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

[Apollo]

:lol :lol :lol

 

[MrSouthpaw]

I haven't ignored your prior posts. I am just completely unable to make any sense of them.

"JJ cannot smooth over a lawsuit that hasn't happened yet." Perhaps you do not understand the definition of a license or of infringement. They are interdependent. An infringement is any activity that would, but for the presence of permission, violate the rights of another party. A license is the permission to do the act would otherwise violate rights and consequently also constitutes a promise not to sue for the act. So, in fact, the business of intellectual property is accomplished every day by the granting of the license, which is, using your terminology, exercising the ability to "smooth over a lawsuit that hasn't happened yet". CBS and Paramount had the right to grant-or to withhold- a license to Axanar at the time they were committing the infringing activities. They chose to withhold it, and they specifically made clear that they were not granting any permission. They were on record in late 2015 as stating that they "continue to object" to Axanar. Axanar did not stop its activities and, because they had no license, the studios sued in December 2015 for infringement

Disregarding everything that three attorneys – me, ASAlaw and Solo4114- have told you, simply because you refuse to believe it, doesn't change the FACTS. No matter how much you may want to spin that JJ's statement indicated some sort of permission, the simple fact is that, at the very moment he was making that statement, the studios were still forging forward with their lawsuit. No permission has been granted and every action of the studio demonstrated exactly the opposite, up to and including the very day that the statement was made. And regarding your theory that Axanar somehow believed from this statement that they had been granted this permission, the FACTS again work directly against your theory, because Axanar themselves doubled down in the lawsuit less than 72 hours later by filing a countersuit against the studio – not based on any theory that they had permission but rather, based on exactly the OPPOSITE, that they had NO permission from the studios but that principles of the fair use defense under copyright law entitled them to avoid liability for proceeding without permission.

So, given the studios made it clear at the time of JJ's statement that they were still not giving permission, and Axanar - AFTER hearing JJs statement - took a position in a public filing that they still had no permission from the studios, you really have zero grounds whatsoever to keep insisting that JJ statement actually constituted permission that should exonerate the defendants here, when neither the facts – nor the publicly stated opinions of ANY of the parties involved - support that.

Lastly, if you would bother reading any of the filings in the case, you will see that even Axanar is not claiming that JJ statement has any relevance as to whether there was any sort of permission given to Axanar either before or after the suit. They are pointing to JJ's statements as proof that JJ – as a proxy for the studio – recognizes the value of maintaining goodwill with the fans and the role fans play in keeping Star Trek alive and, therefore, that Axanar and other fan works actually help the studio to publicize Star Trek, rather than causing any financial harm that would support liability for copyright infringement, So, once again, even the defendants don't ascribe to your theory here, and aren't even attempting to make that kind of argument to the court.

One can only wonder why you have chosen to intentionally ignore my - and ASAlaw's and Solo4114's - past posts. And the law. And the facts. And the legal documents.

M

You can't make sense of it because you aren't trying to. You have intentionally ignored my points, and even cut them out of my posts so you could make your argument.

'Axanar can argue that JJ's words signal that a permission was given. It doesn't matter if JJ was authorized to do so or not. The people he is claiming Lin talked to would be authorized."

You cut out the underlined part because it proves my argument is about a current given permission. And it completely voids your attempt at accusing me of arguing that JJ's statements give Axanar permission pre-trial. Which is nothing but a straw-man, because causality.

It's also the reason you cut out this part....
"That is why they need to talk to JJ, and probably Lin too. To determine what went on in that meeting, and why JJ would say it was over. Because realistically, he would only come out and say that if he heard it. And he could only hear it from Lin or whoever Lin talked to."

Because it also reinforces that my argument has nothing to do with a pretrial permission.

Axanar's lawyers are seeking all communication between JJ, Lin, and Paramount concerning fan films and related subjects. So they are definitely trying to probe whether or not a permission was given. They are not just seeking those communications so they can sit there and go "This proves JJ said it for fan relations."

And I completely reject your argument from authority. Being a lawyer doesn't mean any of you are right. Lawyers make mistakes all the time. And Axanar's council, the ones filing these requests, they are lawyers too.

I quoted all your past posts, and responded as well one can to walls-o-text. You are the one cutting my posts and taking my statements out of context so you can make your argument.

 

[batguy]

Mr. Southpaw, with all due respect I am struggling to understand exactly what your viewpoint is.

