OPPOSING MOTIONS filed by both parties in the AXANAR LAWSUIT

axanar-logo-3First, I’d like to apologize if FAN FILM FACTOR seems like it’s turning into the ALL-AXAANR NETWORK.

Yes, there are still other Star Trek fan films out there, and I promise to get back to covering them.  But the Axanar news these past two weeks (and for the next three weeks) is truly significant and could, very likely, affect ALL Star Trek fan films and series…in a good way, a bad way, or possibly even both.  So in my opinion, this is news deserving of extensive coverage.

That said, shortly before midnight on Monday, both parties in the Axanar copyright infringement lawsuit filed briefs opposing the others’ motions for (partial) summary judgment.  Monday was the deadline, and these filings were widely expected by those following the case.

The goal of each legal team is not to win the case here and now, however.  In a situation similar to the old joke, “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you!” the idea is to simply torpedo the other side’s motion to get the judge to issue any ruling BEFORE the case goes before a jury.  As such, if/when you read the filings, you’ll notice a tendency to argue that “the facts are still very much in question” rather than “they’re just plain wrong and we’re right.”  As long as the facts are still in dispute, this case goes to court, and a jury gets to decide.

Here’s a link to the Plaintiffs Opposition filing and also a link to the Defense Opposition filing.  And once again, they are both brought to you by the number 20…as there is a 20-page limit in how long these “briefs” can be.  Some day, I am certain, all of this filings in this case will be required reading in law school courses on copyrights and intellectual property law.  Yes, this case is THAT significant, and both sides are writing textbook motions that have a lot to teach future attorneys.

In a few days, I’ll try to provide my own “briefs” on these briefs…hopefully shorter than last week!  Some things to notice if you do bother to read these:

  • The plaintiffs are back to using pictures again!
  • Now it’s the plaintiffs’ turn to bring up Star Wars…and Harry Potter!
  • On the other side, the defense points out that Garth of Izar and Soval are not James Bond and Godzilla!
  • Apparently, long-time Trekkie and director of Star Trek Beyond, Justin Lin, never heard of Garth of Izar!
  • Apparently, no, the studio (Paramount) never bothered to register a copyright on Garth of Izar nor on Ambassador Soval.  (This could be problematic for the plaintiffs.)
  • If the judge grants the plaintiffs’ requested injunction against Alec Peters, it could violate the first amendment!  (Hey, I’m just reporting the news, folks.)
  • This time, the plaintiffs used a proper redaction technique.  Whew!

And yes, I’m also going to include some blogs about OTHER Star Trek fan films really soon…I promise!

 

94 thoughts on “OPPOSING MOTIONS filed by both parties in the AXANAR LAWSUIT”

  1. Considering Garth was only mentioned in 1 episode that aired almost 50 years ago, it’s not surprising people have never heard of him. I was in the same boat until more recently. I originally thought Garth was an Axanar creation, which could be part of the problem.

    Also, if Star Trek as a whole is copywrited, do they really need to copywrite each small piece of it? I would have thought that was all covered under Star Trek broad copywrite.

    2. According to the defense team, yes, the studios do need to copyright the small pieces of Star Trek–at least the ones they are suing for. Not all characters are protected by copyright. A generic red shirt like Lt. Leslie doesn’t really have a lot that defines him other than “security guy in a red shirt.” On the other hand, Ensign Garrovick from “Obsession” was more defined–headstrong, noble, idolized Kirk, son of Kirk’s former commander, desperate to prove himself. So the question becomes, is Garrovick, or Garth, now well defined enough to justify his own uniqueness? If you read the defense opposition, you’ll see that their answer is no. Guys like James Bond, Batman, or Godzilla are defined enough based on multiple factors (including previous case-law) because someone can see a small portion of something they appeared in and say, “Hey, that is Batman! That’s definitely James Bond. That’s totally Godzilla.” And in Star Trek, take a scene with Spock or Kirk and show the average person, and yes, they’ll probably know that’s Kirk or Spock (you don’t have to be a Trexpert. But show them Garrovick, Lesley, and a bunch of other generic red shirts and ask a casual fan to tell you which one is Garrovick, and few other than hard-core Trekkies like me would be able to do it. As for Garth, well, not even Justin Lin knew who he was! 🙂

      But even if Garth were distinctive enough to be protected based on the one episode he appeared in, the Plaintiffs have not limited their claims to just that one episode–not even close! (If they had, Alec Peters and his attorneys would have much more manageable case, since the studios would have said, “You copied this one guy from this one episode!” Of course, that would have limited the potential damages to a maximum of $150,000.) Instead, there are 57 alleged violations. And even if Axanar is found to have infringed that one episode or more episodes, the question then becomes “Are the Axanar works, including their treatment of Garth, transformative because they are original, reveal new insights, add something new, etc.?” In the case of Garth, his backstory was never explored, and the vast majority of the time we saw him on screen he was a raving lunatic. In Prelude, he’s a calm, rational, humble solider and explorer. Also, is the entirety of Axanar–not just Garth, transformative?

      If the judge and/or jury determine that, then it weighs strongly in favor of fair use. And if Prelude or other Axanar works are fair use, it doesn’t matter if the works are substantially similar to plaintiffs; it’s still protected. So we’ll see what happens.

    3. The funny thing is that if the whole thing was just Garth of Izar and Soval, maybe (and that’s a big fat maybe), Mr. Lane would have a point. But it’s not just that.

      What Mr. Lane fails to point out in his commentary here is that CBS and Paramount have explicitly stated that there is far more that has been taken. For instance, every time Axanar claims they have an original character, CBS and Paramount has said “No, you don’t! Kharn, for example, is NOT an original character. He’s a KLINGON. And that is part of our copyright.”

      They don’t need to copyright every individual element. The fact is, Garth was part of an episode that was indeed copyrighted. Soval, who was mentioned by name in more than one episode (despite what Erin Ranahan says), was a character that was part of 12 copyrighted episodes of Enterprise.

      Still wondering why Mr. Lane needs to keep his so-called “legal expert” anonymous. There is no need to do that. If this one doesn’t want to get on record, it’s very easy to find another one. I bet 20 would raise their hands right now for the exposure, and be good legal resources to help with posts like this.

