no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revisionNext revision | |||
— | summary_opposition [2016/12/10 22:38] – [Disputing Facts] layout fix Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | <WRAP box> | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | ====== Attorneys Attack Pre-Trial Evidence in Axanar Case ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | **//Each side files opposition to the other' | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{TOC}} | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | //**__ __**// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In motions filed November 28 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, each side in the Axanar [[copyright_infringement|Copyright Infringement]] lawsuit sought to convince a judge to deny the other' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Opposing Motions ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | These new briefs were the second step in the process by each side to seek a [[summary judgment]] from [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] that began November 16. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the opposition documents, each side submitted new documents and evidence to bolster its claims, as well as objections to previously submitted evidence by opposing counsel in the case. The defense, for example, objected to testimony from the deposition of CBS senior vice president [[cbs_officials|John Van Citters]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The plaintiffs, for their part, moved to have Axanar surrogate Jonathan Lane, who covers fan productions for his blog, Fan Film Factor, disqualified as an expert witness, with his testimony consisting of hearsay. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Disputing Facts ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | These objections were part of a larger effort by each side to call into question the other' | ||
+ | |||
+ | As part of that effort, each side filed what are called evidentiary objections — an attempt to get the judge to disallow certain evidence as irrelevant or inadmissible. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Defendants' | ||
+ | {!stub: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round alert 50%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | {!stub: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the new filing, plaintiffs [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount Pictures]] straightforwardly rebutted the defense arguments for summary judgment, addressing the defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | // | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | - The copyright infringement claims against Axanar were premature. | ||
+ | - The feature film, //Axanar//, was not going to be substantially similar to Star Trek. | ||
+ | - The Axanar works qualified as fair use under U.S. copyright law. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In addition, the plaintiffs attempted to refute the defense arguments that: | ||
+ | * Axanar' | ||
+ | * Axanar was intended as social commentary or satire. | ||
+ | * Defendant Peters and his Axanar Productions profited from making //Axanar// and intended to compete with official Star Trek works produced by CBS and Paramount. | ||
+ | |||
+ | --> Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | --> Not Too Soon to Sue# | ||
+ | In its [[defense_summary-filing|November 16 motion]], the defense asserted that the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In their opposition to the defense motion, the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The plaintiffs believe all these works were "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," | ||
+ | |||
+ | > In a similar case in this Court, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the materials they created in the production of their film could not be the subject of a copyright claim because they were merely transitory steps en route to a fixed product.((Citing Walt Disney Prods. v. Filmation Assocs., 628 F.Supp. 871, 874, 876-77 (C.D. Cal. 1986).)) The Court rejected this argument, finding that the elements created by defendants, including a script and promotional “trailer” satisfied the requirements of the Copyright Act of material cast in some tangible form.((Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Klausner had [[motion_to_dismiss|already ruled]] that // | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
+ | --> Substantially Similar to Star Trek# | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | The defendants also claimed that none of Axanar’s works are substantially similar to Star Trek because they used relatively little of the studios' | ||
+ | > Defendants have not merely taken a smattering of unprotectable elements and combined them. Instead, Defendants have faithfully recreated every possible element of the Star Trek universe, down to excruciating details. Further, while Defendants assert that they have included additional “original” characters in the Axanar Works, these additional characters are by no means “original” – they are Klingons, Vulcans, and Federation officers, and are, therefore, not “original” to Defendants. Defendants’ Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works precisely because Defendants intentionally and deliberately copied characters, settings, plot points, dialogue, themes, pace, mood, races, species, ships, and weapons from Plaintiffs’ works in order to create an unlicensed, “independent Star Trek film.”((Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Further, the plaintiffs argued that determining whether //Axanar// is substantially similar to the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | --> Fails Fair Use Test# | ||
+ | Under the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law, the defense motion asserted, Axanar’s works are protected. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Meanwhile, the defendants filed their own opposition to the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | - That CBS and Paramount own Star Treks’ copyrights. | ||
+ | - Peters and his company, Axanar Productions Inc., willfully infringed on those copyrights by “creating works that are substantially similar [to] and that copy protected elements of Plaintiffs’ works, including specific characters, settings, themes, mood, tone, plots and dialogue.” | ||
+ | - That the defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | --> Defendants' | ||
+ | --> Plaintiffs Fail to Prove Axanar is Substantially Similar to Star Trek# | ||
+ | According to the defense, CBS and Paramount bear the burden of proving Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | --> Trek Characters Not Protected by Copyright# | ||
+ | Several of // | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | --> No Harm to Official Star Trek# | ||
+ | As part of the fair use analysis, courts consider the impact on the plaintiff’s market the most important factor, but the defense alleged the studios presented no evidence at all of harm by Axanar. "For good reason," | ||
+ | \\ \\ | ||
+ | At best, the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | --> ' | ||
+ | An important part of the defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | --> Axanar Made No Profits# | ||
+ | The plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Plaintiffs’ attempts to characterize monies collected from donors before Defendants’ Works were created as “profits” from those works is nonsensical, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Moreover, the defense stated, CBS and Paramount have no right to criticize how Peters spent $1.5 million raised from Star Trek fans to create //Axanar// when the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | --> Factual Dispute over Whether Infringement was Willful# | ||
+ | The defense' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <-- | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | ===== Next Steps ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The next step in the summary judgment process requires each side to file a reply by December 5 to the opposition briefs submitted November 28. That will be followed by a hearing before Judge Klausner scheduled for December 19. He will rule after that. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the meantime, the case continues to move toward its January 31, 2017, trial. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Keywords** {{tag> |