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
summary_motions_filed [2016/11/17 02:08] – edited for clarity Carlos Pedrazasummary_motions_filed [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 10: Line 10:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-<wrap lo>//See also: [[defense summary-filing|Axanar Defense Also Asks Judge for Summary Judgment]]//</wrap>+<wrap lo>See also: //[[fair_use_denied|Judge Denies Axanar Its Fair Use Defense]]// and //[[summary_judgment|Explainer: Motions for Summary Judgment]]// and //[[defense summary-filing|Axanar Defense Also Asks Judge for Summary Judgment]]//</wrap>
  
 In a massive filing in U.S. District Court on November 16, 2016, plaintiffs CBS and Paramount Pictures produced evidence of a shocking amount of personal spending by defendant [[Alec Peters]] from money fans had contributed to produce //Axanar//, who then altered financial documents to hide spending from donors. In a massive filing in U.S. District Court on November 16, 2016, plaintiffs CBS and Paramount Pictures produced evidence of a shocking amount of personal spending by defendant [[Alec Peters]] from money fans had contributed to produce //Axanar//, who then altered financial documents to hide spending from donors.
Line 16: Line 16:
 The studios asked a federal judge to grant a partial [[summary judgment]] in the Star Trek copyright infringement lawsuit against Axanar. The studios asked a federal judge to grant a partial [[summary judgment]] in the Star Trek copyright infringement lawsuit against Axanar.
  
-<WRAP right round alert 50%> +The motion asked for a hearing before U.S. District [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] on December 19 to hear arguments supporting the motion, as well as granting the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against Axanar, including ending any kind of distribution to Peters' Axanar works, including the already released //Prelude to Axanar//.((Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p. 1, 11/16/16.))
-<wrap lo><wrap em>DEVELOPING</wrap> This is a developing story. This article will be constantly updated until this notice is removed.</wrap> +
-</WRAP>+
  
-The motion asked for a hearing before U.S. District [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] on December 19 to hear arguments supporting the motion, as well as granting the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against Axanar, including ending any kind of distribution to Peters' Axanar works, including the already released //Prelude to Axanar//.((Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p. 1, 11/16/16.))+{{page>summary judgment box}}
  
 Earlier in the day, Axanar surrogate [[http://fanfilmfactor.com/2016/11/16/confirmed-axanar-defense-team-will-file-a-motion-for-summary-judgement-later-today/|Jonathan Lane]] posted on his blog that the defense would also be filing its own motion, but the studios' documents — including evidence such as depositions from Peters, //Axanar// director [[Robert Meyer Burnett]] and other staff — were posted online first by the court. Earlier in the day, Axanar surrogate [[http://fanfilmfactor.com/2016/11/16/confirmed-axanar-defense-team-will-file-a-motion-for-summary-judgement-later-today/|Jonathan Lane]] posted on his blog that the defense would also be filing its own motion, but the studios' documents — including evidence such as depositions from Peters, //Axanar// director [[Robert Meyer Burnett]] and other staff — were posted online first by the court.
Line 41: Line 39:
  
