Axanar - Crowdfunded 'Star Trek' Movie Draws Lawsuit from Paramount, CBS

Well, at the risk of being politically off-topic, and a stuffy finger-wagger, as funny as the above video is intended to be, making light of anything related to Nazis, Hitler and the Holocaust, to me, is a mistake. And no, I'm not Jewish. But we all know of the madness and the legacy... and there's nothing funny surrounding it.
 
Well, at the risk of being politically off-topic, and a stuffy finger-wagger, as funny as the above video is intended to be, making light of anything related to Nazis, Hitler and the Holocaust, to me, is a mistake. And no, I'm not Jewish. But we all know of the madness and the legacy... and there's nothing funny surrounding it.

Fixed it to respect sensitive persons like yourself :thumbsup
 
:lol The Sharks at Paramount should PAY whoever made that! :lol

My Father who was a highly decorated WW-2 vet LOVED Mel Brooks, "The Producers" he would have laughed at this as well!



Before clicking on the spoiler tag, be advised that it contains one of those millions upon millions of Hitler meme videos floating on the net, this particular one made to parody the Axanar situation.

If you are sensitive to these memes, don't click.

If you are not, and want to have a laugh, click away.

Axanar Finds Out...

By Michael Cunningham


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I30yJN-9RT0
 
" And paid my girlfriend to stuff envelopes "..

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA.. :lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well it is just one of the latest to use that material so I highly doubt it will go away anytime soon as it's been popular to parody for a while now.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
 
Sadly, the guys making the fan film overstepped. From reading about it (albeit skimming) it does seem to breach what is considered 'a fan film' and 'fair use'. And while it's a real shame, the owners of the IP are perfectly within their rights to get them to stop.
 
Hey, Aureliano! Long time no speak! (Like, since the early 2000s).

My best guess on the trademark issue is that the most apparent trademark Axanar would be using is "Star Trek", and I remember reading about a year or so ago that, at CBS' request/demand, Axanar dropped all uses of the phrase "Star Trek" from their title and other marketing, which is why it is now simply titled "Axanar". Sure, that doesn't mean that a claim still couldn't be brought on the prior use up to the applicable statute of limitations, but it wouldn't really support one of the things that the current complaint seems to ask for, which is an injunction against an ongoing or imminent infringement. That's my best guess.

Of course, there are still other potential trademark claims arising out of the overall similarity of ship designs etc. on a theory of "trade dress " but there are hoops to be jumped through there because the trade dress is most likely not registered – plaintiff would need to prove not only likelihood of confusion but also that the trade dress had acquired "secondary meaning" (i.e., that when someone looked at this designs they immediately associated them with Star Trek and not just some generic sci-if). Seems like that wouldn't be much of an obstacle but I guess the studio thought, with the low – hanging fruit of the copyright claim, why waste the time and put themselves to the extra burden of additional claims?

M

Good grief! I remember that now. I think we were talking about bootstrapping in the Richard Jewel case in the 11th Circuit COA. How the hell do I remember that?! :)

I think your take is as good as any. Plus they can always amend later. They also might want to make sure they're tolled on their Prelude claims with an eye to adding stuff later, but offhand I don't recall the SOL for federal torts.
 
I have been reading more Facebook posts on their page and it is humorous. They are boasting about getting the "best IP lawyers" to take their case and how they are going to keep fighting this. I cannot fathom what is going through their minds. This is one of those moments in life that can ruin the rest of your life. One wrong decision and they can owe tens of millions of dollars to CBS and lawyers for the rest of their days. Do they think that they can scare CBS into backing down or compromising? The more they resist and act like they have the power, the harder CBS is going to attack and raise the damages claim.

And their best defense: "Fair Use and we are non profit", is complete BS! They made over $1,000,000.00 through Kickstarter, and they have used that money to hire professionals. They all draw paycheck. Sure they are not going to release this and get advertising and ticket sales, but they hope to use this as a springboard for their company and future paying productions. So they are basically using this to profit down the road.
 
Last edited:
I would think the best IP lawyers would be smart enough not to take on this case. :lol
Being non-profit/free does not qualify something as fair use (it doesn't help that people throw the term around a lot these days from only a second-hand understanding of it), and I don't think they'd qualify there. And regardless, I believe the non-profit part is where they've stepped over the line. CBS have been very lenient and forward thinking as far as this new, grey area of crowd funding goes, but they are also very wary of where these funds go, and that nobody is profiting or benefiting off the back of their own IP, which appears to be the case here.
 
Wonder if they'll start a second Kickstarter to pay for the lawyers or just use use the money from this Kickstarter.....

Can you repurpose funds from Kickstarter for ventures other then that which you stated? Would this be considered a cost of business for their production?
 
Can you repurpose funds from Kickstarter for ventures other then that which you stated? Would this be considered a cost of business for their production?

I don't think so. Kickstarter basically works by, I think, charging you either when the project reaches full funding goals, or only once the product is actually delivered. And legal fees for having failed to secure a license to make your clearly infringing product probably doesn't qualify.
 
I don't think so. Kickstarter basically works by, I think, charging you either when the project reaches full funding goals, or only once the product is actually delivered. And legal fees for having failed to secure a license to make your clearly infringing product probably doesn't qualify.

Yeah, I wouldn't think so. And if the project doesn't happen don't they have to refund the $?
 
Wonder if they'll start a second Kickstarter to pay for the lawyers or just use use the money from this Kickstarter.....

It looks like the law firm has agreed to work pro bono ("for the good" a/k/a no charge for fees, client generally remains responsible for expenses like filing fees and other out of pocket costs).

Depending on the state bar rules, lawyers are either required to serve a certain number of pro bono hours per year, or are at least strongly encouraged to do so (I practice in a "strongly encouraged" state), A large law firm (which Winston & Strawn is) taking this on a pro bono basis tells me the rationale is likely either (i) the law firm feels there is some innovative argument to be made for the defense in this case, and the firm is willing to work for free to get the publicity of advancing (and possibly winning on) the argument, as the mere publicity may bring in other business, or (ii) the attorneys feel the matter can be settled quickly (though not necessarily exactly the way Axanar wants - but minimizing liability is itself a victory) and so the law firm will not be giving up too much money to take the matter on and get it settled - especially if the individual attorneys do the work "after hours" and it doesn't cut into their "billable"matters.

M
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top