      Yet, Lane isn’t doing that. I’m sure you might have to ask why …

      1. Go ahead, ask why. I’ve already answered that question multiple times. Anyone want to help enlighten Mr. Hinman because, frankly, I’m exhausted repeating myself. Mike, I don’t tell you how to run YOUR blog and which of your anonymous sources you need to “out.” How about respectfully returning the favor?

        2. Well Jonathan, I would say, use copy & paste to reply to people who don’t read everything you’ve written on the subject, or don’t have very good retention, but the likely answer is, that sometimes these guys like Hinman, are just stuck on Stupid. They call them trolls too. You can’t reason with them, and so, sometimes it’s just best to let the comments fly on by, without engaging, because they are only looking for attention. But, I do commend your efforts to answer just about every comment, which is a monumental task. It’s like a long list of emails. I suggest you develop a series of stock reply’s you can just plug in at times like this (-:

        3. The thing is, Mr. Lane, there is NO REASON WHY. ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY.

          The reason journalists – and, I guess, by extension, bloggers – are extremely discouraged from using anonymous sources is because it doesn’t allow your audience to have the ability to audit the information they are provided.

          When you attribute information, that allows someone reading it to be able to judge the veracity of that information. That doesn’t mean anonymous sources aren’t used – but there should be a clearly defined reason for doing so, and the information must be compelling to still share despite not being able to identify the source.

          And here’s the kicker, Mr. Lane – if you have the ability to present the SAME information using a different credible source who can be identified, you are absolutely supposed to do just that.

          That’s the case here. You have every opportunity to use real legal analysis, from someone who is very willing to provide that information. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot put a legal expert ON THE RECORD to talk about intellectual property, even if they don’t want to talk about the Axanar case specifically.

          When 1701News did its interview with Alec Peters in February, it took me all of two minutes to get an IP attorney on record. And you were able to read her analysis, see her name, and even look up her credentials if you wish. It gave you, the reader, the ability to audit the information you received, which is why it’s so important to share that.

          Otherwise, you’re just telling your readers that you don’t care about them, and that their ability to judge the veracity of your writing doesn’t matter to you at all.

          Also, I noticed you focused on the anonymous sourcing, and ignored the rest of what I said. I’ll take that as acknowledgement of your shilling.

          2. Mike, I sincerely hope you direct as much criticism at your cohort, Carlos Pedraza for his extensive use of a source “connected to CBS” at his site…..

        4. Also, I don’t run a “blog.” I run a news outlet. We actually take the time to ensure the information we provide is not only factual, but accurate. We consult multiple sources when necessary that we don’t keep anonymous, and we follow the very ethical standards required for journalism.

          Part of putting statements out there and making your words public is to also then accept feedback on those words, whether you want it or not. I know the Axanar way is to speak in a vacuum, with everyone giving each other handjobs in appreciation. But that’s not how the real world works.

          What makes a good writer a good writer is one who is willing to explore all feedback, whether it’s positive or negative. I’ve been a reporter for nearly a quarter century, and have worked some great beats and covered some tremendous stories. And after tens of thousands of stories that I have crafted over the years, if someone – especially someone with vast experience in this field – had a criticism of how I was handling something as a writer, I would check my ego at the door, and listen to what they had to say.

          1. Okay, everyone take a drink from your shot glasses. Michael Hinman just shared his resume! 🙂

            “Part of putting statements out there and making your words public is to also then accept feedback on those words, whether you want it or not.”

            Oh, then I guess I should start approving comments from people who don’t agree with me. Oh, wait.

            And when you say “we” when you talk about 1701news, Michael, just curious: who’s the non-Michael Hinman part of the “we”…and what does this person or people actually do?

            I’m not really a “we” and don’t pretend to be; I write everything on this blog. Mike Bawden helps me with the back-end tech stuff sometimes…as does GoDaddy (LOVE them!!!). I consult my legal eagles, but I don’t really see them as part of a “we” any more than I would somebody I interview.

            I see your by-line on pretty much everything that got posted to 1701news.com before your shutdown on August 31. There’s one post from Mike and Denise Okuda from March. But out of 240 posts from February of this year onward, you had eight that were written by Andrew Allardyce and three attributed to “Staff”. So 95% of what’s on 1701news.com (or what was on it before it went dark), was written by one person: Michael Hinman.

            So in the words of Tonto: “What you mean ‘we,’ Kemosabe?” 🙂

            As I said, just curious.

      2. Hinman, considering all the legal bullshit you spin and the total lack of journalistic ethics, you asking why Jonathan Lane has to keep his sources private is laughable.

        What? Are there not enough commentators to abuse on Geeknation?

      3. Michael, did you not read the part Johnathan SAID in a previous post, it was not only about Garth or Soval? Or were you so quick to attack that you completely bypassed that point?

        Frankly, considering you and Carlos have been the masters of claiming, “Confirmed sources”, and “Unrevealed legal experts”, I am quite surprised you have the gall to accuse Jonathan of not providing his.

        Michael Hinman have to wonder why you even bother to post here, when you can spread your irrelevance elsewhere. Don’t you have a failing blog site you should be giving your attention to?

        To quote one of my employers….”Sir, you are ruining my Disney experience”

    4. That’s just it – Lin was promoted as the Trek fan director, someone who grew up on the series and was now getting to make his own and he doesn’t know who Garth is? Makes it hard for CBS/Paramount to claim that Axanar is stealing fans with this when even their latest director isn’t aware of who the character is. A general audience isn’t going to mistake this for a legit Star Trek film, only the hardcore fans will know who Garth is and will want to see this. I think that is the problem – the hardcore fans are not waiting for CBS to make a new series or Paramount to release a new movie, they are following things like this and CBS/Paramount are ticked they are not making any money off of it yet they didn’t want to do it themselves. Trek is supposed to be all about the fans but they are mad that someone else is supplying the fans with Trek material that they like.

      1. Justin Lin was a Star Wars fan, again your information is flawed, he never watched much Star Trek – his comments about supporting the fans was more directed toward the Star Trek fan base which was present that night, he had no idea the that Mr. Copyright villain was in attendance!
        This entire long dragging on of Axanar has been going to too long now, it’s time to bury this mess and move on !

