Axanar meets legal resistence from CBS

Cor Azer · Dec 31, 2015

Ryujin said:
And yet "Axanar" has former Star Trek actors and people otherwise well known to CBS, from the production side. It's all a little higgledy-piggledy.

Higgledy-piggledy? That's an odd term for 'we know nothing of what, if any, terms were negotiated by two separate groups with CBS/Paramount'. Using your term implies shenanigans, when much more likely is either 1. better negotiators on behalf of Renegades, or 2. extenuating circumstances delaying a public response from CBS re Renegades.

Ryujin · Dec 31, 2015

Cor Azer said:
Higgledy-piggledy? That's an odd term for 'we know nothing of what, if any, terms were negotiated by two separate groups with CBS/Paramount'. Using your term implies shenanigans, when much more likely is either 1. better negotiators on behalf of Renegades, or 2. extenuating circumstances delaying a public response from CBS re Renegades.

Actually what it means is confusion; nothing more, nothing less.

Ryujin · Dec 31, 2015

HardcoreDandDGirl said:
"You shouldn't insult my mother.."
"That other guy insulted your mother"
"I'l get to him, what's your excuse"

seems like "Hey this other person did it is the type of defense that didn't work in kindergarten, let alone in the business world.

Imagine standing before a judge and using this excuse for any other theft... "This other guy robed bank last week" I bet wouldn't cut it...

Except that, in legal terms, there's a thing referred to as 'precedent.' CBS is aware of these other productions and yet has done nothing, until now. There's also the term "implied consent." These are not schoolyard things, and have very much potential to be applied in this situation.

HobbitFan · Dec 31, 2015

Sad to hear that about Axanar.
I thought they were doing a quality production.
I enjoyed what they have released more than the two AbramsTrek movies.

HardcoreDandDGirl · Dec 31, 2015

Ryujin said:
Except that, in legal terms, there's a thing referred to as 'precedent.' CBS is aware of these other productions and yet has done nothing, until now. There's also the term "implied consent." These are not schoolyard things, and have very much potential to be applied in this situation.

it still seems silly both in a court and in this thread... you want to be mad at CBS for saying "Hey you can't make a million dollor movie" but your best argument is "Someone else did...and you may or may not have had a deal with them, and you may or may not have other things stoping you because they did things different...but still grr mad."

Ryujin · Dec 31, 2015

HardcoreDandDGirl said:
it still seems silly both in a court and in this thread... you want to be mad at CBS for saying "Hey you can't make a million dollor movie" but your best argument is "Someone else did...and you may or may not have had a deal with them, and you may or may not have other things stoping you because they did things different...but still grr mad."

Might I remind you that mind reading via the internet has a rather low success rate?

Cor Azer · Dec 31, 2015

Ryujin said:
Actually what it means is confusion; nothing more, nothing less.

Regardless of that (although I admit I've never heard that word before and thought you were going all Tenth/Eleventh Doctor on us with timey-wimey babble

, something being unknown does not equate with confusion.

Ryujin · Dec 31, 2015

Cor Azer said:
Regardless of that (although I admit I've never heard that word before and thought you were going all Tenth/Eleventh Doctor on us with timey-wimey babble , something being unknown does not equate with confusion.

Inconsistency, however, does.

Cor Azer · Dec 31, 2015

Ryujin said:
Except that, in legal terms, there's a thing referred to as 'precedent.' CBS is aware of these other productions and yet has done nothing, until now. There's also the term "implied consent." These are not schoolyard things, and have very much potential to be applied in this situation.

Precedent is set in courts and contracts.

Given that CBS has very deliberately avoided publicly presenting any terms of acceptable use, there is no precedent to be used legally. You cannot use someone's lack of action against them unless they had a duty to act in a timely manner (for which copyright and trademark infringement do not have).

Also, I'm not sure how you're trying to invoke implied consent. By Peters' own admission, CBS didn't offer any specific guidelines as to how they might make things work. To me, that sounds very much like a 'we're not going to give you a green light' that would prevent any thought of implied consent.