverting to his style of aggressive tear-me-town writing I stopped reading at the production's website. So as of this posting I'm still reading his blog. Enjoying his casual talking. And relying on my researching to clarify things I think are important.
 
Last edited:
Whatever claims of faultless fandom Mr. Lane may attribute to Axanar the next few hours may clarify one way or the other, when emails, depositions, and documents are quoted.
 
Last edited:
BREAKING Axanar surrogate Jonathan Lane reveals the defense will file a motion for summary judgment later today.

Incidentally in his declaration to the court, Lane identified himself, under penalty of perjury, as "a writer for Axanar Productions." despite his protestations of independence.

Jonathan-Lane-Declaration.jpg
 
huh. So.... that list (nice list by the way) is to somehow show the production, (documented) being described by the defendant, as the -->First <-- --->First<---->First Independent Star Trek professional movie<--- indistinguishable from Studio Star Trek, who's producer, the defendant, (documented) promoted it as showing ST fans how they can now make their own ST the way they want instead of (again documented) having to subscribe to cable (contribute Anything to the business people who Own it) to get it....This list is to show this production is in no way/shape/form or 'intent' different from that big beautiful long wonderful list of those that came before this production who just wanted to make ST fan films without ever setting themselves in competition with the business that owns, makes, and markets it themselves?

And this sounds like a good thing to Mr. Lane? And Ms. Ranahan?

Highlighting the giant huge world of difference between this production and allllll those fan films that came before it?

Interesting choice
 
Last edited:
Posting is up for studio motion of partial summary judgment.

Lots of attachments filed under seal. Nothing financial appears to be named as such in the attachments. But there is this "Exhibit "ZZ" - Podcast excerpt," :whistle::biggrin: and a bunch of emails and a few social media posts, as well as Gossett and Macintosh and Peters deposition excerpts not under seal. The leadoff statements say 'redacted', perhaps they are edited to remove details which a full filing might be making about items under seal?
 
Last edited:
Hold on. When did the defendant's salary change into being a partial reimbursement for $150K of his own money he put into the film?

I read him talk multiple times about how much work he was putting into this film and that $38K was a well deserved salary if only just above "minimum wage". (the quotes are the defendant's words)

And that the fulfillment person was also deserving of her salary. Which was later said to be deferred. Deferred to when? And out of what money source will/would it eventually be collected on?
 
Last edited:
muCephi said:
found by a fb group reader of the filing:

'Peters attempted to meet with Netflix to become a producer of Star Trek productions, and even attempted to trademark (for use in commerce) the word “Axanar.” '
Click to expand...
^^^
Wow - if true, IMO you can't get anymore 'willful' (with regard to copyright violation) then that.

I have to say, if Ms. Erin Ranahan was instrumental in getting her firm (W&S) to take the Axanar case pro Bono - I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall when she's pulled into the next W&S Partners meeting after this case has run its course.
 
ThankYouGeneR said:
Hold on. When did the defendant's salary change into being a partial reimbursement for $50K of his own money he put into the film?

I read him talk over and over about how much work he was putting into this film and that $38K was a well deserved salary if only just above "minimum wage". (the quotes are the defendant's words)
Click to expand...

Yes, their talking points included the statement that professionals working on the project deserve to be paid. And he justified his salary that way too, and called it salary in his annual report.

I guess it happened the same way "make no money off of Trek" became "spend on personal expenses till there's no money left" became "not-for-profit" became "nonprofit". As to when, there was some text a few weeks ago brought up here about him spinning that suggestion on his group, if I recall.
 
Noname Given said:
^^^
Wow - if true, IMO you can't get anymore 'willful' (with regard to copyright violation) then that.

I have to say, if Ms. Erin Ranahan was instrumental in getting her firm (W&S) to take the Axanar case pro Bono - I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall when she's pulled into the next W&S Partners meeting after this case has run its course.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends how many of his phaser rifles he was brandishing while he was reaching out to Netflix. Pitching to Netflix that he is a legit producer of Trek? Unbelievable.

And the donors should be quitclaim of any belief that this was a project for them, if it continues in this gold vein.
 
muCephi said:
found by a fb group reader of the filing:

'Peters attempted to meet with Netflix to become a producer of Star Trek productions, and even attempted to trademark (for use in commerce) the word “Axanar.” '
Click to expand...
What? Okay, so, now wait. This is in legal documents somewhere? The new filing maybe?
 
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