Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
summary_replies [2016/12/09 13:12] – [Defendants' Reply] adds pullquote Carlos Pedraza | summary_replies [2018/07/02 17:47] – [Axanar's Money is Gone] adds 'see also' link to financials Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
====== Defense, Plaintiffs Rebut Opposition to Summary Judgment ====== | ====== Defense, Plaintiffs Rebut Opposition to Summary Judgment ====== | ||
- | **//New documents confirm Axanar is broke, plus other revelations despite extensive redaction//** | + | **//Heavily redacted |
{{TOC}} | {{TOC}} | ||
< | < | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Each side hit back hard at the other' | Each side hit back hard at the other' | ||
- | [{{ :: | + | {{page> |
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
For the defendants' | For the defendants' | ||
Line 35: | Line 37: | ||
> Defendants’ claim in this case is that they are entitled to create a full-length film featuring copyrighted characters such as Klingons, Vulcans, and Federation officers, along with Star Trek weapons, spaceships, settings, and dialogue – so long as they do not include Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. This is not the law.((Plaintiffs' | > Defendants’ claim in this case is that they are entitled to create a full-length film featuring copyrighted characters such as Klingons, Vulcans, and Federation officers, along with Star Trek weapons, spaceships, settings, and dialogue – so long as they do not include Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. This is not the law.((Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Under that theory, however, no work derivative of the original Star Trek series would be entitled to copyright protection, upending well established rights by copyright holders to exclusively create derivate works, Grossman wrote: | ||
<WRAP right round info 50%> | <WRAP right round info 50%> | ||
Line 45: | Line 49: | ||
Moreover, the audience test "asks whether the defendant wrongly copied enough of the plaintiff’s protected expression to cause a reasonable lay observer to immediately detect the similarities between the plaintiff’s expression and the defendant’s work, without any aid or suggestion from others." | Moreover, the audience test "asks whether the defendant wrongly copied enough of the plaintiff’s protected expression to cause a reasonable lay observer to immediately detect the similarities between the plaintiff’s expression and the defendant’s work, without any aid or suggestion from others." | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | |||
- | Under that theory, however, no work derivative of the original Star Trek series would be entitled to copyright protection, upending well established rights by copyright holders to exclusively create derivate works, Grossman wrote: | ||
> //Star Trek: The Next Generation//, | > //Star Trek: The Next Generation//, | ||
Line 75: | Line 77: | ||
> In an effort to create “disputed issues of fact” Defendants’ Opposition brief raises a number of issues that are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ motion such as whether Peters’ conduct was willful. … These issues, at best, relate to the amount of damages to be awarded after a ruling on liability.((Plaintiffs' | > In an effort to create “disputed issues of fact” Defendants’ Opposition brief raises a number of issues that are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ motion such as whether Peters’ conduct was willful. … These issues, at best, relate to the amount of damages to be awarded after a ruling on liability.((Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
==== Defendants' | ==== Defendants' | ||
Line 87: | Line 92: | ||
> While this Court found an allegedly “locked script” sufficient to proceed at the motion to dismiss stage, the undisputed evidence shows that Defendants do not intend to proceed on that script. … There have been several new scripts since then, and other considerations about the style Defendants intend to pursue.((Defendants' | > While this Court found an allegedly “locked script” sufficient to proceed at the motion to dismiss stage, the undisputed evidence shows that Defendants do not intend to proceed on that script. … There have been several new scripts since then, and other considerations about the style Defendants intend to pursue.((Defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
All those script alterations, | All those script alterations, | ||
Line 128: | Line 135: | ||
== The Woman is Comic Relief == | == The Woman is Comic Relief == | ||
- | In the reply brief Ranahan attempted to point to the character in // | + | In the reply brief Ranahan attempted to point to the character in // |
> Captain Sonya Alexander (an original character) serves as the comedic relief, presenting a powerful character who provides her commentary about the battle, infused with salty language rarely used by female characters.((Defendants' | > Captain Sonya Alexander (an original character) serves as the comedic relief, presenting a powerful character who provides her commentary about the battle, infused with salty language rarely used by female characters.((Defendants' | ||
