Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
motion_to_dismiss [2016/05/10 16:16] – updates section header Carlos Pedraza | motion_to_dismiss [2016/11/17 20:10] – [Dismissal Motion & Judge's Denial] format fix Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{section> | {{section> | ||
- | Still planned for May 9 was a [[scheduling conference]] for the two sides to discuss possible settlement talks, and their plans for conducting discovery for the case. | + | Also planned for May 9 was a [[scheduling conference]] for the two sides to discuss possible settlement talks, and their plans for conducting discovery for the case. |
===== Opening Strategy ===== | ===== Opening Strategy ===== | ||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
* **Elements not protected by copyright**. "The amended allegations go beyond the plausible realm of copyright protection," | * **Elements not protected by copyright**. "The amended allegations go beyond the plausible realm of copyright protection," | ||
- | > When viewed in a vacuum, each of these elements may not individually be protectable by copyright. Plaintiffs, however, do not seek to enforce their copyright in each of these elements individually. … The Court finds it unnecessary to analyze whether the allegedly non-protectable elements of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works are eligible for copyright protection because Plaintiff describes these elements in the Complaint solely in an effort to demonstrate how the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' | + | > When viewed in a vacuum, each of these elements may not individually be protectable by copyright. Plaintiffs, however, do not seek to enforce their copyright in each of these elements individually. … The Court finds it unnecessary to analyze whether the allegedly non-protectable elements of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works are eligible for copyright protection because Plaintiff describes these elements in the Complaint solely in an effort to demonstrate how the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' |
<WRAP right round info 60%> | <WRAP right round info 60%> | ||
- | In the United States, the French term **[[wp> | + | <wrap lo>In the United States, the French term **[[wp> |
</ | </ | ||
* **Allegations not specific enough**. Even if the alleged infringing elements were protected, the defense asserts the violations aren't sufficiently specific. "While Plaintiffs allege that they own 'more than 700' Star Trek television episodes, a dozen motion pictures, and four books, they still fail to specify which of those copyrights Defendants have allegedly infringed." | * **Allegations not specific enough**. Even if the alleged infringing elements were protected, the defense asserts the violations aren't sufficiently specific. "While Plaintiffs allege that they own 'more than 700' Star Trek television episodes, a dozen motion pictures, and four books, they still fail to specify which of those copyrights Defendants have allegedly infringed." | ||
- | > Plaintiffs [went] to great lengths to compare and contrast allegedly infringing elements of the Star Trek franchise through photographs and vivid descriptions. … The Court finds the Complaint sufficiently provides Defendants notice of the allegedly infringing elements at issue. For example, Plaintiffs allege that the Starship U.S.S. Enterprise, which first appears in the pilot episodes of The Original Series and is consistently portrayed throughout the franchise’s episodes and films, appears in Defendants’ //Prelude to Axanar// | + | > Plaintiffs [went] to great lengths to compare and contrast allegedly infringing elements of the Star Trek franchise through photographs and vivid descriptions. … The Court finds the Complaint sufficiently provides Defendants notice of the allegedly infringing elements at issue. For example, Plaintiffs allege that the Starship U.S.S. Enterprise, which first appears in the pilot episodes of The Original Series and is consistently portrayed throughout the franchise’s episodes and films, appears in Defendants’ //Prelude to Axanar// |
* **Who owns which copyrights? | * **Who owns which copyrights? | ||
- | > To demonstrate substantial similarity, Plaintiffs describe individual infringing elements in the Complaint. … However, Plaintiffs do not claim that these individual infringing elements are subject to copyright protection – <wrap hi>these elements are included in the Complaint to demonstrate the similarities between the Star Trek Copyrighted Works and the Axanar Works.</ | + | > To demonstrate substantial similarity, Plaintiffs describe individual infringing elements in the Complaint. … However, Plaintiffs do not claim that these individual infringing elements are subject to copyright protection – <wrap hi>these elements are included in the Complaint to demonstrate the similarities between the Star Trek Copyrighted Works and the Axanar Works.</ |
* **Unfair to bundle** the completed short film, //Prelude to Axanar//, (which the motion continues to characterize as a " | * **Unfair to bundle** the completed short film, //Prelude to Axanar//, (which the motion continues to characterize as a " | ||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
