SVTStingRay
Sr Member
i hope they come to a settlement........i really liked prelude to axanar and would love to see it finished.
Axanar - Crowdfunded 'Star Trek' Movie Draws Lawsuit from Paramount, CBS
- Thread starter mkstewartesq
- Start date
Sadly at this point even if Paramount and CBS offered them some way to make it work they'd spit in their faces, as much as I don't like Paramount and what they've done to Trek i'm sure they tried to come to some agreement before this considering all the press and support with the fans.
Solo4114
Master Member
It's not gonna happen.
First, if the Axanar folks were going to settle, they would've done it by now. Actually, let me rephrase that. If the Axanar folks wanted any chance to settle, that window has probably closed. Early on, they might have gotten a settlement that said "You shut everything down now, and we agree not to demand that you pay damages and/or attorney's fees." But the Axanar folks, for whatever goofy reason, thought they had a case.
At this point, especially after Paramount has been forced to litigate this idiotic lawsuit, engage in discovery, file motions, AND not win on their Motion to Dismiss, they will be, shall we say....disinclined to offer anything to Axanar. The new "settlement" might be "You shut down production on this and any other infringing activities you have in mind, and pay us this very high dollar amount that will basically financially kill your little production studio and put you in the poorhouse, and we agree not to demand TRIPLE damages AND attorney's fees."
It's possible that a judge will push for a settlement that basically accomplishes the end goals of shutting down Peters' "studio" for all Trek-related productions, and which requires him to pay CBS/Para a decent chunk of cash, but that's basically just avoiding a "raze it to the ground and salt the earth" end result in favor of "loot the town, but don't kill everyone, and leave the burnt-out-husks of houses still standing."
Solo4114
Master Member
I'm admittedly not a litigator, but Paramount could drop the case at any time and just walk away altogether. They won't, though. Not unless a judge is seriously pressuring them to settle, and even then maybe not.
Axanar has basically three points at which it can exit the case. Well, four, technically.
1. They could accept a settlement offer, if one is given.
2. They could win on a motion to dismiss (they didn't).
3. They could win on a motion for summary judgment (they won't).
4. They could win at court (they won't, but it won't get that far anyway because they'll lose on summary judgment).
Axanar has basically three points at which it can exit the case. Well, four, technically.
1. They could accept a settlement offer, if one is given.
2. They could win on a motion to dismiss (they didn't).
3. They could win on a motion for summary judgment (they won't).
4. They could win at court (they won't, but it won't get that far anyway because they'll lose on summary judgment).
asalaw
Master Member
If they're realistic about it, they have to know that their chances of ever seeing anything approaching full payment on their award is what's negligible. When Axanar and Peters file Chapter 7, post-judgment, CBS/Para will have to institute an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court, and ultimately have to wait (again) to show at summary judgment that Axanar and Peters owe a judgment for a willful tort (which is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy). It'd be interesting to see if he still gets pro-bono help for that.
Somebody jog my memory -- can you add economic and punitive damages on top of statutory? I think so, but I can't remember - but that would definitely explain it. Plus the whole crushing-to-dust thing. I suspect they really, really want Peters to be the very last guy who ever tries this.
As for the IT guy, yeah -- I've seen one of his posts. But only briefly. I don't like to linger in FB groups where I need to bring a raincoat and a sponge.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
Somebody jog my memory -- can you add economic and punitive damages on top of statutory? I think so, but I can't remember - but that would definitely explain it.
Not for copyright claims, which is the only claim in the lawsuit. Plaintiff can elect, anytime before judgement, to pick statutory damages or "actual damages plus defendant's profits" - but not both. Similarly, there's no concept of punitive damages per se in the Copyright Act, and copyright infringement isn't a tort (though damages can be increased if the infringement is found to be "willful", which serves a similar punitive function as true "punitive damages" - but you don't get the anomaly you see in, for example, tort cases where the award is "$10 in actual damages and $150 million in punitive damages",)
M
Can Paramount really go after Alec Peters personally?
If he is financially separate from the Axanar corp (or whatever it's called) then he is gambling with other people's money. He and Paramount are battling in court for a pile of crowdfunded money. Peters has no more to lose by refusing to settle than Paramount does.
If he is financially separate from the Axanar corp (or whatever it's called) then he is gambling with other people's money. He and Paramount are battling in court for a pile of crowdfunded money. Peters has no more to lose by refusing to settle than Paramount does.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
Not sure I understand what you are getting at with respect to your second point, but, with respect to your first point, they absolutely can go – and are going – after him personally in the lawsuit because, apart from whatever the corporation did, he is one of the named individual authors on the script that is alleged to infringe copyright. Even if the corporation did not exist, he acted in his individual capacity to write the infringing material and can be sued for that in his individual capacity. Which Paramount did.
