Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
tardigrades_dismissal_motion [2019/02/14 02:06] – layout fixes Carlos Pedrazatardigrades_dismissal_motion [2019/09/20 13:12] (current) – [No Substantial Similarity] Carlos Pedraza
Line 14: Line 14:
 > These "similarities" are utterly trivial when comparing the absence of any coherent plotline in Plaintiff's work to the richly developed and varied stories running through the approximately 11 hours of Defendants’ allegedly infringing series.(("Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint," Abdin v. CBS et al., Docket 56, p. 28, 2/12/19.)) > These "similarities" are utterly trivial when comparing the absence of any coherent plotline in Plaintiff's work to the richly developed and varied stories running through the approximately 11 hours of Defendants’ allegedly infringing series.(("Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint," Abdin v. CBS et al., Docket 56, p. 28, 2/12/19.))
  
-{{page>see also}}+<WRAP center 90%> 
 +<fs smaller>**//See also: [[tardigrades_third_complaint|Game Creator Files Third Amended Copyright Complaint Against Discovery Creators]] and [[breakdown_dismissal_letter|The Case For and Against Dismissing the Tardigrades Suit]]//**</fs> 
 +</WRAP>
  
 ===== No Challenge (For Now) to Access Claim ===== ===== No Challenge (For Now) to Access Claim =====
Line 26: Line 28:
 ===== No Substantial Similarity ===== ===== No Substantial Similarity =====
  
-<WRAP right round download 320px> +<WRAP right round download 320px> <fs smaller>**MOTION TO DISMISS** You can read the 31-page motion. [[https://www.dropbox.com/s/8lvkjm4gd3ceigx/motion%20to%20dismiss.pdf?dl=0|Download]] (7.4 MB PDF).</fs> </WRAP> 
-<fs smaller>**MOTION TO DISMISS** You can read the 31-page motion. [[https://www.dropbox.com/s/8lvkjm4gd3ceigx/motion%20to%20dismiss.pdf?dl=0|Download]] (7.4 MB PDF).</fs> + 
-</WRAP>+Under U.S. copyright laws, the concept of [[#other_alleged_similarities|substantial similarity]] is a key part of determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. There are other components, but this is the one upon which CBS’ case largely hinges. 
 + 
 +CBS’ lawyers argue an [[:breakdown_dismissal_letter|actual comparison]] between Discovery and Anas Abdin’s never-published Tardigrades videogame reveals no substantial similarities between the two. 
 + 
 +<WRAP right 450px> <WRAP>//**__<wrap em>Watch</wrap>__ **// </WRAP>
  
-Under U.S. copyright laws, the concept of [[#Other Alleged Similarities|substantial similarity]] is a key part of determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. There are other components, but this is the one upon which CBS' case largely hinges.+ {{youtube>ikHgCwM84LY?large|Tardigrade Hug}}
  
-CBS' lawyers argue an [[breakdown_dismissal_letter|actual comparison]] between Discovery and Anas Abdin's never-published Tardigrades videogame reveals no substantial similarities between the two.+<fs smaller>**THIS ‘TARDIGRADE HUG’** sequence appears only in this 14-second video posted to YouTube on July12, 2017, just two months before //Star Trek: Discovery// aired.</fs>
  
-<WRAP right 450px> 
-<WRAP>//**__<wrap em>Watch</wrap>__**//</WRAP> 
-{{youtube>ikHgCwM84LY?large|Tardigrade Hug}} 
-<fs smaller>**THIS 'TARDIGRADE HUG'** sequence appears only in this 14-second video posted to YouTube on July12, 2017, just two months before //Star Trek: Discovery// aired.</fs> 
 ---- ----
 +
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-The motion noted that the actual registered copyrighted work is not the unfinished game, nor Abdin's 23 short concept YouTube videos, nor his blog posts, but instead a "treatment" consisting of [[breakdown_dismissal_letter#no_links_to_original_works|text and static artwork]]. Abdin claims the Tardigrades videos and other blog posts were also infringed. In the motion, CBS disagreed:+The motion noted that the actual registered copyrighted work is not the unfinished game, nor Abdin’s 23 short concept YouTube videos, nor his blog posts, but instead a "treatment" consisting of [[:breakdown_dismissal_letter#no_links_to_original_works|text and static artwork]]. Abdin claims the Tardigrades videos and other blog posts were also infringed. In the motion, CBS disagreed:
  
