Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
dismissal_opposition [2016/04/14 01:44] – [Copyrightable Star Trek Elements] Carlos Pedraza | dismissal_opposition [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<wrap lo>// | <wrap lo>// | ||
See also: [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|Summary of the legal complaint]], | See also: [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|Summary of the legal complaint]], | ||
- | |||
- | < | ||
- | <wrap em> | ||
- | </ | ||
APR. 11 — The attorneys for CBS and Paramount filed two briefs today **opposing the defense motion to dismiss** their lawsuit against [[Axanar Productions]] and producer [[Alec Peters]] for infringing on the studios' | APR. 11 — The attorneys for CBS and Paramount filed two briefs today **opposing the defense motion to dismiss** their lawsuit against [[Axanar Productions]] and producer [[Alec Peters]] for infringing on the studios' | ||
Line 15: | Line 11: | ||
* One 26-page document opposing the [[motion to dismiss]] filed two weeks before by the firm defending Axanar, [[Winston & Strawn]]. | * One 26-page document opposing the [[motion to dismiss]] filed two weeks before by the firm defending Axanar, [[Winston & Strawn]]. | ||
* A supplemental nine-page document opposing the corresponding [[http:// | * A supplemental nine-page document opposing the corresponding [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{section> | ||
===== Plausible Copyright Infringement ===== | ===== Plausible Copyright Infringement ===== | ||
+ | <WRAP right round tip 50%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | </ | ||
The opposition brief re-states the allegations in the [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|legal complaint]] that defendants Peters, his company Axanar Productions and up to 20 as-yet-unnamed ' | The opposition brief re-states the allegations in the [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|legal complaint]] that defendants Peters, his company Axanar Productions and up to 20 as-yet-unnamed ' | ||
Line 47: | Line 48: | ||
> Courts view the work as a whole and do not dissect copyrighted designs into separate components, because to do so would be “akin to accepting the position that every song is merely a collection of basic notes, every painting a derivative work of color and stroke, and every novel merely an unprotected jumble of words.”((Plaintiffs' | > Courts view the work as a whole and do not dissect copyrighted designs into separate components, because to do so would be “akin to accepting the position that every song is merely a collection of basic notes, every painting a derivative work of color and stroke, and every novel merely an unprotected jumble of words.”((Plaintiffs' | ||
- | |||
- | <WRAP right round info 60%> | ||
- | In the United States, the French term **[[wp> | ||
- | </ | ||
The plaintiffs' | The plaintiffs' | ||
Line 68: | Line 65: | ||
* **Language** — While natural languages are generally not considered protected by copyright, the plaintiffs point out that "the Klingon language is wholly fictitious, original, and copyrightable, | * **Language** — While natural languages are generally not considered protected by copyright, the plaintiffs point out that "the Klingon language is wholly fictitious, original, and copyrightable, | ||
- | | + | [{{ :: |
- | * //**Scènes à Faire**// | + | * **Mood and Theme** — The defense claims the mood and theme of " |
- | | + | <WRAP right round info 60%> |
+ | In the United States, the French term **[[wp> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //**Scènes à Faire**// — The generic, genre-driven elements the defense motion painted is not so vague, the plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ||
===== Proper Copyright Pleading ===== | ===== Proper Copyright Pleading ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In its motion to dismiss, the defense asserted that CBS' and Paramount Pictures' | ||
+ | * The chain of custody | ||
+ | * Lack of specificity of the copyright violations — namely that plaintiffs must draw a line from each specific infringed work to the infringing element in the Axanar works. The motion even goes so far as to assert that Paramount Pictures should not be a party to the suit. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The plaintiffs counter that degree of specificity is not required by case law: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Complaints simply alleging present ownership by plaintiff, registration in compliance with the applicable statute and infringement by defendant have been held sufficient under the rules.((Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The specific nature of what the defense is asking for in a legal complaint would prove unwieldy in a legal complaint dealing with copyrights spanning so many works — TV series, films, books, games and more — making it appropriate to cite the representative examples the plaintiffs did in their amended legal complaint: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > This pleading standard is consistent with the courts’ practice of analyzing infringement in the aggregate when it comes to the analysis of several works in a group, such as to analyze a television series with dozens of episodes as a single work.((Plaintiffs' | ||
==== Sufficiently Detailed ==== | ==== Sufficiently Detailed ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Defendants insist that Plaintiffs should be required to list each motion picture and television series that is infringed upon by each element in the Axanar Works. … Defendants are on notice, for example, that each time the U.S.S. Enterprise appears in their Axanar Works, they are infringing upon each and every Star Trek Copyrighted Work in which the U.S.S. Enterprise appears. Plaintiffs should not be required to identify at the pleading stage each and every television episode in which this copyrighted element appears.((Plaintiffs' | ||
==== Facts Under Defendants' | ==== Facts Under Defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The dismissal motion asserted the legal complaint made allegations merely "on information and belief," | ||
+ | |||
+ | > [The case law] does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged “upon information and belief,” particularly when those facts are within the possession and control of the defendant.((Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Further, the brief states, many of those facts came from the defendants themselves: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Unlike the [case law] on which Defendants rely, Plaintiffs’ allegations are bolstered by specific facts, and many of these allegations are based on information gleaned from Defendants’ public postings on social media.((Plaintiffs' | ||
===== Plaintiffs' | ===== Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense' | ||
+ | |||
+ | But, the plaintiffs brief said, " | ||
==== ' | ==== ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The principle that an issue should be ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > The Motion fails to acknowledge that … Defendants have //already engaged in infringing conduct// by producing and releasing //Prelude to Axanar//, have completed an infringing “fully revised and locked script” for the //Axanar// Motion Picture, and have already completed and disseminated a scene from the Axanar Motion Picture. Defendants’ completed acts of infringement, | ||
==== Copyright Injunction & First Amendment ==== | ==== Copyright Injunction & First Amendment ==== | ||
- | ===== Opposition | + | With respect |
+ | > Defendants’ arguments regarding “prior restraint” are irrelevant and, at best, premature. Defendants are no more “restrained” by the filing of the Complaint than they would be by the sending of a cease and desist letter. Without the filing of a motion for an injunction, Defendants may proceed, but they do so at their own peril.((Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Finally, multiple courts have found the First Amendment offers infringers no protection beyond what is offered by a fair use analysis, according to the Ninth Circuit court: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > First Amendment concerns in copyright cases are subsumed within the fair use inquiry. In other words, if the use of the alleged infringer is not fair use, there are no First Amendment prohibitions against granting a preliminary injunction.((Elvis Presley Enterprises, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The brief concludes by asserting " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice ===== | ||
- | > Defendants have lifted numerous specific characters | + | The request for judicial notice by the defense was meant to convince the judge to admit certain facts (most are references to generic items, characters, shapes, names, etc., claimed as copyright-free elements |
---- | ---- | ||
**Keywords** {{tag> | **Keywords** {{tag> |