M
I didn't realize he was one of the script writers.
He's screwed. All they have to do is prove he was getting any kind of paycheck/royalties/etc for the script.
Peters must be dumber than I thought. Or more delusional.
Yeah, no doubt. There is an industry-wide precedent being set here. The topic of fan-movie IP ownership may not see a courtroom again for decades after this. If I was in charge at one of the other big studios then I would be on the phone with Paramount right now asking "how can we help?"
How funny would it be if Paramount proceeded to make a movie about the Axanar case, painting Peters in a terrible light? Or maybe ripped off & produced the Axanar script themselves, with a few strategic changes to sidestep any rights he might try to claim? There might be a movie in this fight over a movie.
He's screwed. All they have to do is prove he was getting any kind of paycheck/royalties/etc for the script.
Peters must be dumber than I thought. Or more delusional.
Yeah, no doubt. There is an industry-wide precedent being set here. The topic of fan-movie IP ownership may not see a courtroom again for decades after this. If I was in charge at one of the other big studios then I would be on the phone with Paramount right now asking "how can we help?"
How funny would it be if Paramount proceeded to make a movie about the Axanar case, painting Peters in a terrible light? Or maybe ripped off & produced the Axanar script themselves, with a few strategic changes to sidestep any rights he might try to claim? There might be a movie in this fight over a movie.
Last edited:
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
Yes. Actually, he and the Director posted a photo of them sitting with the script, alongside a close-up of the title page with Alec's name and the co-author' name. (BTW- The co-author is Bill Hunt of the Digital Bits website.). Paramount made sure to include that screenshot right there in the middle of their complaint when they filed the lawsuit.
(Funnily enough, even though Bill's name was on the script with Alec, Bill was not named as a defendant. Which just goes to show you that Paramount was really just fed up with Alec and, much like Kirk to Kruge in ST-TSFS, was saying to him "I… have had… enough ... OF YOU!". ) :lol
M
Dessa
Sr Member
I believe what batguy is asking/saying, is if Alec Peters is financially a separate entity from Axanar corp (or whatever). If he's financially separate, than any money that Axanar would have to pay would come from the crowdfunded money/Axanar's pockets, and Peters won't be hurt financially at all. But if he's not (or he's named, as it seems to be, as a separate defendant), than they can go after him personally for money, too.
asalaw
Master Member
Pretty sure they're alleging joint and several liability, which means "financially separate," whatever that means, is irrelevant (and unlikely to be true in any event). That means all defendants are liable for the entire judgment amount. "All for one and one for all," the hard way.
So CBS/PMT can (once the judment order is entered) go after the assets of AP personally, Axanar corporately, or both, at their discretion, till the judgment amount is satisfied. Neither of them is off the hook by any means. Because AP is a named defendant, he can't use the corporation as a shield against liability. No way he walks away from this unscathed. He is headed for financial ruin.
So CBS/PMT can (once the judment order is entered) go after the assets of AP personally, Axanar corporately, or both, at their discretion, till the judgment amount is satisfied. Neither of them is off the hook by any means. Because AP is a named defendant, he can't use the corporation as a shield against liability. No way he walks away from this unscathed. He is headed for financial ruin.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
That's probably the case. He formed a corporation thinking that it would shield him against personal liability (he has a legal degree, and has had some fairly successful businesses in the past) - but just completely brain-farted on the fact that, once he attached his name as an author of an infringing work, that corporate shield would not protect him at all with respect to that particular infringement.
Though he claims that he had no idea the lawsuit was coming down the pike – which I sincerely doubt given that the studios gave strong hints in several articles just a few weeks before – I think that he never in his wildest dreams thought that they would have any legal grounds to sue him in his individual capacity . Unfortunately for him, copyright law works differently than his legal training led him to believe.
M
asalaw
Master Member
I can't imagine any law school training someone so poorly.
When it comes to brain-farting, arrogance is a high-fiber diet.
At least half the other big ST/sci-fi fans on earth knew the lawsuit was coming. That is such a stupid excuse it just damages AP's credibility to float it.
I'm curious to see if he starts looking for a way to reverse gears & bail out or apologize now. That would tell the tale about his true mindset & motivations this whole time.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
This is just my opinion, but I think it's less that he's dumb or delusional, per se, and more that he just...has an agenda.