        1. Justin Lin talks about how he used to watch Star Trek as a boy and loved the TV series in this interview (among many others):

          http://collider.com/star-trek-beyond-justin-lin-interview/

          Justin’s comment about Star Trek belonging to the fans was made as a Tweet weeks before the event at Paramount Studios. Justin did not make any comments about Axanar that evening; J.J. Abrams did. Maybe you were confusing the two, but it was Lin who commented, during legal discovery, that he had no idea who Garth of Izar was.

          Thanks for playing, Tony. We hope you enjoy this copy of the Fan Film Factor home game. 🙂

          1. “We hope you enjoy this copy of the Fan Film Factor home game.”
            And some rice a roni, the san francisco treat………throw in a few encyclopedias as well, just for nostalgia……

        2. Your confusing Justin Lin and JJ Abrams… Lin is a Star Trek fan (apparently quite a big one) while JJ has said how he hadn’t seen much of Star Trek and was always more of a Star Wars guy.

          As for Garth, I imagine there are many Star Trek fans who do not know who he or other minor characters are… With the number of episodes over the 5 series plus 10 movies before the recent 3 thats alot of information to remember.

    5. A couple of decades ago, I was looking at a Star Trek novel to buy. Even on the back cover blurb, there was Star Trek TM, KirkTM, SpockTM, EnterpriseTM, FederationTM, and each time the name was mentioned. You might be able to find someone in a cave in Afghanistan who isn’t aware that Star Trek was a trademark of Paramount. Hitting that little TM about 20 times in a couple of paragraphs was enough for me to put the book back on the shelf.

        1. Yes, the case at hand is a copyright case and I know the difference. What we have with the book I mentioned and the new fan film guidelines is lawyers and beancounters being over zealous in their duties without communicating well with others in the chain.

          1. That’s part of it. The other part of it is–believe it or not–there aren’t many others in the chain! There is no Kevin Feige (the guy who oversees all Marvel Cinematic Universe movies) for Star Trek. Bryan Fuller could have potentially turned into that guy, but that starship has now sailed. No one else is really stepping forward to take the helm at the moment.

  2. Been with this from the start, and you have been giving great commentary on the case. But I just wanted to point out one correction to your summary:
    ‘Apparently, no, the studio (Paramount) never bothered to register a copyright on Garth of Izar nor on Ambassador Soval. (This could be problematic for the plaintiffs.)’
    This wouldn’t be Paramount’s responsibility, as Soval and Izar never really appeared in movies. Soval held 11 guest appearances on Enterprise, and of course Izar, only the one appearance. Both of which would have had to been handled by Desilu/Viacom for Izar and CBS for Soval. Other then that, keep it up, best place for me to get my news on this stuff. 😉

    1. Garth appeared become Viacom ever existed (1969). Soval was part of the four seasons of Enterprise, which were produced by Paramount (although it was Viacom company at that point, but the merger with CBS didn’t happen until a year after Enteprise’s cancellation). It would never have been CBS to copyright either character, though.

    2. Actually, Mr. Lane would be correct. Because Garth was an original series character, the copyright would have been originally registered with Paramount (since this was third season, I believe, and after the Desilu acquisition).

      He’s not right on much else, but he is actually right here.

      Also, Viacom would not have handled the original “Star Trek” copyrights. Back then, the parent company of Paramount was not Viacom, but Gulf + Western. In fact, Viacom wasn’t even founded until 1971, two years after this episode would’ve been registered.

      1. Oh, and I forgot to mention … “Star Trek: Enterprise” also would be Paramount (this time, under the ownership of Viacom). “Enterprise” aired before the Viacom split.

        2. Wow. I follow along as a ST fan (hoping that Team Axanar wins just because they put some serious effort into this [and it’s good!]…and got blindsided. And I don’t like bullies. CBS/Paramount are bullies)…but otherwise, I just read this because Mr. Lane has a good perspective, and good resources to back up said perspective.
          So why am i commenting, when I’m just part of the audience? Because I’ve read these comments, and (I’m quite sure it’s been said before): Mr. Hinman, you’re a total asshat! While I do appreciate opposing opinions (as it flavors the discussion/gives different perspective) … you’re just a dick!
          I s’pose there’s always one in the crowd, but damn: Shut up!
          …can’t say anything more without being very inappropriate…did i mention that you’re an asshat?
          Carry on, Mr. Lane. Sorry for the interruption….

          2. MDGlen, you’re right, he is an asshat. He’s been that way for at least half of that quarter century of writing he’s been doing. I first ran into Hinman’s brand of asshattery back when Ron Moore’s BSG reboot was getting underway. Ol’ Mike here made a specialty out of rah-rahing for the reboot on boards like cylon.org, which were populated with people who were mainly original BSG fans, and heavily critical of the reboot. The one thing I recall clearly is that he specialized in writing articles on his site at the time (SyFy Pothole, or something like that) to “prove” any criticisms directed at him “wrong”. Not much has changed in 12 years. If anything, he seems to have gotten worse.

      2. Oh so YOU are right about what Hinman? You arent a lawyer, you have no clue about the legal principles you comment on. At least Jonathan Lane is married to a lawyer and discusses the case with legitimate lawyers. You just take your vendetta against me and make shit up to suit your slanted view.

        And real journalists don’t attack other journalists, or even bloggers. You want people to think you are a journalist, start acting like one.

        2. Alec, if I were you, I would worry more about your upcoming court date than the actions of a journalist. You want to know why a HUGE majority of fans have a vendetta against you?

          I’ll tell you. For starters, you have ruined Star Trek for everyone. Not just the fan films but everything about it. I have been following the case and I can say flat out that your immoral actions have severely tarnished Star Trek’s reputation. The franchise. The fans’ reputations. And the fan film productions that were working within Paramount’s guidelines.

          Remember when Jim Kirk described Harry Mudd when Pavel Chekov asked him if he knew Mudd? The answer Kirk had given certainly mirrors your actions – which have been documented and made public. Especially most recently.

          Dude, your actions have made you become the most hated man in Star Trek fandom. Not only will you be banned from Star Trek related events, you will undoubtedly be censured from Star Trek fandom entirely.

