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
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
summary_replies [2016/12/10 22:25] – [Examples of Redaction] adds tag Carlos Pedrazasummary_replies [2018/07/02 17:47] – [Axanar's Money is Gone] adds 'see also' link to financials Carlos Pedraza
Line 22: Line 22:
 Each side hit back hard at the other's recently filed briefs opposing summary judgment as requested by opposing counsel, while shoring up their own call for [[summary judgment]]. The plaintiffs' objective was to demonstrate by evidence that Axanar's actions constituted copyright infringement, and that the case should be sent to a jury to determine damages. Each side hit back hard at the other's recently filed briefs opposing summary judgment as requested by opposing counsel, while shoring up their own call for [[summary judgment]]. The plaintiffs' objective was to demonstrate by evidence that Axanar's actions constituted copyright infringement, and that the case should be sent to a jury to determine damages.
  
-[{{ ::summary-timeline.png?direct&300|**THIS TIMELINE** lays out events for each side's motion for summary judgment scheduled for a hearing December 19 before Judge R. Gary Klausner. //Click the image to view full size.//}}]+{{page>summary judgment box}} 
 + 
 +[{{ ::summary-timeline-2.png?direct&300|**THIS TIMELINE** lays out events for each side's motion for summary judgment to be decided by federal Judge R. Gary Klausner. //Click the image to view full size.//}}]
  
 For the defendants' part, their goal — in addition to successfully arguing Axanar's depiction of Star Trek constitutes fair use — was to derail the studios' attempt to get a partial summary judgment by proving the material facts they alleged remain in dispute and should be decided by a jury. For the defendants' part, their goal — in addition to successfully arguing Axanar's depiction of Star Trek constitutes fair use — was to derail the studios' attempt to get a partial summary judgment by proving the material facts they alleged remain in dispute and should be decided by a jury.
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' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Introduction, footnote 1, p. 1, 12/5/16.)) > 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' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Introduction, footnote 1, p. 1, 12/5/16.))
 +
 +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."(([[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/part_2_elements_of_a_copyright.html|An Overview of the Elements of a Copyright Infringement Cause of Action, — Part II: Improper Appropriation]], by Jason Sloane, retrieved 12/8/16.))</wrap></wrap> 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."(([[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/part_2_elements_of_a_copyright.html|An Overview of the Elements of a Copyright Infringement Cause of Action, — Part II: Improper Appropriation]], by Jason Sloane, retrieved 12/8/16.))</wrap></wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
- 
-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//, the second Star Trek television series, takes place in a different time period from The Original Series, and includes different fictional characters. However, there is no question that this series was a derivative work, incorporating the very same elements copied by Defendants (Klingons, Vulcans, spaceships, weapons, language, etc.). Under Defendants’ theory, //they// (or any other commercial television studio) could have produced that series, and there would be no substantial similarity, and thus no infringement.((Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Introduction, footnote 1, p. 1, 12/5/16.)) > //Star Trek: The Next Generation//, the second Star Trek television series, takes place in a different time period from The Original Series, and includes different fictional characters. However, there is no question that this series was a derivative work, incorporating the very same elements copied by Defendants (Klingons, Vulcans, spaceships, weapons, language, etc.). Under Defendants’ theory, //they// (or any other commercial television studio) could have produced that series, and there would be no substantial similarity, and thus no infringement.((Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Introduction, footnote 1, p. 1, 12/5/16.))
Line 168: Line 170:
 ==== Axanar's Money is Gone ==== ==== Axanar's Money is Gone ====
  
-In a report prepared by its expert financial witness, certified public accountant Christian Tregellis, the defense disclosed Axanar had earned $1,428,902.43 from January 2014-October 2016. The same document showed Peters had spent $1,433,003.67 in that same period, incurring a $4,131.24 deficit((Expert Report of Christian Tregellis, CPA, ABV, CFF, CLP, Hemming Morse, LLP, p. 15, 12/5/16.)) — consistent with [[annual_report#deficits|overspending previously documented]] by AxaMonitor's analysis of Axanar's 2015 financial report.+In a report prepared by its expert financial witness, certified public accountant Christian Tregillis, the defense disclosed Axanar had earned $1,428,902.43 from January 2014-October 2016. The same document showed Peters had spent $1,433,003.67 in that same period, incurring a $4,131.24 deficit((Expert Report of Christian Tregillis, CPA, ABV, CFF, CLP, Hemming Morse, LLP, p. 15, 12/5/16.)) — consistent with [[annual_report#deficits|overspending previously documented]] by AxaMonitor's analysis of Axanar's 2015 financial report. 
 + 
 +<wrap lo>**//See also: [[studio-financials|Axanar's Thin Financial Report and a New Crowdfund Campaign]]//**</wrap> 
  
 ==== Mockumentary Isn't New ==== ==== Mockumentary Isn't New ====
Line 184: Line 189:
 ==== Inspirations for 'Axanar' ==== ==== Inspirations for 'Axanar' ====
  
-In an attempt to distance //Axanar// from its Star Trek sources, Peters declared in one defense exhibit that //Prelude// "was inspired by works such as “M*A*S*H,” “Band of Brothers,” “Babylon 5,” “The Pacific” and “The Civil War,” all of which were viewed online, and are all publicly available."((Supplemental Declaration of Alec Peters in Support of Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [redacted], docket 105.8, p. 1, 12/5/16.))+In an attempt to distance //Axanar// from its Star Trek sources, Peters declared in one defense exhibit that //Prelude// "was inspired by works such as //M*A*S*H, Band of Brothers, Babylon 5, The Pacific// and //The Civil War//, all of which were viewed online, and are all publicly available."((Supplemental Declaration of Alec Peters in Support of Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [redacted], docket 105.8, p. 1, 12/5/16.))
  
 However, the plaintiffs noted, Peters made no reference to such inspirations among the materials he provided earlier in response to the studios' subpoena: However, the plaintiffs noted, Peters made no reference to such inspirations among the materials he provided earlier in response to the studios' subpoena:
Line 196: Line 201:
 > 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' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [redacted], docket 105.8, p. 1, 12/5/16.)) > 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' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [redacted], docket 105.8, p. 1, 12/5/16.))
  
-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 claims, stating:+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,” or the email describing it as such.((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, docket 102.1 ¶34, pp. 22-23, 12/5/16.)) > 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,” or the email describing it as such.((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, docket 102.1 ¶34, pp. 22-23, 12/5/16.))