He's incredibly passionate about telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it. The problem is, the story ain't his to tell. It's CBS/Para's. But I think that -- much like the more blinkered fans -- he just wants it so badly to work in his favor that he basically ignored the law.
So, two things.
First, let's just be clear that we aren't setting any really groundbreaking legal precedent. The issue of fan creations is legally an open-and-shut, blackletter-law matter. Fans have -- let's be clear -- ZERO rights to make their creations, unless they can meet the Fair Use exception. As has been said on this board for as long as I remember, this hobby basically survives because it is both cheaper and not worth the hassle for IP rights-holders to pursue EVERY person who infringes their copyrights, just like it's cheaper and not worth the hassle to pursue EVERY person who downloads a song illegally. (Side note: I have a whole line of argument about why downloading songs can in some cases be perfectly legal, but I'll save that for another time.)
Bottom line: CBS/Para has Peters/Axanar dead to rights, and has from before they filed suit against him. Peters/Axanar never had a leg to stand on, at least not given how they went about making their film.
The precedent that's being set is, as you say, industry precedent. Namely, that studios are a lot more likely now to try to nip fan projects in the bud, at least when it comes to high-production-value projects that could be actual commercial competitors. Obviously, you can still take a camcorder and run around in your yard yelling "pew pew pew!" while wearing red, yellow, and blue shirts T-shirts.
That said, if it hadn't been Peters/Axanar and their immense hubris, I suspect that, eventually, a studio would've gone after a fan film, even without all the additional commercial activity that Axanar engaged in. I think this mostly because of the "democratization" of production tools, like HD/4K cameras, and F/X and editing software. Sooner or later, you'd have seen a fan film that actually would look pretty damn decent, and the studio would say "Ok. That's quite enough."
Yeah, if they can go after him individually for the infringement, then they don't need to pierce the corporate veil. Mostly because there IS no veil to protect him. Even if Peters had formed an LLC or whathaveyou, though, he could still have behaved in a way that would allow them to pierce the corporate veil. It's just that there's no need to determine that, because he was an idiot and called himself an author. So, now they get to nail him AND his business.
I can't imagine any law school training someone so poorly.
When it comes to brain-farting, arrogance is a high-fiber diet.
Eh, I dunno. I've forgotten plenty from law school. There are large swaths of CivPro and CrimPro that I just don't recall, because I'm not a litigator. There's TONS of property law that I don't know about, because I don't do property law. The only reason I remember IP stuff is because it's fascinated me for ages, and because I do a little bit of it in my practice (albeit tangentially). But I don't follow the caselaw developments unless they otherwise overlap with the industry in which I work. So, I can understand where one might brain-fart about something they learned in a single semester some 10+ years ago.
But NOT if knowing that info was essential to their OWN business. If I were, for example, going to open up a restaurant, you can bet your sweet bippy that I'd bone up on the applicable laws, and hire legal counsel to cover things like the property law issues.
That's what makes this so weird. Peters had zero case from day one and he seemed smart/informed enough to know better.
He might as well have broken into somebody's home & stolen their disc player, and then argued in court that he was entitled to it because the owner wasn't using it and he really really wanted it.
I agree that the studios were eventually going to take down a fan film sooner or later. It was bound to happen because it's a matter of time before the fan films' quality becomes high enough to threaten them.
I have a feeling that this kind of fan-movie copyright infringement is going to see even more court time in the future as these popular franchises age. Our modern legal POV is fighting against historically normal human behavior. Until the last 100 years or so people used to be free to put their own spin on pretty much anything & everything in pop culture.
He might as well have broken into somebody's home & stolen their disc player, and then argued in court that he was entitled to it because the owner wasn't using it and he really really wanted it.
I agree that the studios were eventually going to take down a fan film sooner or later. It was bound to happen because it's a matter of time before the fan films' quality becomes high enough to threaten them.
I have a feeling that this kind of fan-movie copyright infringement is going to see even more court time in the future as these popular franchises age. Our modern legal POV is fighting against historically normal human behavior. Until the last 100 years or so people used to be free to put their own spin on pretty much anything & everything in pop culture.
Last edited:
asalaw
Master Member
Fair enough, and I've certainly forgotten a thing or two myself, but I still can't imagine his training being the problem -- at the very least, any trained lawyer should be smart enough to know what he doesn't know, and frakking look up the law before he puts his reputation and financial future under the headsman's axe. That kind of willful ignorance comes not from forgetting much of your education, but from forgetting you ever had one.
Similar threads