          Personally – and I know some fans share this sentiment – I hope the judge finds you guilty and throws the book at you.

          1. Actually, the numbers show that a HUGE majority of Star Trek fans who are at all familiar with this case actually SUPPORT Alec Peters by a ratio of about 8-to-1 based on active participation in Facebook groups. The Axanar fan group has 8,365 members while the CBS/P v Axanar FB page has 1,031. And the main Axanar FB page has about 75.5K likes. So really, I don’t know how you can justify your first paragraph in any way.

            I’ve been with Alec at cons and have seen total strangers walk up to him, shake his hand or pat him on the back, and ask to take selfies with him. A few times, they even asked me to take the photo (what am I, chopped liver???). I’ve done many interviews with fan film producers, and most seem to be fine with Alec. A few definitely don’t like him at all, and some others are ambivalent. But most seem to think he’s an okay guy (who sometimes shoots from the hip and gets himself into trouble) who was simply a victim of his own success. Many fan filmmakers have agreed with me that what happened to Axanar would have happened eventually to some other fan film–most likely Renegades or Star Trek Continues or whichever project first broke the million-dollar crowd-funding level.

            Michael, I really think you should consider that perhaps you are living in an echo chamber of sorts and that maybe, just maybe, it’s that same echo chamber that has actually ruined Star Trek for many fans. After all, the majority of the nastiness posted on this blog site does seem to come from the “haters” (I prefer to call them “detractors”–I don’t like the word “hate”).

            Imagine if, instead of finding a seemingly countless number of ways to attack, belittle, insult, castigate, and vilify Alec Peters, if fans had instead unified behind him. Would Star Trek still have been ruined for you? I mean, if this entire lawsuit had united fandom in a common cause of support for a fellow fan unfairly sued by the studios, imagine how different things would be right now. Perhaps the lawsuit would have already “gone away” because of public pressue. Perhaps not. But I do know from someone with ties to a higher-up at CBS that, at least back in March when I heard the story, there was a feeling from the studios that fans didn’t like Alec Peters very much, and so CBS and Paramount felt justified in pushing forward on the lawsuit rather than offering a less harsh settlement that had a better chance of being accepted.

            So the next time I hear someone say that Alec Peters “ruined” Star Trek for everyone, I’m going to imagine a world where a small fringe of sour-puss, belittling, angry, and yes, hateful fans had NOT decided to place a bull’s eye on Alec Peters’ forehead. I’m going to imagine a world of Trek fandom united in a common support not only of Alec Peters and Axanar but of all fan films together. And as I imagine it in my mind, I will reinforce once again who REALLY ruined Star Trek. And if you’d like a clue who that was, Michael, take a look in the mirror the next time you write a comment like the one you just posted.

          2. ummm, not for nothing, but, star trek was ruined for me all and fully due to the corporate reaction, not anything ANY fan film did. In fact, if not for the fan films, I would have eventually lost a lifetime of interest in waiting years to see the next “trek” again, and again….
            And a psst kinda fyi, My wife “roll eyes” tolerated My love of Trek….until she saw prelude….she STILL asks if it will be made (I actually realised how much I do love her fully when her reaction to it took Me by surprise), or if I have heard anything new about it….just sayin….people have opinions…(something about opinions and lower anatomy…not quite sure of the exact phrase)…..but I am impressed when someone who apparently has no interest is suddenly lit up by something they would otherwise pass without noticing….to Me, THAT shows just how much real talent and caring can do for, well, I guess pretty much any subject.

          3. I’m not going to be as nice as Jonathan. Mr. Erickson, that is one of the most unbelievable pieces of hyperbolic drivel I’ve seen written here. Considering Hinman has taken to posting here, that’s not an easy task!

            A “HUGE majority of fans”? Let me ask you this: How many fans do you know? Maybe a hundred? Let’s be generous and say you know several thousand. Considering there are literally MILLIONS of fans, how could you possibly know what they think? Did you do a survey? If so, I never got my copy to fill out…..

            Alec has “ruined Trek for everyone”? Seriously?!? Did you really say to yourself, “You know, I really would have actually enjoyed Beyond, but Alec Peters RUINED IT for me forever!” Or, “Because of what Alec did, I can NEVER enjoy an episode again!”?

            As for fan films that were “working within Paramount’s guidelines”, which guidelines were those: The ones CBS (not Paramount) released 7 months AFTER the suit was filed, or the non-existent ones that came before?

            Lastly, when going upon a hyperbolic tirade, it helps to have the internal logic of your hyperbole match up. If you know a “HUGE majority of fans” who hate Alec, sure you know more than “some” who share your sentiments….

            Now, I think I will go enjoy an episode or two of Trek that has not in the least bit been ruined for me by Alec Peters.

          5. Mr. Erickson, one of my biggest pet peeves in any sort of fandom are the sort that have come to be known as “gatekeepers.” They operate under the false impression that their opinion or perspective on the hobby in question is the solely legitimate one (aka the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.)

            Kindly avoid speaking on behalf of the entire fandom; I, for one, am hoping Alec and his team are able to move forward with their project. Ideally, a solution will be arrived at that allows Axanar to be made without totally screwing over CBS/Paramount.

          6. I always frown when I see someone say something like this.

            At the most it could be argued that Alec and Axanar ruined fanfilms with the guidelines CBS dropped… You can’t say he ruined Star Trek as a whole for you any more than you can say JJ ruined it from 2009 or Lucas ruined Star Wars with the Prequels.

            The shows/movies we have enjoyed for so long still exist, if I ever find fandom getting me down on one of my favourite franchises I normally take a step back, stop engaging in whats getting me down and go back to what I enjoyed.

            Be it Alec Peters, Into Darkness or complaints about Jar Jar Binks I just don’t see the point in anyone engaging in those topics if you hate it so much. Instead take a step and watch Balance of Terror or the Wrath of Khan or the Empire Strikes Back and enjoy the things you enjoy.

            That went on a little more than I intended.