Line 163: | Line 170: | ||
==== Axanar' | ==== Axanar' | ||
- | In a report prepared by its expert financial witness, certified public accountant Christian | + | In a report prepared by its expert financial witness, certified public accountant Christian |
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
==== Mockumentary Isn't New ==== | ==== Mockumentary Isn't New ==== | ||
- | * Mockumentary isn't new style for Star Trek — David Gerrold' | + | The defense had claimed that a documentary-style presentation had never been previously featured |
+ | [{{ : | ||
==== Netflix and Trademarking ' | ==== Netflix and Trademarking ' | ||
Line 174: | Line 185: | ||
" | " | ||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
+ | |||
==== Inspirations for ' | ==== Inspirations for ' | ||
- | * Additional, non-Trek sources for // | + | In an attempt to distance |
- | | + | |
+ | However, the plaintiffs noted, Peters made no reference to such inspirations among the materials he provided earlier in response to the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Plaintiffs specifically asked in discovery for Defendants’ source documents used to create the Axanar Works (other than the Star Trek films and television episodes which the parties agreed did not need to be exchanged) and Defendants did not turn over any of these claimed sources.((Grossman Decl., ¶ 99 Docket 88.1, 12/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :4-years-war.jpg|**THE BIBLE** In his deposition, //Prelude// director Christian Gossett produced emails in which Alec Peters called this copyrighted Star Trek role-playing game supplement his " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > The memories and experiences of those shows and movies are not something that is tangible [that could be provided according to the subpoena demand], as I rely on my experience and memory when creating fiction works.((Supplemental Declaration of Alec Peters in Support of Defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Peters further disclaimed his reliance on the sourcebook, "The Four Years War," part of the copyrighted Star Trek Role-Playing Game produced by FASA under license by Paramount Pictures, stating that he made minimal use of it. The plaintiffs discounted that new claim, stating: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Defendants’ argument that The Four Years War was not used as source material ignores, and fails to refute, the testimony of Prelude’s director, Christian Gossett, that Peters used The Four Years War supplement as a “bible, | ||
==== Misleading Financial Information ==== | ==== Misleading Financial Information ==== | ||
- | * Peters' | + | In addressing |
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs Cite Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Though defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Peters’ sworn testimony, and the original financial ledger produced in this case, establish the stated fact and Defendants’ cited evidence does not contradict that fact. <wrap hi>The evidence shows that [//several lines redacted//] is irrelevant and an attempt to mislead the court and the public</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | In earlier court documents, Axanar attorney Ranahan said she would seek to exclude Axanar' | ||
[{{ :: | [{{ :: | ||
Line 194: | Line 228: | ||
Under terms of the protective order governing public release of certain materials deemed confidential by either or both sides, a great deal of the documents filed in support of each summary judgment motion were filed under seal, meaning unredacted versions were filed for consideration by the judge but not fully visible to the public. | Under terms of the protective order governing public release of certain materials deemed confidential by either or both sides, a great deal of the documents filed in support of each summary judgment motion were filed under seal, meaning unredacted versions were filed for consideration by the judge but not fully visible to the public. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | //**__« The evidence shows that [//several lines redacted//] is irrelevant and an attempt [by Peters] to mislead the court and the public. »__**// — // | ||
+ | </ | ||
In approving a recent request to submit documents under seal Judge Klausner warned attorneys that simply relying on the protective order to justify hiding information from the public was insufficient; | In approving a recent request to submit documents under seal Judge Klausner warned attorneys that simply relying on the protective order to justify hiding information from the public was insufficient; | ||
Line 201: | Line 239: | ||
==== Examples of Redaction ==== | ==== Examples of Redaction ==== | ||
- | * Repeated citations regarding redacted facts to documents already in the public domain | + | * Repeated citations regarding redacted facts to documents already in the public domain.((Docket |
- | * Request by defense to file material under seal. doc 105.0. | + | * Request by defense to file material under seal.((Docket |
- | * Axanar business plan (redacted). | + | * Axanar business plan (//redacted//).((Docket |
---- | ---- | ||
- | **Keywords** {{tag> | + | **Keywords** {{tag> |