Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
tardigrades_dismissal_motion [2019/02/20 16:22] – Carlos Pedrazatardigrades_dismissal_motion [2019/03/13 17:50] – [No Substantial Similarity] Carlos Pedraza
Line 28: Line 28:
 ===== No Substantial Similarity ===== ===== No Substantial Similarity =====
  
-<WRAP right round download 320px> +<WRAP right round download 320px> <fs smaller>**MOTION TO DISMISS** You can read the 31-page motion. [[https://www.dropbox.com/s/8lvkjm4gd3ceigx/motion%20to%20dismiss.pdf?dl=0|Download]] (7.4 MB PDF).</fs> </WRAP>
-<fs smaller>**MOTION TO DISMISS** You can read the 31-page motion. [[https://www.dropbox.com/s/8lvkjm4gd3ceigx/motion%20to%20dismiss.pdf?dl=0|Download]] (7.4 MB PDF).</fs> +
-</WRAP>+
  
-Under U.S. copyright laws, the concept of [[#Other Alleged Similarities|substantial similarity]] is a key part of determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. There are other components, but this is the one upon which CBS' case largely hinges.+Under U.S. copyright laws, the concept of [[#other_alleged_similarities|substantial similarity]] is a key part of determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. There are other components, but this is the one upon which CBS’ case largely hinges.
  
-CBS' lawyers argue an [[breakdown_dismissal_letter|actual comparison]] between Discovery and Anas Abdin's never-published Tardigrades videogame reveals no substantial similarities between the two.+CBS’ lawyers argue an [[:breakdown_dismissal_letter|actual comparison]] between Discovery and Anas Abdin’s never-published Tardigrades videogame reveals no substantial similarities between the two. 
 + 
 +<WRAP right 450px> <WRAP>//**__<wrap em>Watch</wrap>__ **// </WRAP> 
 + 
 + {{youtube>ikHgCwM84LY?large|Tardigrade Hug}} 
 + 
 +<fs smaller>**THIS ‘TARDIGRADE HUG’** sequence appears only in this 14-second video posted to YouTube on July12, 2017, just two months before //Star Trek: Discovery// aired.</fs>
  
-<WRAP right 450px> 
-<WRAP>//**__<wrap em>Watch</wrap>__**//</WRAP> 
-{{youtube>ikHgCwM84LY?large|Tardigrade Hug}} 
-<fs smaller>**THIS 'TARDIGRADE HUG'** sequence appears only in this 14-second video posted to YouTube on July12, 2017, just two months before //Star Trek: Discovery// aired.</fs> 
 ---- ----
 +
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-The motion noted that the actual registered copyrighted work is not the unfinished game, nor Abdin's 23 short concept YouTube videos, nor his blog posts, but instead a "treatment" consisting of [[breakdown_dismissal_letter#no_links_to_original_works|text and static artwork]]. Abdin claims the Tardigrades videos and other blog posts were also infringed. In the motion, CBS disagreed:+The motion noted that the actual registered copyrighted work is not the unfinished game, nor Abdin’s 23 short concept YouTube videos, nor his blog posts, but instead a "treatment" consisting of [[:breakdown_dismissal_letter#no_links_to_original_works|text and static artwork]]. Abdin claims the Tardigrades videos and other blog posts were also infringed. In the motion, CBS disagreed:
  
 <WRAP 90% center> <WRAP 90% center>
-  * The Tardigrade hug sequence pointed to as proof of infringement is a [[yout>ikHgCwM84LY|13-second video]] posted on YouTube in July 2017, two months before Discovery's premiere but long after the show had been developed and filmed.+ 
 +  * The Tardigrade hug sequence pointed to as proof of infringement is a [[yout>ikHgCwM84LY|13-second video]] posted on YouTube in July 2017, two months before Discovery’s premiere but long after the show had been developed and filmed.
   * “The only ‘similarities’ between the game and Discovery, says CBS, “is that both tardigrades are enlarged and can move through space. Space-faring tardigrades — including enlarged fictional tardigrades — are, of course, not original to Plaintiff.”   * “The only ‘similarities’ between the game and Discovery, says CBS, “is that both tardigrades are enlarged and can move through space. Space-faring tardigrades — including enlarged fictional tardigrades — are, of course, not original to Plaintiff.”
   * Other purported similarities are too generically described to qualify for copyright protection, according to the motion.   * Other purported similarities are too generically described to qualify for copyright protection, according to the motion.
 +
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 <WRAP right round info 320px> <WRAP right round info 320px>
-[{{:two_tardigrades.jpg?direct|<fs smaller>//Do these two versions of tardigrades evince the same 'aesthetic appeal'? <fs x-small>Click image to view full size</fs>.//</fs>}}] + 
-<wrap lo>**What is Substantial Similarity?** \\ +[{{:two_tardigrades.jpg?direct|//Do these two versions of tardigrades evince the same ‘aesthetic appeal’? <fs x-small>Click image to view full size</fs>.//}}] 
-<wrap indent>According to the American Bar Association, in [[copyright infringement]] cases courts traditionally test for substantial similarity using "a subjective, factual analysis called the 'audience test,'" whose goal is to see if ordinary observers, unless they set out to detect the differences between the works, "would regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."</wrap>(([[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 12/08/16.)) + 
-\\ +<wrap lo>**What is Substantial Similarity?** \\ <wrap indent>According to the American Bar Association, in [[:copyright_infringement|copyright infringement]] cases courts traditionally test for substantial similarity using "a subjective, factual analysis called the ‘audience test,'" whose goal is to see if ordinary observers, unless they set out to detect the differences between the works, "would regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."</wrap>(([[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 12/08/16.))   \\ <wrap indent> 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 12/08/16.)) </wrap></wrap> </WRAP> 
-<wrap indent> +
-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 12/08/16.))</wrap></wrap> +
-</WRAP>+
  
 ==== Other Alleged Similarities ==== ==== Other Alleged Similarities ====