      3. Mr Hinman needs to fire whoever is giving him legal interpretations on this case. Clearly, the law is all about degrees of difference. Thats why the Courts stay busy and there is so much case law. I could see for example that depending on the character and its use you would copyright outside the broader series. So taking a character like the Fonz from Happy Days, whose merchandizing was extensive ( Do you still have your Fonzie doll?), would have had its own copyright.
        Regardless of the inanity of Mr Himans remarks, he has the right to his opinion and you have the right to yours (as you point out in nearly every post). Finally, as a Judge once told me, “The law is not the law until I say what the law is.”

  3. Hey Jonathan, first of all let me say thanks for keeping us updated! Your posts give a very nice look into the case.

    I was just going over the defence’s Motions when I came across a sentence I didn’t understand.
    “It broadly seeks to restrict all of Defendants’ Works, even a script that Defendants have no intention of proceeding with. RSUF 64; SAMF 70.”

    I was hoping you could explain this a bit. It was my understanding that so far there was no script for Axanar and that that was one of the main points for the defence; how can you sue us when there’s not even an Axanar yet. Was I mistaken and was this just refering to the fact that no movie was made yet?

    Thanks again!

    1. Excellent question! Late last year, the Axanar team announced that they had “locked” their script. This means, typically, that the script is now in a format where any changes made subsequent to that locking are tracked, so that each subsequent change of significance requires a “REVISION.”

      http://www.screenwriting.info/19.php

      It’s interesting that studios like CBS and Paramount don’t seem to understand that locked scripts can still be changed, but apparently, they don’t understand, as their legal argument tries to say that the script for Axanar was final and would be shot as is.

      Since then, in multiple legal filings, Axanar has said that the script would, in fact, be changed significantly (mostly because of the law suit!) to be more in the documentary style of Prelude, which they believe is fair use. In this way, the studios are trying to enjoin Alec Peters and Axanar Productions from making something that might, conceivably, be fair use, as well…and that is premature (since not only is the locked script no longer valid but the project remains unproduced) and actually violate Alec’s right to free speech and expression.

  5. This case reminds me if another HUGE Case that just finished this past Spring in May. Oracle’s lawsuit against Google ultimately finished as a “Fair Use” case, and was a monumental win for many in the industry. Oracle is the CBS/P & Google is Axanar (Yes, Oracle is that much bigger than Google). But, for future development of software, it was very important Google prevail. For you legal eagles, Ars Technica has a complete series on this case that actually started nearly 5 years ago. And it is not quite finished, as Google in June filed for damages against the attorneys for Oracle, as well as reimbursement against Oracle for some expenses that are recoverable. Here is a link to the series: http://arstechnica.com/series/series-oracle-v-google/

    And thanks Jonathan, and pass that along to Mike Bawden for fixing the follow buttons.

  7. Thanks for the new blog Jonathan Lane. I really enjoy you’re insight in this matter every time. Fingers crossed we get an Happy End for Axanar. In my opinion there is an looser of this game already.
    CBS!
    They poising the water for many years to come. For Hardcore Fans like us. And sadly the fans wouldn’t see no more high Quality Fanfilms in the near Future i think.
    But there is Hope. Here in Germany we have a very active Fan Community. A Bunch of fans from Berlin have recreated the Defiant Bridge for example and make some interesting Fanfilms. Parts of this group recreate the Enterprise E Bridge in an old Warehouse and investing 70000 € to finish the project. They make an wonderful Job and purchased Original Blueprints of the Bridge. In the long run, the goal is clear. Eventually you can make an Blog Entry about the Group.
    http://www.kehleyr.de
    And here the great second Fanfilm of this group (with english Subtitles)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw8p79B43jg
    Keeping the faith.
    Live long and prosper
    Mike you’re friendly blog reader from Germany

    1. There are some AWESOME fan films coming out of Deutschland, Mike. I will definitely check those out (well, the one with subtitles for sure–my German is pretty much non-existent). 🙂

    2. This “Deutschland” fan film’s script is by Marcus Jones, who also appears in the film as Ensign Tom Jones. Mr. Jones is known in the Berlin area for occasionally being seen driving the Knight Rider KITT car featured in the holodeck program of the film (rumored to be owned by Marcus). Mr. Jones is a good looking hunk, has awesome pecs, and has quite a following by both male and female devotees.

  8. Why is it that Hinman has to try to inject some sort of conspiracy controversy into everything Axanar? I don’t get it. What the heck does Jonathan’s attorney-friend’s desire to remain out of the sights of folks like Hinman have to do with anything?

    It’s not satisfying enough to make comments (pro or con; agree or disagree) about Jonathan’s interpretations and viewpoints?

    Personally, I appreciate Jonathan’s balanced reporting even when it sometimes makes me think CBS/P might just have a point here or Peters and his lawyers might just have a point there. I like being told both perspectives. And I don’t give a rat’s ass who is advising him from a strictly legal perspective.

    It’s Jonathan’s ability to stay neutral (as far as his reporting goes) and other’s inability to do so that determines (for me, anyway) why I will read Jonathan’s blog while I won’t bother to read others.

    Keep up the great work, Jonathan!

    1. Thanks, IDIC.

      It’s very obvious why Mr. Hinman wants me to “out” my lawyer: he wants to do a hit piece on him/her. Michael plans to look up the case record for this person (only one of my legal eagles is a trial lawyer–and again, no, not my wife!), and report on the number of verdicts s/he has won and lost, who his/her clients are (just in case any of them are less than reputable–’cause that’d be juicy “news,” too), and possibly even look into the background of clients and cases his/her entire firm has handled. And it would all be dedicated to one goal: discrediting my legal source publicly in an effort to discredit me and the advice/input I’m receiving. Michael’s not fooling anyone with his intentions here.

      Obviously, as happened with the improperly redacted stuff in the Axanar case proving that Erin Ranahan was correct in her prediction of what would happen if Alec’s preliminary financial receipts were publicly released prior to the accountant reviewing them, my concerns about identifying my own sources would be proven to be correct, as well…but too late. The damage would be done. And I am not ready to sacrifice a long-time friendship just to satisfy one angry blogger sitting on a beach in Central America with his laptop between his legs. My friend comes first. If he’s lucky, Mr. Hinman comes last.