 The plaintiffs' motion also asserted that Axanar's planned [[fair use]] defense would fail under the four-factor analysis courts apply in copyright cases. The plaintiffs' motion also asserted that Axanar's planned [[fair use]] defense would fail under the four-factor analysis courts apply in copyright cases.
-Defendants’ Fair Use Argument Fails. ............................................... 11 + 
-1. The Purpose and Character of the Use. .................................... 12 +While defense attorney Erin Ranahan has argued that Axanar’s use of Star Trek constitutes [[fair use]], plaintiffs’ lawyer David Grossman said, “Fair use has absolutely no application to these facts and Defendants’ arguments should be rejected.”((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 11, 11/16/16.)) 
-2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work....................................... 13 + 
-3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used................14 +Grossman applied the four-factor test under copyright law used to determine whether an otherwise infringing work is protected from liability because it is fair use. 
-4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market. ................... 15 + 
-D. Defendants’ “Fan Fiction” Defense is Legally Irrelevant.+The Copyright Act defines the term this way: 
 + 
 +> The fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — \\ <wrap indent>1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;</wrap> \\ <wrap indent>2. The nature of the copyrighted work;</wrap> \\ <wrap indent>3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and</wrap> \\ <wrap indent>4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.</wrap> 
 + 
 +=== Purpose and Character of the Use === 
 + 
 +At the heart of Axanar’s fair use defense is the notion that its use of Star Trek is “transformative,” that is, that the manner in which the work is copied transforms it in such a way that it gains new meaning, such as that Grossman said is found in works of “criticism, commentary or scholarship of any kind.”((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 13, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +However, Grossman noted that in the defendant’s own words, Axanar was an intentional continuation of Star Trek, “true to the Star Trek canon.”:((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 13, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +> Although a finding of transformative use is not required to establish the fair use defense, this factor has been described as “the soul of fair use” and unauthorized derivative works that copy creative expression and attempt to free-ride on the originality of others generally do not qualify for fair use.((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 13, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +== Commercial Nature == 
 + 
 +Grossman went on to note this factor also takes into account whether the infringing work is intended for commercial or nonprofit educational purposes, despite Axanar’s unfounded protestations of nonprofit operation: 
 + 
 +> While Defendants assert that their works are not “commercial,” the evidence demonstrates otherwise. 
 +Defendants raised, and spent, well over a million dollars from Star Trek fans. … Defendants used those funds to pay themselves, to pay actors, to pay crew members, to rent out a studio (which Peters intends to lease out for other productions), to pay tens of thousands of dollars of restaurant bills, to pay their 
 +phone bills, gas, insurance, and to travel around the country as the “producers” of Star Trek: Axanar.((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 13, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +Indeed, Peters’ company, Axanar Productions Inc. created that studio with Star Trek fans’ donations with the explicit intention “to create for-profit productions, and to continue to film unlicensed Star Trek content. … The creation of a for-profit studio intended to generate a profit for Peters is definitively a “commercial” use of Plaintiffs’ works.”((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 13, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +=== Nature of the Copyrighted Work === 
 + 
 +Under copyright law, the more creative a work, the greater its degree of protection from copying. Star Trek is a creatively rich universe built over a half century, Grossman said: 
 + 
 +> These highly creative works are entitled to the highest level of protection under this factor, and Defendants have appropriated all of these creative elements, for their own purposes, and without authorization.((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 14, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +=== Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used === 
 + 
 +Though Peters has claimed Axanar used fewer of Star Trek’s copyrights than fan films do, Grossman pointed to Peters’ appropriation of “nearly every major element from the Star Trek 
 +Copyrighted Works. Indeed, they were required to do so in order to professionally 
 +produce [what Peters himself called] an ‘independent Star Trek film.’”((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 14, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +Among the specific and substantial elements Axanar copied were: 
 + 
 +  * The plot in the Original Series episode, “Whom Gods Destroy,” which introduced Axanar’s protagonist, [[mema>Garth of Izar]], portrayed by Peters himself in //Prelude//, and the Battle of Axanar. 
 +  * Story elements and the sequence of events Peters has admitted he took from the copyrighted, licensed Star Trek: The Role Playing Game supplement called “[[knowing_infringement#is_axanar_transformative|The Four Years War]].” 
 +  * Settings established by plaintiffs in various Star Trek works, including specific alien star systems and planets, such as Vulcan, the Klingon homeward Qo’noS and the planet of Axanar itself; //Axanar// also takes place on United Federation of Planets starships and Klingon battlecruisers. 
 +  * Copyrighted characters including Vulcans and Klingons, and specific characters such as Ambassador Soval and Garth of Izar. 
 + 
 +Grossman asserted that //Axanar// copies Star Trek’s mood and themes by attempting to “re-create the drama between the Federation and the Klingon Empire in a military space drama,” in order to reproduce “the ‘heart’ of … the Star Trek universe.”((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 15, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +To support the idea that replicating mood and theme can violate copyright, Grossman cited the legal precedent established in a seminal 2009 copyright case, Salinger v. Colting, which held that: 
 + 
 +> The defendant’s work “depends upon similar and sometimes nearly identical supporting characters, settings, tone, and plot devices to create a narrative that largely mirrors that of [the original work].((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 15, fn. 6, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +Grossman also cited a similar case tried by the studios’ lead attorney, [[Jonathan Zavin]] that found, “A reasonable person would easily recognize these aspects of the [infringing work] as having been appropriated from the copyrighted properties.”((Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Publishing Group., 
 +11 F. Supp.2d 329, 333 (1998).)) 
 + 
 +=== Effect of Use on Potential Market === 
 + 
 +While so far the defense has tried to focus the court’s attention on what it claims are minimal past damages to the studios’ bottom line from //Axanar// and fan productions, the plaintiffs note that its copyright protection extends to potential harm to their “potential market. … This inquiry must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for [future] derivative works,” particularly:((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 17, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +The plaintiffs also noted the potential market harm if others were allowed to follow Peters’ example: 
 + 
 +> Defendants profited by paying themselves the funds donated from Star Trek fans to create the Axanar Works. If other producers were permitted to create their own “independent Star Trek films” with paid actors, directors and crew members, and incorporated copyrighted elements and characters into those films, as Defendants have done here, the damage to Plaintiffs’ market would be manifest.”((Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 15, fn. 6, 11/16/16.)) 
 + 
 +==== ‘Irrelevant’ Fan Fiction Defense ==== 
 + 
 +Grossman also took aim at the defendants’ contention that as “fan fiction,” Axanar’s activities were like all the other fan films whose use of Star Trek’s copyrights have been tolerated for decades by CBS and Paramount.
  