I address the order of events already by stating that JJ cannot smooth over a lawsuit that hasn't happened yet. Which is a clear admission that JJ's current statement does not give past-permission. And is logically also an argument that the news the lawsuit would be dropped is current "permission".

I get the feeling you regard that last sentence as absolutely crucial. I think you mean that Paramount had decided to give AP permission and JJA's words amounted to the studio having communicated that fact to him in public.


But, so what? It was still long after the infringement took place. The law won't hold Paramount to that decision retroactively (nor should it).


At the time JJA's statement, the studio could have hypothetically bought a giant billboard in the middle of downtown Hollywood declaring that AP was granted permission to do Axanar. It still wouldn't get AP off the hook if the studio's stockholders elected to fire the top brass & get that decision reversed a week after the billboard went up.

Any permission from the studio, public or private, verbal or on paper, would only get AP off the hook if he could prove it had been granted before he infringed. The info we have says the studio did no such thing. Very much the opposite.

 

[mkstewartesq]

You can't make sense of it because you aren't trying to. You have intentionally ignored my points, and even cut them out of my posts so you could make your argument.

'Axanar can argue that JJ's words signal that a permission was given. It doesn't matter if JJ was authorized to do so or not. The people he is claiming Lin talked to would be authorized."

You cut out the underlined part because it proves my argument is about a current given permission. And it completely voids your attempt at accusing me of arguing that JJ's statements give Axanar permission pre-trial. Which is nothing but a straw-man, because causality.

It's also the reason you cut out this part....
"That is why they need to talk to JJ, and probably Lin too. To determine what went on in that meeting, and why JJ would say it was over. Because realistically, he would only come out and say that if he heard it. And he could only hear it from Lin or whoever Lin talked to."

Because it also reinforces that my argument has nothing to do with a pretrial permission.

Axanar's lawyers are seeking all communication between JJ, Lin, and Paramount concerning fan films and related subjects. So they are definitely trying to probe whether or not a permission was given. They are not just seeking those communications so they can sit there and go "This proves JJ said it for fan relations."

And I completely reject your argument from authority. Being a lawyer doesn't mean any of you are right. Lawyers make mistakes all the time. And Axanar's council, the ones filing these requests, they are lawyers too.

I quoted all your past posts, and responded as well one can to walls-o-text. You are the one cutting my posts and taking my statements out of context so you can make your argument.

Okay, I'm about done with you. You throw around the terminology of logical reasoning - "straw man", "causuality", "argument from authority" - but you seem to lack a simple grasp of how to actually apply logic in your arguments. Logical argument must take into account all of the applicable facts and principles at play - it cannot fly in the face of them.

But I will take a moment to address this one point specifically:

It's also the reason you cut out this part....
"That is why they need to talk to JJ, and probably Lin too. To determine what went on in that meeting, and why JJ would say it was over. Because realistically, he would only come out and say that if he heard it. And he could only hear it from Lin or whoever Lin talked to."

Actually, you know why I cut that out? Because I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, as I was certain you had heard of the legal concept of "hearsay" and weren't actually trying to make an argument that Axanar could use JJ's statements about what he heard from someone else to prove permission had been given. Apparently, I was wrong in giving you the benefit of the doubt on this.

So let;s just make it clear: under U.S. evidence law, JJ's statements about what he heard in a meeting (for example, "Justin Lin told me he heard that CBS gave permission" cannot be admitted in a court of law to prove that CBS gave permission. So JJ's testimony on this point would be inadmissible for use in the way you propose.

Of course, that's also an argument based on authority, so you will reject it. But some people cannot be reasoned with. In any event, this all may be moot - the discovery period in this case closed yesterday (November 2) and there is no indication so far that JJ was actually deposed after all.

M

 

[asalaw]

Hi guys.

Just following the thread here, enjoying it.


Im just wondering with this whole debate about Abrams and permissions and such...even though Abrams is a well known and "powerful" director, he doesn't own the rights to the franchise, so doesn't this effectively make him an employee of Paramount/CBS?

Thats the way i would view it, as just a layperson.

So, if someone somehow took him saying something as giving them permission to use IP, wouldn't that be akin to someone claiming that their kit Ford Mustang that they are selling without official Ford licensing is okay because Bill who works on the assembly line said it was okay?

Or is the director/producer/rights holder different than just an employee/employer relationship?

Sorry if my question is stupid.

Not stupid. JJ wouldn't exactly be an employee of the studio, as his relationship is more like a contractor via his company, Bad Reboot. But your question is otherwise correct. He has no authority to grant permission to use the studios' IP, nor would it be reasonable to believe he did as a matter of law and fact.