  9. Jonathan, I wanted to chime in here to say that I think your blogs on this case have been fantastic. And I wanted to urge you not to worry about writing shorter entries — just keep focusing on being thorough and accurate and let the length of the posts take care of themselves. And don’t rush “to print” — if you need to take more time to work on them, do so. For my part, I prefer the kinds of well-written and well-researched articles you’ve provided so far over some kind of hasty “breaking news” type announcement. This case is moving slowly enough that quick turnaround doesn’t seem to be an issue.

    If it wasn’t for you, there would be no place to turn for accurate, comprehensive, and yes, unbiased, information on the lawsuit that’s understandable by us laymen.

    Your blogs, and your Small Access Project Facebook page, are about the only Star Trek-related stuff I still bother to read. And no, it wasn’t Alec Peters that “ruined Star Trek” for me, it was the haters like Michael Hinman and this Michael Erickson above who destroyed my interest in participating in Star Trek fandom.

    1. Actually, I had a really productive night last night and whipped out Part 1 of the analysis of the opposition briefs. Now I’ve just got to edit it, but the plaintiffs’ brief blog, at least, is only one part (as opposed to two parts, like last time). I realize that length isn’t necessarily a limitation on the Internet (where there’s no printing or paper cost), but I still like to be respectful of my readers and limit most of my blogs to no more than 2,500 words (3,000 at the absolute max). If it’s over that, then divide it into multiple parts, I say!

      Funny story: early Tuesday morning, I sent Alec Peters a link to the latest blog entry–this short one that simply announced the briefs and provided links to them with minimal commentary. Alec’s response: “Looks good! And it’s brief! You feeling ok?”

      Who knew the guy was such a smart Alec?

  10. This Blog covers the case in detail,
    I am awaiting your analysis of how Castro’s Death,
    New Evidence in the Kennedy assassination (Oswald may have been aiming at Connely),
    and plans to test the Em Drive in space will impact the case 🙂

  11. Mr. Jonathan Lane. Keep doing what you are doing.
    You have clearly stated on numerous occasions from whom you get your information and legal information. Mr’s Hinman and Erikson are obviously simple minded bottom feeding shills for Axanar’s fanfilm competition.

    Mr. Alec Peters. I completely support your film and your cause to make Star Trek available for the fans as has been, by-and-large, uncontested by TPTB for the better part of five decades.
    While I cannot begin to understand the stress of being at the forefront of such an important and ground breaking case as this, I can speak from some experience with other kinds of stress; emotional outbursts might make you feel better in the short term but remember the line from the Miranda Rights…everything you say can and will be used against you in a count of law.

  13. I anticipated such a negative response. And it doesn’t surprise me. FYI, Jonathan, no one owns me.

    I believe that Wil Wheaton summed it up best.

    “A group of people raised a TON of money, saying they were going to make a Trek fan film called Axanar. Then they took that money and spent it to build a studio, which will (presumably) be used to turn a profit from other productions once Axanar’s production is completed. They also sold unlicensed coffee, using copyrighted Star Trek names, and have generally been epic douchecanoes about the whole thing.

    Most fan films, even the really polished ones, have very small budgets that rarely break USD10,000, but these people were effectively making a commercially-viable low budget (by Hollywood Standards) film, having raised over USD600,000. And they were going to invest that money into an unlicensed, copyright infringing film using Star Trek intellectual property that is owned by CBS.

    They’ve put all fan films at risk, because they exploited the passion and love that Trekkies have for Star Trek to get money, and now they’re acting like they’re innocent victims of big bad CBS. These people are not innocent victims. They are morally and ethically and legally in the wrong, and while I have a lot of problems with copyright and IP law, these guys are not the people I want to be the poster children for reforming those laws.

    I love fan fiction and fan films and headcanon and everything fans do to create their own extended universes (ST Online is a great example), and these jerks may have put all of that at risk, because they acted in bad faith from the beginning.

    They are not on your side, they are not on Star Trek’s side, they are not good people.”

    So, are you going to ask him to look in the mirror and accuse him of ruining Star Trek as well?

    You’re at liberty to imagine whatever world you want to live in. No matter how delusional it is concerning the warped(no pun intended)idea of fans uniting to save Peters and Axanar.

    But the fact is this. And it is not hyperbolic drivel or a tirade, either.

    You cannot make a profit off of someone else’s property. You cannot commit copyright infringement and get away with it. And you certainly cannot hijack someone else’s IP address, either. Alec did that with Axanar and look what has happened.

    While it is true that the fans have kept Star Trek alive since the early Seventies it all comes down to this important fact.

    CBS/Paramount owns the Star Trek property and they are justifiable in protecting it and in pursuing their lawsuit against Alec and Axanar.

    The rest speaks for itself.

    1. Man, you are so NOT going to like tomorrow’s blog, Michael. 🙂

      Funny (and completely off-topic) story about Wil Wheaton. Very nice guy, but he was indirectly responsible for ruining the glove compartment of my old Pontiac Grand Am. The year was 1993, and I was invited out for dinner with the gang from NewTek, the Topeka, KS-based creators of the Video Toaster and Lightwave 3D. My friend Mojo worked there, as did Wil at the time. The gang was in L.A. for the premiere of “Jurassic Park,” which used the Video Toaster extensively. We all had dinner at this awesome Thai restaurant on Sunset in West Hollywood, and afterwards, we got into our cars and drove to the 3rd Street Promenade to wander around. (The preceding “tour” was intended primarily for folks who live in L.A…otherwise, none of the locations mentioned will be on Friday’s quiz.)

      Anyway, there was an old-fashioned candy store on the Promendade, one where you could fill up a bag with whatever you wanted and pay for it by weight. And I saw Wil loading up three HUGE bags full of candy–licorice, jellybeans, sour balls, you name it…everything except chocolate. I walked over to him. “Hey, Wil,” I said (because, yeah, I called him Wil…which was totally cool at the time since TNG was still on in first-run and Wesley Crusher had only recently left the Enterprise). “You planning to eat all that tonight?” I asked sarcastically. He must have been holding, like, ten pounds of sugared confections!

      “Nah,” he said. “I keep this in my car. I use it to stay awake. If I’m driving and starting to feel tired, I grab some candy, and the sugar rush keeps me going.” Keep in mind that Wil was not even 21 years old yet, and 20-somethings can eat a lot of stuff they shouldn’t! Of course, I was just 26 myself at the time and also ate a lot of stuff I shouldn’t (which explains my shape today!), and I thought that Wil’s idea was actually pretty clever. I didn’t drink coffee (never developed a taste for it), so sugar seemed like a tasty alternative.