The judge, however, rejected the use of // | The judge, however, rejected the use of // | ||
- | > The Court finds it plausible that Defendants have completed a final script of the Axanar Motion Picture. The Court will be able to analyze substantial similarity based on the script and the already disseminated Vulcan Scene. An infringing work, is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy … is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. … When the work is ‘prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time.’”((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' | + | > The Court finds it plausible that Defendants have completed a final script of the Axanar Motion Picture. The Court will be able to analyze substantial similarity based on the script and the already disseminated Vulcan Scene. An infringing work, is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy … is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. … When the work is ‘prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time.’”((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' |
* **Unripe fruit**. The //Axanar// film cannot be held accountable for copyright infringement because it has not yet been made. The judge similarly dismissed this argument: | * **Unripe fruit**. The //Axanar// film cannot be held accountable for copyright infringement because it has not yet been made. The judge similarly dismissed this argument: | ||
- | > Because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Defendants created the Vulcan Scene as well as a “final and locked script,” the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims based on the Axanar Motion Picture are ripe for adjudication.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' | + | > Because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Defendants created the Vulcan Scene as well as a “final and locked script,” the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims based on the Axanar Motion Picture are ripe for adjudication.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' |
* **Prior restraint**. Because //Axanar// has not been made, any attempt to halt production, | * **Prior restraint**. Because //Axanar// has not been made, any attempt to halt production, | ||
- | > This argument is unavailing. … Defendants are not restrained by the filing of this Complaint. Rather, Defendants are on notice that Plaintiffs allege certain copyright infringement allegations against them. This ruling does not affect Defendants choice to proceed with the production of the Axanar Motion Picture.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' | + | > This argument is unavailing. … Defendants are not restrained by the filing of this Complaint. Rather, Defendants are on notice that Plaintiffs allege certain copyright infringement allegations against them. This ruling does not affect Defendants choice to proceed with the production of the Axanar Motion Picture.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' |
<WRAP right round tip 40%> | <WRAP right round tip 40%> | ||
<wrap lo>**See Also** \\ [[dismissal-citations|Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss]]</ | <wrap lo>**See Also** \\ [[dismissal-citations|Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss]]</ | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | |||
==== Troubled Copyright Claims ==== | ==== Troubled Copyright Claims ==== | ||
Line 138: | Line 139: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | However, the Lizerbraum | + | However, the Lizerbram |
> Unfortunately for Axanar, it’s unlikely that this argument will be successful. Based on a brief review of //Prelude to Axanar//, <wrap hi> | > Unfortunately for Axanar, it’s unlikely that this argument will be successful. Based on a brief review of //Prelude to Axanar//, <wrap hi> | ||
Line 197: | Line 198: | ||
However, in denying the motion, Judge Klausner found sufficient cause to proceed with the plaintiffs' | However, in denying the motion, Judge Klausner found sufficient cause to proceed with the plaintiffs' | ||
- | > Although it is unclear whether Defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar Works, <wrap hi> | + | > Although it is unclear whether Defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar Works, <wrap hi> |
===== Censorship ===== | ===== Censorship ===== | ||
The motion stakes a big part of its argument on the fact //Axanar// remains unproduced, claiming that any [[summary_of_the_lawsuit# | The motion stakes a big part of its argument on the fact //Axanar// remains unproduced, claiming that any [[summary_of_the_lawsuit# | ||
+ | That argument failed to convince the judge, who wrote: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > This argument is unavailing. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for injunctive relief and Defendants are not restrained by the filing of this Complaint. Rather, Defendants are on notice that Plaintiffs allege certain copyright infringement allegations against them. This ruling does not affect Defendants choice to proceed with the production of the Axanar Motion Picture.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner' | ||