no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revisionLast revision | |||
— | defense_summary-filing [2016/12/14 13:37] – Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | <WRAP rightalign> | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | <wrap lo>< | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | ====== Axanar Wants Summary Judgment, Says Studios ’Squashing Creativity’ ====== | ||
+ | {{TOC}} | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | //**__ __**// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs Cite Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In their own motion for [[summary judgment]], also filed November 16, 2016, attorneys for //Axanar// producer [[Alec Peters]] produced evidence to support their longtime contentions that: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The copyright [[lawsuit]] brought by Star Trek's owners, [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount Pictures]], is premature since //Axanar// has yet to be produced and is a " | ||
+ | * None of Axanar' | ||
+ | * Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Squashing Creativity ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Winston & Strawn]] attorney [[Erin Ranahan]] portrayed the case as an attempt by two large corporations to " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ranahan' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | === 'Many Scripts' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense claimed that because //Axanar// remained unproduced it shouldn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Defendants created the Vulcan Scene as well as a “final and locked script,” the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims based on the Axanar Motion Picture are ripe for adjudication.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner’s Order to Deny Motion to Dismiss, p. 7 §D, “Plaintiffs’ claims are not premature, | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Rewrites Address Judge' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ranahan answered that line of thinking by emphasizing the //Axanar// screenplay wasn't truly " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Hence the new motion' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Many scripts have been created since the unfinished August 2015 script, all using varying degrees of the Star Trek universe. … Defendants are not currently committed to using any of the existing scripts in the Potential Fan Film, and have not decided what format, length and substance the Potential Fan Film will take, though they are considering making more mockumentary style works [like //Prelude to Axanar// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ranahan went on to assert that the true fluid nature of // | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Substantial Similarity ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense motion goes on to assert, "None of Defendants’ works are substantially similar to plaintiffs’ | ||
+ | works." | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round info 60%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo>In the United States, the French term **[[wp> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ranahan argued for " | ||
+ | nature; the Klingon language; Scènes à Faire; most specific characters; and the general costuming and appearance of, or shapes affiliated with [Star Trek] characters." | ||
+ | |||
+ | That same argument was part of the defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > When viewed in a vacuum, each of these elements may not individually be protectable by copyright. Plaintiffs, however, do not seek to enforce their copyright in each of these elements individually. … The Court finds it unnecessary to analyze whether the allegedly non-protectable elements of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works are eligible for copyright protection because Plaintiff describes these elements in the Complaint solely in an effort to demonstrate how the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner’s Order to Deny Motion to Dismiss, p. 6 §C, “Non-copyrightable elements, | ||
+ | |||
+ | As noted above, even performing the analysis cannot be done until the script is truly finalized, Ranahan claimed. That raised the question of whether CBS and Paramount had to purposefully allow infringement to occur — for which they' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | //**__« None of Plaintiffs’ [Star Trek] works in this action are substantially similar to Defendants’ works. »__**// — //Axanar attorney Erin Ranahan// | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | ==== Fair Use ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Like the [[summary_motions_filed# | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Financial Harm === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ranahan lead the analysis with the claim Axanar posed no financial harm to Star Trek, and that was central to determining Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > In assessing the market impact factor of the fair use analysis, courts have held that where “the allegedly infringing use does not substitute for the original and serves a ‘different market function, | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Purpose and Character of the Work. === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ranahan examined whether the Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The motion described //Prelude// as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Although it is unclear whether Defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar Works, realizing a profit is irrelevant to this analysis. The Court can easily infer that by raising $1 million to produce the Axanar Works and disseminating the Axanar Works on Youtube.com, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Indeed, the defense motion repeatedly used the word ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Transformative === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ranahan asserted that // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Dismissing Star Trek as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Nature of the Copyright Work === | ||
+ | |||
+ | On this final factor, the defense asserted that since Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Timetable for Motion ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Keywords** {{tag> |