      So I grabbed myself a bag and assembled a “Wheaton special” of my own. “Just be sure not to put any chocolate in there,” he told me. “It’ll melt all over the place on hot days.” Good advice! For the next several weeks, I kept that bag in my glove compartment, nibbling on the contents from time to time. It still remained pretty full.

      I think it was late August when it happened. And to be honest, I’m not sure if it was just one super-hot day or a bunch of them, because I wasn’t opening up the glove compartment daily. But when I finally did go to grab some candy, what I found instead was a partially congealed soup, of sorts, that resembled those Denevan flying parasite creatures from “Operation: Annihilate” if they’d been painted by Walt Disney on an acid trip. Y’see, I’d left the bag open. And not opened UPWARDS but open SIDEWAYS. The melted sugar blob had spilled out all over EVERYTHING in my glove box! Driver’s manual, registration, pens and pencils, maps (this was 1993, folks!), napkins, tissues, spare sunglasses, Windex…I think there was even glop stuck to the compartment light bulb!

      I don’t blame Wil Wheaton for this; it was totally my fault. But to this day, I can’t see, hear, or read Wil Wheaton’s name without picturing a technicolor blob of sticky goop all over the glove box of my old Pontiac.

      Of course, it wasn’t ALL bad. For the next five months, I didn’t need any air freshener, and my car smelled super-fruity!

    2. Michael Erickson, I’m wondering if you actually know what “hyperbole” actually means…..

      Mr. Wheaton is quite obviously parroting what he’s been told there. The best indicator that he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about is his assertion the the vast majority of fan films are made for $10,000 or less. I highly doubt that Cawley got any of his episodes made for that little. Continues and Renegades have both had multiple six-figure fundraisers. Horizon cost more than 3 times that $10,000, and was only made possible by Tommy’s parents allowing him to live at home and covering his bills. I’m sure Jonathan can provide more examples of fan films who blow past that $10,000 number.

      1. Not many, actually…at least in the realm of Star Trek. “Pacific 201” is working on a $50K budget at the moment (still in development). Starship Farragut raised $20K for “The Crossing” and $15K for “Homecoming” (still in post production). I know Captain Pike raised $60K in an Indiegogo campaign, but who knows what the status is on that project. I’m sure there’s a few others that I’m forgetting, though, but obviously there are a lot more fan films made for under $10K than over $10K.

  14. I got to say I skipped alot of comments because of Hinman, if I wanted to read his take on things I’d have gone to his blog but I didn’t because I don’t. So not to advocate blocking people on your blog Jonathan but if he has his own avenue to vent on I think it would be ok to tell him to bugger off. Frankly I don’t come here to read about people petty little squabbles I come here to read about CBS’s petty little squabbles.
    I do have to say that I think a fair use win is a long shot IMHO INAL. I think innocent infringement has a really good chance after fair use among other things winnowed down the charges over the course years, which to me is still a win for Alec and a bloody nose for CBS. Dragging out a case that has already gotten them bad press for years only to get a partial judgement is not a good place to be as far as I’m concerned. CBS really needs to find a peaceful way to settle this thing because it’s a big risk taking this to court.

    1. After the judge rules (or doesn’t) on the motions for summary judgment, both sides will have a lot to mull over…assuming the case is still headed for trial. There will be about six weeks between the judges’ ruling(s) and the start of the case. And there’s an old legal saying, “A lot of cases settle on the courthouse steps.” There could well be a last-minute or even last-second surprise in store. We’ll just have to wait and see.

      As for the petty bickering, over on the CBS/P v Axanar Facebook page, the detractors are discussing simply ignoring Fan Film Factor completely and letting me rant on…since I only have a few thousand people bothering to read this blog regularly (a fact that still boggles my mind!). Why waste their time coming here and arguing, they wonder. Personally, I don’t mind the company and the extra 20 cents or so in ad revenue. On the other hand, it might be worth 20 cents–or even 50 cents!–to not have to approve so many insulting comments about me and Alec. 🙂

  15. Star Trek fan films got robbed. Literally.

    And fans, being what they are, fell for it.

    We were excited to see our favorite former Star Trek actors joining in on the fan films. But then the greed came in and everything went south right after that.

    Star Trek Renegades was the first to entice us in a new way. They saw what other fan films had accomplished, and they set out to make their own “Star Trek CBS Pilot”. They collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from us. Renegades failed to get picked up as a series.

    And then Alec Peters immorally and unethically created Axanar Productions, and loaded it with his Hollywood buddies. Well, they seemed to be his friends anyway. So fans gave them a million dollars.

    CBS/Paramount has finally given fan film wanna be makers some advice. Avoid these things and you won’t bother us. All that Alec Peters and Axanar was trying to do was to steal Star Trek. But not just from CBS/Paramount. They were stealing it from the fan film makers as well. Smaller, less blessed fan groups got run over as a result.

    Now, Axanar is in court, being sued for trying to steal Star Trek, copyright infringement, stealing CBS/Paramount’s IP address, and so on. Alec Peters seems to think he has a right to do it. WRONG!!! He does not!!!!

    It’s ridiculous. Even though some have stated that Star Trek belongs to the fans, they have forgotten that the REAL owners of Star Trek are CBS/Paramount. You can’t just take someone’s property and use it to make money. I’ve read all the arguments and for some reason there is a contingent of fans who think he can win the lawsuit.

    WRONG AGAIN!!!!

    The fans are partially to blame too. We were impressed with all the glitz. Those Hollywood actors and actresses! They’re awesome! They worked for CBS/Paramount! They can give us more STAR TREK…

    I hate to point this out to the fellow fans, but we don’t own Star Trek. It belongs to the copyright owners. And those owners are CBS/Paramount.

    What CBS/Paramount has done is to give Star Trek Fan Productions back to the fans. Where it belongs. Where CGI guys are not paid $3500 for a ten second starship flyby. Where Hollywood actors are not paid $30,000 for a weekend of work. Hell, now they can’t even volunteer.