 <WRAP right round important 50%> <WRAP right round important 50%>
Line 52: Line 110:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-==== Redacted Portions ====+===== Redacted Portions =====
  
 Significant portions of the plaintiffs' motion were redacted because they directly referred to documents or other evidence Axanar's attorneys had marked Confidential, a designation the plaintiffs may contest in court. Significant portions of the plaintiffs' motion were redacted because they directly referred to documents or other evidence Axanar's attorneys had marked Confidential, a designation the plaintiffs may contest in court.
Line 58: Line 116:
 The redacted portions referred to exhibits being submitted to support the plaintiffs' motion. Among the revelations: The redacted portions referred to exhibits being submitted to support the plaintiffs' motion. Among the revelations:
  
-  * Between his first and second depositions Peters appeared to have altered Axanar's financial documents to remove personal expenses he paid for with donor funds, including "tens of thousands of dollars of restaurant bills," gasoline, car and health insurance, auto maintenance and phone bills for himself, his girlfriend and another friend.((add citation from document here.))+  * Between his first and second depositions Peters appeared to have altered Axanar's financial documents to remove personal expenses he paid for with donor funds, including "tens of thousands of dollars of restaurant bills," gasoline, car and health insurance, auto maintenance and phone bills for himself, his girlfriend and another friend.((Exhibit 2 to Oki Declaration, "Paramount Pictures Corporation's Amended Responses to Interrogatories, Set One (Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9)," Docket 75.4, p. 7, 11/16/16.))
   * Peters raised almost $1.5 million from Star Trek fans, much of which he used to pay himself, his friends and colleagues and that he also used the funds to lease and build out a commercial studio he hoped to use to produce other Star Trek projects and rent out to other commercial productions.   * Peters raised almost $1.5 million from Star Trek fans, much of which he used to pay himself, his friends and colleagues and that he also used the funds to lease and build out a commercial studio he hoped to use to produce other Star Trek projects and rent out to other commercial productions.
-  * Peters testified his intention in creating //Axanar// Works was to be “ridiculously accurate” to Star Trek and to “make sure every little detail adheres to canon.”((add citation here.)) +  * Peters testified his intention in creating //Axanar// Works was to be “ridiculously accurate” to Star Trek and to “make sure every little detail adheres to canon.”((Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (redacted), Docket 72, p. 5, lines 5-7, 11/16/16.))
 ===== Undisputed Facts ===== ===== Undisputed Facts =====
  
-Along with the actual motion, the studios' attorneys included a document, "Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law," [[required by the court]] to support the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.+Along with the actual motion, the studios' attorneys included a document, "Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law," [[summary_judgment#what_s_in_the_motion|required by the court]] to support the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
  
 ===== Evidence ===== ===== Evidence =====
Line 134: Line 191:
  
 <-- <--
 +\\
 +===== Timetable for Motion =====
 +
 +<wrap lo>See also: //[[fair_use_denied|Judge Denies Axanar Its Fair Use Defense]]//</wrap>
 +
 +On January 4, 2017, Judge Klausner denied both motions for summary judgment but also rejected Axanar's fair use defense — the central part of its case.
 +
 +<WRAP>
 +{{::summary-timeline-2.png?direct|Timeline for Summary Judgment}} \\
 +<wrap lo>**THIS TIMELINE** lays out the events regarding motions for summary judgment both sides submitted to U.S. District Court on November 16. <wrap lo>//Click the image to view full size.//</wrap></wrap> {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
 +</WRAP>
  
 ---- ----
-**Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit parties defendants plaintiffs copyright}}+**Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit parties defendants plaintiffs copyright summary_judgment}}