1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 88 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:4146 1 LOEB & LOEB LLP DAVID GROSSMAN (SBN 211326) 2 [email protected] JENNIFER JASON (SBN 274142) 3 [email protected] 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.282.2000 5 Facsimile: 310.282.2200 6 LOEB & LOEB LLP JONATHAN ZAVIN (admitted pro hac vice) 7 [email protected] 345 Park Avenue 8 New York, NY 10154 Telephone: 212.407.4000 9 Facsimile: 212.407.4990 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PARAMOUNT PICTURES 11 CORPORATION and CBS STUDIOS INC. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 PARAMOUNT PICTURES Case No.: 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E CORPORATION, a Delaware 17 corporation; and CBS STUDIOS INC., a Delaware corporation, PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO 18 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 v. 20 Date: December 19, 2016 AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Time: 9:00 a.m. 21 California corporation; ALEC PETERS, Dept.:850 an individual, and DOES 1-20, 22 Defendants. Discovery Cutoff: November 2, 2016 23 Pre-Trial Conference: January 9, 2017 Trial: January 31, 2017 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Loeb & Loeb 100302458 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional 202828-10048 JUDGMENT Corporations Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 88 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:4147 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 4 II. FACTS .........................................................................................................4 5 A. The Axanar Works Are Not A “Fan Film.”.........................................4 6 B. The Axanar Works Are Not “Social Commentary” or “Satire.”..........5 7 C. Defendants Profited From The Axanar Works, And Intended To Compete With Plaintiffs’ Licensed Star Trek Copyrighted 8 Works. ................................................................................................6 9 III. ARGUMENT................................................................................................7 10 A. None Of Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Premature..........................................7 11 B. The Axanar Works Are Substantially Similar To Plaintiffs’ Works. ..............................................................................................10 12 C. Fair Use Has No Application To The Facts Of This Case.................15 13 1. The Purpose and Character of the Use. ...................................15 14 2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work......................................17 15 3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used................18 16 4. The Effect of the Use upon the Potential Market.....................18 17 IV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................20 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Loeb & Loeb 100302458 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY A Limited Liability Partnership i Including Professional 202828-10048 JUDGMENT Corporations Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 88 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:4148 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Anderson v. Stallone, 5 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1989) ................................................................17 6 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)...........................................................................................15 7 8 Castle Rock Entm’t v. Carol Publ’g Grp., 955 F.Supp. 260 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ................................................................17, 18 9 Chase-Riboud v. Dreamworks Inc., 10 987 F.Supp. 1222 (C.D. Cal. 1997)......................................................................9 11 Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 12 94 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 1996)..................................................................................9 13 Danjaq, LLC v. Universal City Studios, 14 LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180264, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P30673 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014).......................................................................................8 15 16 DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015)............................................................................10 17 18 Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997)............................................................................16 19 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 20 499 U.S. 340 (1991)...........................................................................................15 21 Gilbert v. New Line Prods., 22 No. CV 09-02231 RGK, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130675 23 (C.D. Cal. 2009)...................................................................................................9 24 Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985)...........................................................................................18 25 26 Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003)..............................................................................15 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Loeb & Loeb 100302458 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY A Limited Liability Partnership ii Including Professional 202828-10048 JUDGMENT Corporations Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 88 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:4149 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT’D) 2 Page(s) 3 Leadsinger Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008)..............................................................................17 4 5 Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Marc Anthony Cosmetics, Inc., 57 F.Supp.3d 1203, 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................19 6 Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Publ’g Grp., 7 11 F.Supp.2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ....................................................................19 8 Portland Police Assoc. v. Portland, 9 658 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1981)..............................................................................9 10 Pye v. Mitchell, 11 574 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1978)..............................................................................10 12 Salinger v. Colting, 13 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010).................................................................................16 14 Salinger v. Colting, 641 F.Supp.2d 250 (2009)..................................................................................17 15 16 See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1983)................................................................................9 17 Sid & Marty Krofft TV Prods. v. McDonald’s Corp., 18 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977)............................................................................15 19 Smith v. City of Oakland, 20 2007 WL 2288328, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007)............................................20 21 State ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. v. FERC, 22 966 F.2d 1541 (9th Cir. 1992)..............................................................................8 23 Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 24 615 F.Supp. 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)........................................................................9 25 Walt Disney Prods. v. Filmation Assocs., 26 628 F.Supp. 871 (C.D. Cal. 1986)........................................................................8 27 Warner Bros., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983)...............................................................................10 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Loeb & Loeb 100302458 iii DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional 202828-10048 JUDGMENT Corporations Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 88 Filed 11/28/16 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:4150 1 Statutes 2 17 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................................................................................17 3 Other Authorities 4 Nimmer on Copyright, §13.05[A][3] ......................................................................18 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Loeb & Loeb 100302458 iv DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional 202828-10048 JUDGMENT Corporations Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 88 Filed 11/28/16 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:4151 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Defendants Alec Peters and Axanar Productions do not dispute that they 4 created unauthorized works, by copying Plaintiffs’ Star Trek Copyrighted Works, all 5 in aid of their quest to create an “independent Star Trek film.” Defendants have 6 now filed a motion for summary judgment, which is based on arguments that are 7 contradicted by the evidence, and by Defendants’ own pre-lawsuit statements. 8 First, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims are 9 “premature” because, after the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants revised their feature 10 film script (although Defendants do not explain what post-lawsuit revisions were 11 made). Plaintiffs’ claims are not premature. Plaintiffs have sued for copyright 12 infringement based on all of the Axanar Works, which consist of the already 13 completed and released Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar (“Prelude”), the completed 14 and released “Vulcan Scene,” and the Axanar Script, which was completed as part 15 of the full-length Star Trek: Axanar film (together, “the Axanar Works”). All three 16 of these works have been fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and all three are 17 before the Court and may be compared to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. 18 Second,