    So way to go Alec Peters and Axanar. You messed it up and ruined it with your immoral BS and giving in to one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It’s over. Hope you’re happy.

    This is what happens when you like money too much, get too big for your egos, and give in to temptation.

    First the infighting between Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans. Then the infighting between old Star Trek and the new Star Trek(the Abrams-verse). Now this.

    With all of this toxic behavior and illegal acts being pulled, it’s amazing how Gene Roddenberry’s space opera has lasted this long.

    Live Long and Sayonara, Star Trek. Or in this case, Adios.

    Star Trek(1966 – 2016)

  16. I agree, this is the guy that goes ape shit over getting cut off in traffic and tries to hurt somebody. The law isnt about morality, its about legality. So if a Court were to declare Mr Erickson insane, it would be a legal judgement not a moral judgement.

    1. Warning to you, Robert. No swearing and this post borders on being directly insulting to another reader. Verbal sparring over ideas is fine. Confrontational personal insults…not so much (at least on this blog). I know you didn’t technically call Michael insane, but we all kinda know where you were going. Don’t stoop to his level. Instead, try to lead by setting a better example so Michael can see how it’s done. Maybe he’ll learn something, maybe he won’t. But at least we’ll be able to stand proud knowing we took the high road.

  17. Sorry, the Ape (Hominoidea) reference slipped out in the heat of the moment. The insanity reference was merely trying to illustrate the difference in a moral or subjective judgement as a opposed to a legal judgement. I’ll try to take a higher and simpler road that will not reflect on his Hominoidean expressions

    1. Sorry again. I shall refrain from commenting and just enjoy the Blog. You’re doing a great job!

  18. Robert, what is really insane is the fact that some Star Trek fans are supporting someone who literally conned many fans out of their money, claiming that it was to help fund the Axanar production. In the end, he stole those funds and used them for his own personal gain. Then he later committed copyright infringement and stole someone else’s IP address.

    Theft us theft. Embezzlement is embezzlement. There is NO middle ground.

    You break the law, You suffer the consequences.

    Alec Peters broke the law and he is now suffering the consequences for it. As a lawyer, he should have known better. Frankly, I hope he has his legal license revoked for life – assuming if he even has one.

    I don’t know how, or under what circumstances, Alec Peters and those involved with Axanar found each other, but their callous indifference and utter disregard for everything that is good and decent about Gene Roddenberry’s original space opera has rocked the very foundation upon which Star Trek was built. Like the polarization between old school Star Trek fans and new school Star Trek fans(the Abrams-universe), this issue with Alec Peters and Axanar has also polarized Star Trek fandom and poisoned it.

    This is what happens when you can’t play nice in someone else’s sandbox and misuse their toys.

    1. Alec never sat for the bar exam, so he has no legal certification in either California or North Carolina (where he got he law degree).

      So just curious, Michael, if Alec Peters wins this case, what will you say? Will you claim that the system is rigged? That Alec bribed the judge and/or jury? That his lawyers cheated in some way?

      The whole reason I write this blog is because there is so much misinformation out there, spouted as “fact” by so many who are otherwise very misinformed. I actually thought of folks like you, Michael, when I read the following story earlier on today:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-man-with-assault-rifle-dc-comet-pizza-victim-of-fake-sex-trafficking-story/

      A fake news story was shared and retweeted so often that it became “fact” for many, many people. One person was so motivated by this story that he drove hundreds of miles across two states and walked into a pizzeria holding a rifle. Fortunately, he was arrested and no one was hurt (there were children inside). All because of a tweeted “news” story that was, as it turns out, completely made up. But that didn’t stop Michael G. Flynn, the son and chief of staff of incoming national security adviser Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, from defending the conspiracy theory with the following ridiculous tweet: “Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it’ll remain a story.”

      Can you believe that? We’ve suddenly become a country of “guilty until proven innocent!” And yet, there it is, right there in Michael’s Flynn’s tweet and Michael Erickson’s e-mail above:

      “In the end, he stole those funds and used them for his own personal gain. Then he later committed copyright infringement and stole someone else’s IP address.”

      (Nobody laugh at Michael’s “IP address” goof. I don’t think he knows that the IP in “IP address” stands for Internet Protocol and that IP as a legal term stands for Intellectual Property and should not have the word “address” after it. Better to enlightened Michael than to make fun of him, folks.)

      And if that isn’t enough of an example of guilty until proven innocent, Michael goes on to provide his own verdict in the Axanar case for the rest of us:

      “Alec Peters broke the law and he is now suffering the consequences for it.”

      I doubt Michael understands how deeply his is spitting on the very Constitution that has distinguished our fine nation. The 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments all guarantee due process. But Michael is ready to simply ignore due process, assume guilt, and jump right to the penalty phase. I’m Michael wasn’t a Founding Father.

  19. Ya it’s both funny and infuriating to listen to the ignorant speak, or what passes as speaking for them, it’s more like parroting or Chinese telephone. Now let’s look at Mr. Ericksons broken logic, if we assume he knows that Alec Peters is indeed not on trial for stealing an IP address, and is being sued for copyright infringement then the logic follow that: if 1). he stole donators money, that would mean he never intended to make Axanar and CBS/P would have no reason or grounds to sue for copyright. if 2). Axanar was a genuine project of Alec’s then he would not be “guilty” of absconding with donators money, but would be potentially liable for the copyright infringement that CBSP is claiming. So in short my dear Mr Erickson, if Alex could be considered guilty of one of these charges he could not be guilty of the other, the two are mutually exclusive. So please spread your hate elsewhere you’ll find no converts here. Cause they’d have to be really stupid(IP address *giggle*).

  20. Mr. Lane, I just started reading your blog after seeing references on the Axanar FB page. I am also not a lawyer, but a chemical engineer, so I really appreciate your insight and explanations. Thanks for all your efforts!

  21. “Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it’ll remain a story.” That doesn’t sound like a defense of the story so much as a sad condemnation of human behavior. There are some people in the world who, if told that Neil Armstrong was committing an act with a minor on July 20, 1969, would believe it on the basis of “they wouldn’t say it if there wasn’t something to it”. Even if the pizza building was torn down and no tunnels would be found, there would still be some people who think there was something to the story.

Comments are closed.