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
motion_to_dismiss [2016/05/18 23:18] – edits to correct syntax Carlos Pedrazamotion_to_dismiss [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 24: Line 24:
 {{section>dismissal denied#dismissal denied}} {{section>dismissal denied#dismissal denied}}
  
-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 48: Line 48:
  
 <WRAP right round info 60%> <WRAP right round info 60%>
-In the United States, the French term **[[wp>scènes à faire]]** refers to certain elements of a creative work not protected by copyright law when they are mandated by or customary to the genre.+<wrap lo>In the United States, the French term **[[wp>scènes à faire]]** refers to certain elements of a creative work not protected by copyright law when they are mandated by or customary to the genre.</wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
Line 76: Line 76:
 <wrap lo>**See Also** \\ [[dismissal-citations|Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss]]</wrap> <wrap lo>**See Also** \\ [[dismissal-citations|Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss]]</wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 +
 ==== Troubled Copyright Claims ==== ==== Troubled Copyright Claims ====
  
Line 138: Line 139:
 </WRAP>  </WRAP> 
  
-However, the Lizerbraum Law Blog thinks arguments reducing the Star Trek copyright to the costumes, words and minor characters is missing the forest for the trees:+However, the Lizerbram Law Blog thinks arguments reducing the Star Trek copyright to the costumes, words and minor characters is missing the forest for the trees:
  
 > Unfortunately for Axanar, it’s unlikely that this argument will be successful. Based on a brief review of //Prelude to Axanar//, <wrap hi>it’s clear that the costumes, sets, makeup, and spaceship design are all intended to suggest that they’re part of the Star Trek universe.</wrap>(([[http://lizerbramlaw.com/2016/02/25/can-you-create-your-own-star-trek-movie/|Lizerbram Law Blog: Copyright Case: Can You Create Your Own Star Trek Movie?]], 2/25/16.)) <wrap lo>[emphasis added]</wrap> > Unfortunately for Axanar, it’s unlikely that this argument will be successful. Based on a brief review of //Prelude to Axanar//, <wrap hi>it’s clear that the costumes, sets, makeup, and spaceship design are all intended to suggest that they’re part of the Star Trek universe.</wrap>(([[http://lizerbramlaw.com/2016/02/25/can-you-create-your-own-star-trek-movie/|Lizerbram Law Blog: Copyright Case: Can You Create Your Own Star Trek Movie?]], 2/25/16.)) <wrap lo>[emphasis added]</wrap>
Line 198: Line 199:
  
 > Although it is unclear whether Defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar Works, <wrap hi>realizing a profit is irrelevant to this analysis.</wrap> The Court can easily infer that by raising $1 million to produce the Axanar Works and disseminating the Axanar Works on Youtube.com, the allegedly infringing material “acts as a ‘draw’ for customers” to watch Defendants’ films.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner's Order to Deny Motion to Dismiss, p. 5 §B(2), “Vicarious Infringement: Direct Financial Benefit Allegations Made on 'Information and Belief,'” 5/9/16.)) <wrap lo>[//emphasis added//]</wrap> > Although it is unclear whether Defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar Works, <wrap hi>realizing a profit is irrelevant to this analysis.</wrap> The Court can easily infer that by raising $1 million to produce the Axanar Works and disseminating the Axanar Works on Youtube.com, the allegedly infringing material “acts as a ‘draw’ for customers” to watch Defendants’ films.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner's Order to Deny Motion to Dismiss, p. 5 §B(2), “Vicarious Infringement: Direct Financial Benefit Allegations Made on 'Information and Belief,'” 5/9/16.)) <wrap lo>[//emphasis added//]</wrap>
 +
 ===== Censorship ===== ===== Censorship =====
 The motion stakes a big part of its argument on the fact //Axanar// remains unproduced, claiming that any [[summary_of_the_lawsuit#injunction]] sought by the plaintiffs would be an unconstitutional "prior restraint" — preventing expression before it even occurs. The motion stakes a big part of its argument on the fact //Axanar// remains unproduced, claiming that any [[summary_of_the_lawsuit#injunction]] sought by the plaintiffs would be an unconstitutional "prior restraint" — preventing expression before it even occurs.
  
 +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's Order to Deny Motion to Dismiss, p. 7 §E, “Defendants’ Prior Restraint Argument,” 5/9/16.))