 <WRAP 90% center> <WRAP 90% center>
-  * The Tardigrade hug sequence pointed to as proof of infringement is a [[yout>ikHgCwM84LY|13-second video]] posted on YouTube in July 2017, two months before Discovery's premiere but long after the show had been developed and filmed.+ 
 +  * The Tardigrade hug sequence pointed to as proof of infringement is a [[yout>ikHgCwM84LY|13-second video]] <wrap hi>posted on YouTube in July 2017, two months before Discovery’s premiere but long after the show had been developed and filmed</wrap>.
   * “The only ‘similarities’ between the game and Discovery, says CBS, “is that both tardigrades are enlarged and can move through space. Space-faring tardigrades — including enlarged fictional tardigrades — are, of course, not original to Plaintiff.”   * “The only ‘similarities’ between the game and Discovery, says CBS, “is that both tardigrades are enlarged and can move through space. Space-faring tardigrades — including enlarged fictional tardigrades — are, of course, not original to Plaintiff.”
   * Other purported similarities are too generically described to qualify for copyright protection, according to the motion.   * Other purported similarities are too generically described to qualify for copyright protection, according to the motion.
 +
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 <WRAP right round info 320px> <WRAP right round info 320px>
-[{{:two_tardigrades.jpg?direct|<fs smaller>//Do these two versions of tardigrades evince the same 'aesthetic appeal'? <fs x-small>Click image to view full size</fs>.//</fs>}}] + 
-<wrap lo>**What is Substantial Similarity?** \\ +[{{:two_tardigrades.jpg?direct|//Do these two versions of tardigrades evince the same ‘aesthetic appeal’? <fs x-small>Click image to view full size</fs>.//}}] 
-<wrap indent>According to the American Bar Association, in [[copyright infringement]] cases courts traditionally test for substantial similarity using "a subjective, factual analysis called the 'audience test,'" whose goal is to see if ordinary observers, unless they set out to detect the differences between the works, "would regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."</wrap>(([[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/part_2_elements_of_a_copyright.html|An Overview of the Elements of a Copyright Infringement Cause of Action, — Part II: Improper Appropriation]], by Jason Sloane, retrieved 12/08/16.)) +{{anchor:substantial_similarity}} 
-\\ +<wrap lo>**What is Substantial Similarity?** \\ <wrap indent>According to the American Bar Association, in [[:copyright_infringement|copyright infringement]] cases courts traditionally test for substantial similarity using "a subjective, factual analysis called the ‘audience test,'" whose goal is to see if ordinary observers, unless they set out to detect the differences between the works, "would regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."</wrap>(([[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/part_2_elements_of_a_copyright.html|An Overview of the Elements of a Copyright Infringement Cause of Action, — Part II: Improper Appropriation]], by Jason Sloane, retrieved 12/08/16.))   \\ <wrap indent> Moreover, the audience test "asks whether the defendant wrongly copied enough of the plaintiff’s protected expression to cause a reasonable lay observer to immediately detect the similarities between the plaintiff’s expression and the defendant’s work, without any aid or suggestion from others."(([[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/part_2_elements_of_a_copyright.html|An Overview of the Elements of a Copyright Infringement Cause of Action, — Part II: Improper Appropriation]], by Jason Sloane, retrieved 12/08/16.)) </wrap></wrap> </WRAP> 
-<wrap indent> +
-Moreover, the audience test "asks whether the defendant wrongly copied enough of the plaintiff’s protected expression to cause a reasonable lay observer to immediately detect the similarities between the plaintiff’s expression and the defendant’s work, without any aid or suggestion from others."(([[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/part_2_elements_of_a_copyright.html|An Overview of the Elements of a Copyright Infringement Cause of Action, — Part II: Improper Appropriation]], by Jason Sloane, retrieved 12/08/16.))</wrap></wrap> +
-</WRAP>+
  
 ==== Other Alleged Similarities ==== ==== Other Alleged Similarities ====
Line 66: Line 69:
 In his complaint, the defense said Abdin claimed his characters' uniforms and those in //Discovery// were substantially similar because of their colors (e.g., white for medical officers) and that both works' space suits “egg-shaped” helmets. In his complaint, the defense said Abdin claimed his characters' uniforms and those in //Discovery// were substantially similar because of their colors (e.g., white for medical officers) and that both works' space suits “egg-shaped” helmets.
  
-CBS said Star Trek has a long history of such uniforms, "that delineate status, rank, etc., and, if that were infringement, it is Plaintiff who is the infringer."(("Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint," Abdin v. CBS et al., Docket 56, p. 20, 2/12/19.). +CBS said Star Trek has a long history of such uniforms, "that delineate status, rank, etc., and, if that were infringement, it is Plaintiff who is the infringer."(("Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint," Abdin v. CBS et al., Docket 56, p. 20, 2/12/19.)). 
  
 === Stock Characters === === Stock Characters ===
Line 157: Line 160:
 === Plaintiff's Response === === Plaintiff's Response ===
  
-A response by Abdin's lawyers to the dismissal motion is due March 5. {{page>footer}} {{tag>Tardigrades_lawsuit, copyright infringement Star_Trek_Discovery CBS Netflix}}+A response by Abdin's lawyers to the dismissal motion is due March 5. {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}} 
 + 
 +<WRAP tip 75%> 
 +<wrap em>COMMENTS</wrap> \\ 
 +Discuss this article in [[face>groups/axamonitor/permalink/578194649362053/|AxaMonitor's Facebook group]]. 
 +</WRAP> 
 +---- 
 +**Keywords** {{tag>Tardigrades_lawsuit copyright infringement Star_Trek_Discovery CBS Netflix}}