<<

Thursday, March 23, 2017

LAW BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY LAW TECHNOLOGY LAW BUSINESS

RECORDERdaily at www.therecorder.com Beware! Pictures v. Axanar Productions By Joel M. Grossman

ovie and far and actually produce a very TV stu- professional movie funded by dios often crowdsourcing? That is the allow their question raised by the case of fans to Corp. v. engageM in behavior which tech- Axanar Productions, Inc. The nically might violate copyright case has not been fully liti- or trademark law. For exam- gated, but the district court’s ple, the studio which owns the ruling on cross-motions for copyright to Star Wars might summary judgment is both let fans produce a short video amusing and instructive. in which fans dress up as Darth To begin with the basic facts, Vader or Princess Leia, and act plaintiff Paramount Pictures Trek before with no law- out a scene from the . If and CBS own the copyright to suit from Paramount, Axanar the fans post their homemade the shows sought to go “where no man 10 minute video on You Tube, and Paramount owns the copy- has gone before” and produce the studio probably wouldn’t right to the thirteen full-length a professional Star Trek film, mind. They might even encour- movies that followed. While with a fully professional crew, age such amateur tributes, as the copyright owners allowed many of whom worked on one they might keep interest in the fans to make their own ama- or more Star Trek productions. product alive until the next teur films, they sued when, in Axanar raised over a million sequel or prequel hits the mul- their view, Axanar Productions dollars through crowdsourcing tiplex. crossed the line. As the court websites to finance the pro- But what happens if, in a explained, while other Trek- duction. Axanar produced and studio’s view, the fans go too kies have made their own Star publicly released what it called RECORDER

“Star Trek: ,” the court noted many such the conclusion that Paramount in order to raise money to similarities, it denied Para- will most likely prevail and the make the full-length film. At mount’s motion for summary distribution of Axanar’s film this point Paramount sued, judgment, holding that a jury will be enjoined. As the court and each side moved for sum- must ultimately decide the stated: “Here, there is no dis- mary judgment. Paramount issue. At the same time, the pute that [Paramount and CBS] sought a ruling from the court court denied Axanar’s motion have ownership of copyrights to of copyright infringement, seeking a judicial approval of [Star Trek], and that [Axanar]‘s while Axanar sought summary­ its fair use defense. The court works are substantially similar judgment on the defense of fair denied the motion, based on to [Star Trek}. Thus, the copy- use. its application of the fair use right infringement claim can In seeking a ruling of copy- factors. While Axanar argued live long and prosper…” right infringement, Para- that its film is actually a par- mount pointed to Axanar’s ody, or “mockumentary,” of Joel M. Grossman, Esq. use of copyright-protected the original Star Trek, the has been exclusively devoted elements, such as court was not convinced, not- to mediation and arbitration and Vulcans, and the human ing that “Defendants set out since 2004, following his 25-year character Garth of Izar, all of to create films that stay faith- legal career as a litigator, labor whom appeared in the tele- ful to the Star Trek and negotiator, and in-house coun- vision series. In addition, appeal to Star Trek fans.” sel overseeing complex enter- Axanar used phasers, the While neither side won its tainment disputes. He may be logo and even summary judgment motion, reached at jgrossman@jam- the language. While the court’s analysis leads to sadr.com

Reprinted with permission from the March 23, 2017 edition of THE RECORDER © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382 or [email protected]. # 501-04-17-02