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
dismissal-citations [2016/02/29 22:31] – added photo a top Carlos Pedrazadismissal-citations [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
-{{::ares-orbit.jpg?500|}} +{{::ares-orbit.jpg|}}
 ====== Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss ====== ====== Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss ======
-The defendants' [[Motion to Dismiss]] the [[copyright infringement]] lawsuit brought against [[Alec Peters]] and [[Axanar Productions]] cites many legal precedents to bolster its case for dismissal. But what does an **examination of that case law** actually demonstrate?+{{TOC}}
  
-In a post on the blog for the popular Star Trek podcast, "The G&T Show," attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel looks at the cases by Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]].+<WRAP left round important 50%> 
 +<wrap lo><wrap em>UPDATE</wrap> The defense filed a new [[Motion to Dismiss]] on March 28. It featured a few new arguments but largely repeats the assertions in the first motion, so many of the points made here still hold. 
 +</wrap></WRAP> 
 + 
 + 
 +The defendants' [[Motion to Dismiss]] the [[copyright infringement]] lawsuit brought against [[Alec Peters]] and [[Axanar Productions]] cites many legal precedents to bolster its case for dismissal. But what does an **examination of that case law** actually demonstrate?
  
 +In a post on the blog for the popular Star Trek podcast, "The G&T Show," attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel [[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|looks at the cases]] cited by Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]].
 ===== Five Reasons to Dismiss ===== ===== Five Reasons to Dismiss =====
  
 Here are the five essential arguments the defense offers to convince federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] to dismiss the studios' legal complaint, or at least strike out parts of it. The defense contends the plaintiffs failed to: Here are the five essential arguments the defense offers to convince federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] to dismiss the studios' legal complaint, or at least strike out parts of it. The defense contends the plaintiffs failed to:
 +
 +[{{ ::gnt_logo_150px.jpg?nolink|**FULL BLOG POST** Read Janet Gershen-Siegel's [[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|full analysis]] of the case law behind the dismissal motion on the G&T Show website.}}]
  
   - Specify the copyrights being infringed, thereby failing to properly notify the defendants.   - Specify the copyrights being infringed, thereby failing to properly notify the defendants.
Line 15: Line 22:
   - Show how they can claim infringement by a film that has not yet been produced.   - Show how they can claim infringement by a film that has not yet been produced.
   - Justify an injunction halting production because it would be a prior restraint on free speech.   - Justify an injunction halting production because it would be a prior restraint on free speech.
- 
 ==== Vague Copyright Claims ==== ==== Vague Copyright Claims ====
-[{{ ::janet-siegel.jpg?nolink|Attorney **Janet Gershen-Siegel** of the Star Trek podcast, The G&T Show.}}]+[{{ ::janet-siegel.jpg?nolink&150|Attorney **Janet Gershen-Siegel** of the Star Trek podcast, The G&T Show.}}]
  
 The defense calls for dismissal because CBS and Paramount don't specify exactly which of their copyrights were infringed, citing four cases to back them up. Of them, Siegel says only one directly applies. The defense calls for dismissal because CBS and Paramount don't specify exactly which of their copyrights were infringed, citing four cases to back them up. Of them, Siegel says only one directly applies.
Line 41: Line 47:
 Does Axanar's motion to dismiss do this? Attorney Siegel believes any deficiency is easily addressed in an amended complaint.(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.)) Does Axanar's motion to dismiss do this? Attorney Siegel believes any deficiency is easily addressed in an amended complaint.(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.))
  
-==== Too Soon to File Suit ====+==== Too Soon to Sue ====
  
 The defense believes that any claims related specifically to the as-yet-unproduced Axanar film should be dismissed, saying the court can't determine whether a film infringed or not if it hasn't been made yet. The defense believes that any claims related specifically to the as-yet-unproduced Axanar film should be dismissed, saying the court can't determine whether a film infringed or not if it hasn't been made yet.
Line 47: Line 53:
 Siegel examines the five cases cited to support this argument, concluding: Siegel examines the five cases cited to support this argument, concluding:
   * Only one resulted in a dismissal but without prejudice, meaning it could be re-filed.   * Only one resulted in a dismissal but without prejudice, meaning it could be re-filed.
-  * Another dealt with a patent on the design of a concrete, tangible item rather as opposed to works of fiction that are "often edited and otherwise amended even after they are considered completed, and without said editing converting them back to incomplete status."+  * Another dealt with a patent on the design of a concrete, tangible item as opposed to works of fiction that are "often edited and otherwise amended even after they are considered completed, and without said editing converting them back to incomplete status."
   * Two cases dealing with works that couldn't demonstrably be shown to copy an original work, which doesn't really comport with //Axanar//'s outright identification with Star Trek.(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.))   * Two cases dealing with works that couldn't demonstrably be shown to copy an original work, which doesn't really comport with //Axanar//'s outright identification with Star Trek.(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.))
  
Line 54: Line 60:
 The defense argues the injunction sought by CBS and Paramount would be {!prior restraint:censorship, imposed on expression before the expression takes place}} — censorship before Axanar has even been produced, a violation of First Amendment rights. The defense argues the injunction sought by CBS and Paramount would be {!prior restraint:censorship, imposed on expression before the expression takes place}} — censorship before Axanar has even been produced, a violation of First Amendment rights.
  
-To back up this claim, attorney Ranahan cites the famous [[https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/|Pentagon Papers]] case (New York Times v. United States). "I am having trouble seeing where it relates to this matter," Siegel says,(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.)) finding a fundamental difference between publication of documents in which the public has a compelling interest in the activities of their government, and the "creation of a work of fictional media"(([[http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/40-copyrights-and-patents.html|U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.]])) based on copyrights that have their own protection under the U.S. Constitution.(([[http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/40-copyrights-and-patents.html|U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.]])) +To back up this claim, attorney Ranahan cites the famous [[https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/|Pentagon Papers]] case (New York Times v. United States). "I am having trouble seeing where it relates to this matter," Siegel says,(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.)) finding a fundamental difference between publication of documents in which the public has a compelling interest in the activities of their government, and the "creation of a work of fictional media"(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.)) based on copyrights that have their own protection under the U.S. Constitution.(([[http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/40-copyrights-and-patents.html|U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.]])) 
- +===== More Thorough Analysis =====
-===== Thorough Analysis =====+
 Siegel is posting a second blog focusing on a more thorough examination of the motion to dismiss.(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.)) Siegel is posting a second blog focusing on a more thorough examination of the motion to dismiss.(([[http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-wheels-motion/|Janet Gershen-Siegel, "Axanar: Wheels in Motion,"]] G&T Show, 2/29/16.))
  
 ---- ----
-**Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit defendants plaintiffs}}+**Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit defendants plaintiffs news}}