But as mkstewartesq pointed out, the defendants didn't make that argument anyway. They'd be laughed out of court if they did.

 

[mkstewartesq]

Setting aside your ad hominem arguments against me (see, I can scann my Logic 101 course materials for buzz-words too):

@batguy

Your hearsay counter is void by the fact that I clearly stated that it could be Lin called in to testify about what he heard himself. As a lawyer, I was certain you would be familiar with and perform due diligence concerning prior posts.
.

And, again, you are flat-out 100% wrong if you are claiming that Lin's testimony about "what he heard himself" isn't hearsay or can be used to prove the CBS gave consent. This is the very heart of the prohibition on hearsay - you cannot use "someone told me X" to prove that "X" is true. This is true both in criminal cases ("Bob told me to my face he killed Jane" cannot be admitted or used to prove "Bob killed Jane") and in civil cases ("Bob told me to my face he trespassed on my land" cannot be admitted or used to prove "Bob trespassed on my land.") The same goes here - Justin stating that he was told CBS had given permission (assuming that even happened) is hearsay and so cannot be admitted or used to prove that CBS gave permission. (Which is, again, why the defense - also knowledgeable in the hearsay rule - was not even seeking Justin's or JJ's testimoy for this purpose.)

I can't say I was certain you would be familiar with and perform due diligence concerning that of which you speak, but I confess that I had certainly hoped so - which is why I previously gave you the benefit of the doubt before schooling you on basics of evidence law.

M

 

[mkstewartesq]

Except for that whole irksome threshhold standard of relevance. Simple, really. If you know what you're talking about, which you so hilariously, obviously don't.

And except for the fact that the discovery period has officially closed, meaning no one is able to call for further follow-up depositions or evidence production. And it appears the last day or so of the discovery period was dedicated to deposing Alec Peters a second time to address emails and other information that had not been produced by him (allegedly improperly) prior to his original deposition. So the train has officially left the station on hopes of following any rabbit hole that Lin's or Abrams testimony could've opened.

M

 

[asalaw]

And except for the fact that the discovery period has officially closed, meaning no one is able to call for further follow-up depositions or evidence production. And it appears the last day or so of the discovery period was dedicated to deposing Alec Peters a second time to address emails and other information that had not been produced by him (allegedly improperly) prior to his original deposition. So the train has officially left the station on hopes of following any rabbit hole that Lin's or Abrams testimony could've opened.

M

Yup -- that too. Pesky things, those facts.

But now I'm feeling left out. There was a train going down a rabbit hole, and I missed it? Maaaaan, it's like not getting to go to Grad Night at Disney all over again. Stoopid train schedules.

 

[Solo4114]

I'd just like to point out that the notion of calling in Abrams and/or Lin to testify on the issue of permission was something that I came up with, purely as part of speculation about what possible relevance their testimony might have. I'll confess that I did not think of the issue of "proving lack of damages," although that's pretty shaky ground, too, since, again, their statements != statements by Paramount regarding what it sees as the general value/use of fan films.

So, to (hopefully) wrap these issues up:

- Abrams/Lin's testimony is useless in proving the issue of permission or "detrimental reliance." Their statements are (1) inadmissible as hearsay, (2) irrelevant even if you make it past the hearsay hurdle because they were made AFTER THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED, and (3) irrelevant to show that their statements constituted permission because neither could reasonably have been seen as having the authority to speak for Paramount.

- The permission/detrimental reliance line of thinking was (A) just me spitballing ideas on why the hell you'd depose Abrams or Lin, and (B) never likely to amount to anything anyway because of what I described above.

- Abrams/Lin's testimony is probably useless in terms of proving absence of damages for similar reasons. (1) They can't be viewed as actually speaking on behalf of Paramount themselves. (2) Their testimony as to what someone else might have told them is barred as hearsay to prove the truth of that statement. (3) There's still a huge factual difference between someone's hand-held camcorder/iphone video with kids in blue/red/yellow shirts running around in the forest and yelling "pew pew pew!" and the clearly commercial activity engaged in by Peters & Co., even if you somehow make it past #s 1 and 2.



Legally speaking, this case is an ex-parrot.

 

[mkstewartesq]

Dammit, Dan, where were you fourteen hours ago?

M

 

[asalaw]

- Abrams/Lin's testimony is useless in proving the issue of permission or "detrimental reliance." Their statements are (1) inadmissible as hearsay, (2) irrelevant even if you make it past the hearsay hurdle because they were made AFTER THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED, and (3) irrelevant to show that their statements constituted permission because neither could reasonably have been seen as having the authority to speak for Paramount.

And one more pesky fact. Hearsay is excluded as a general matter because the speaker is not available to be cross-examined, and the various exceptions and exemptions to the hearsay rule have to get around that in one way or another.

But here, there would be no need to have Lin give hearsay testimony about what he heard, if the speaker were available to corroborate Lin's hearsay in the first place, as mrssouthpaw seems to have Googled somewhere. In other words, if the speaker were available to say "I said in a meeting that Axanar could infringe and Mr. Lin was there and overheard me," Lin would never be allowed to give that testimony in the first place. His testimony would be excluded not on grounds of hearsay, but on grounds of relevance, redundancy, and waste of the court's time.

Nor would he be needed to corroborate the speaker's testimony that he, the speaker, said it in the (entirely hypothetical) meeting. There's simply no need to challenge a naked admission by the opposing party (unless the speaker denies having said it), and the plaintiffs would want to impeach his testimony, not corroborate it. So again, Lin is out on grounds other than hearsay.

Of course, grasping that requires an understanding of how evidence law actually works, such as by having a law degree and a bar card, as opposed to merely Googling a few terms here and there to impress your friends at parties.

Now can we get back to that damn train? Does anyone know if there will be actual rabbits involved?

 

[batguy]

@batguy
The studio can grant permission and/or drop the lawsuit at any time and let AP "off the hook". And trying to bring up stockholders organizing to upend the board is too huge a stretch to seriously address.

'Permission' is not really what is given after-the-fact. That is better described as 'forgiveness'.

Even if the studio had decided they did not feel wronged by the violation itself, they were still wronged on principle because they weren't given the choice to decide whether to allow it or not. I'm getting nitpicky with terms but this is exactly the point that you & I are disagreeing on.

The most that AP could have ever gotten from the Lin/JJA information was forgiveness. That kind of forgiveness can be rescinded at any time, legally speaking.


As for the stockholder thing, I did use the word 'hypothetical' when I introduced it.

 

[Solo4114]

Dammit, Dan, where were you fourteen hours ago?

M

Revising a client letter!

 

[asalaw]

Revising a client letter!

How is serving a paying client more important than this? I just don't get you, Dan.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

JJ's [...] relationship is more like a contractor via his company, Bad Reboot.

:lol Cute.

 

[mistymills]

They've pulled the gofundme page to pay for Axanar's studio bills.

 

[asalaw]

They've pulled the gofundme page to pay for Axanar's studio bills.

No doubt they're hidden deep in their underground lair, coiled for action like magical snakes, secretly biding their time until they unleash their real fiendish plans!

ROBIN
​

Holy rope-a-dope, Batman!​

BATMAN
​

Yes, old chum. Diabolically clever.​

 

[mkstewartesq]

They've pulled the gofundme page to pay for Axanar's studio bills.

Let's let that sink in. They raised somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 million dollars (that we know of) and are still taking donations through sales on their "donor store". They've made one 20 minute short and one 3 minute scene (plus a few effects shots). Other than that - not a frame filmed, as the sets are all still unfinished.

Even taking out approximately $165,000 in monthly rents since the lawsuit was filed ($15,000 a month for 11 months)- where the hell did all of that money go? Especially since the GoFundMe's stated purpose was to "KEEP THE LIGHTS ON" (their caps) for the next three months until the trial was over? And we know they've rented out the studio to other productions in that time period - they've posted about it on social media - where did that extra money go as well?

M

 

[batguy]

I don't know where the money is now or where it will end up. But I know the movie won't get made and the donors won't see a dime of it being returned. Count on that.

As long as AP doesn't get any cash (the studio will probably make damn sure of that) then I'm gonna call it a win. The cash will probably get absorbed by legal expenses in one way or another.

I'm a little sorry the donors got burned but not very sorry. If they were paying much attention to the project they could have seen this coming. The guy in charge was known to be greasy and the whole plan was screaming for a court case from day one.

 

[mistymills]

Well some donors HAVE gotten refunds. One was told he can have a refund if he signs an NDA and promises to never talk about Axanar and some others were refunded so they'd be removed from the Kickstarter page and not be able to comment on the page anymore. These people all questioned aspects of the production.

So some people DID but they had to put up a fuss and get banned from the facebook group and stuff first. Quite a few people donated, were added to the facebook donor group, but then banned from it without refunds when they asked questions about the financials.