Judge Says Copyright Case Against Star Trek Fan Film Can 'Live Long' And Possibly 'Prosper'

from the resistance-is-futile dept

Just yesterday we filled you in on the latest in the copyright fight over a professional-level "fan film" in the Star Trek universe, dubbed "Axanar" (along with a short film "Prelude to Axanar.") The makers of that film tried to get the case dismissed, arguing that Paramount Pictures and CBS failed to state an actual claim of copyright infringement. Specifically, they were arguing that Paramount/CBS highlighted a bunch of things related to Star Trek, some of which they may hold a joint copyright over, but failed to state what specific copyright-covered work the Axanar productions were infringing. And, of course, there was a side note in all of this that one of the many things that Paramount and CBS tossed against the wall claiming copyright was the Klingon language itself.

This morning, the court released two short rulings, with the first one dumping the amicus filing over whether or not there was a copyright in the Klingon language. That one was short and sweet and just said that at this stage of the game the court has no reason to explore whether or not languages can be covered by copyright and "therefore, none of the information provided by Amicus is necessary to dispose of the Motion to dismiss."

As for the main show, Judge Gary Klausner also denied the motion to dismiss, saying that Paramount and CBS had certainly presented enough details to state a credible claim of copyright infringement, and the case should move forward. Klausner also did not miss his chance to have a little fun with the PACER entry about his ruling: If you can't read that, the key part states:

Although the Court declines to address whether Plaintiffs' Claims will prosper at this time, the Court does find Plaintiffs' claims will live long enough to survive Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Har har. Can't wait for all the Star Trek references in the eventual ruling, right? But in denying the motion to dismiss, things are pretty straightforward. Basically, Paramount/CBS has at least shown enough to state a copyright claim, and then the case can move forward from there to determine whether that claim is real.

The Court finds the Complaint sufficiently provides Defendants notice of the allegedly infringing elements at issue. For example, Plaintiffs allege that the Starship U.S.S. Enterprise, which first appears in the pilot episodes of The Original Series and is consistently portrayed throughout the franchise’s episodes and films, appears in Defendants’ Prelude to Axanar.... This provides Defendants with notice that their use of the U.S.S. Enterprise is potentially infringing each Star Trek Copyrighted Work in which the U.S.S. Enterprise appears. Further, Plaintiffs allege that Soval, a character first seen in an episode of the Star Trek Enterprise television series and later seen in other Star Trek Copyrighted Works including the 1979 Motion Picture, appears in Defendants’ Prelude to Axanar wearing a copied costume and portraying himself as the same Soval character as in the Star Trek Copyrighted Works.... This provides Defendants with sufficient notice that their use of Soval in the context of Prelude to Axanar is potentially infringing each Star Trek Copyrighted Work in which Soval appears.

The Axanar filmmakers had also argued that because the complaint's claims were all "on information and belief," that was insufficient to state a copyright claim, but again, Judge Klausner rejects that argument:

Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations based on “information and belief” are bolstered by specific facts and many allegations gleaned directly from comparing the works at issue and from Defendants’ public postings on social media. For example, Plaintiffs include a screenshot of Defendants’ Facebook post of a photo of Defendant Peters posing with a “fully revised and locked script.” ... Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement allegations as to the Axanar Motion Picture are based on this script, along with the Vulcan Scene.

As for the big question about whether languages, uniforms, triangular uniform badges, etc. are even subject to copyright in the first place, the judge takes Paramount's argument that when put altogether, there is something protectable:

Defendants contend that non-protectable elements include the following: (1) costumes; (2) geometric shapes (e.g., the Starfleet command insignia); (3) words and short phrases (e.g., the names of planets or races); (4) elements of works derived from nature, the public domain, or third party works (e.g., Vulcans’ appearance with pointy ears or the concept of warp drive); (5) the Klingon language; (6) the mood or theme of “science fiction action adventure”; (7) scenes-a-faire elements (e.g., staples of science fiction such as starships and medals on uniforms); and (8) characters identified by Plaintiffs (e.g., Garth of Izar, Soval, and Robau). The Court finds that Defendants’ argument mischaracterizes the scope of Plaintiffs’ copyright claims.

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. Rather, Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims are based on the Star Trek Copyrighted Works as a whole. The Complaint clearly defines the works at issue (the Star Trek Copyrighted Works), and includes the copyright registration numbers for the motion pictures and the first episode of each television series. 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

A separate question was raised over the fact that the feature length film hasn't even been made. The Axanar folks argued that it was premature to claim copyright infringement, but kind of messed up their own case by announcing on Facebook that the script was "fully revised and locked." The judge basically takes that as an admission that it's written and thus could be infringing:

Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds it plausible that Defendants have completed a final script of the Axanar Motion Picture. The Court will be able to analyze substantial similarity based on the script and the already disseminated Vulcan Scene.

The court also rejects Axanar's assertion that this would be prior restraint, noting that Paramount hasn't even asked for an injunction blocking the making of the fan film:

Finally, Defendants argue that it would be an impermissible prior restraint for the Court to allow Plaintiffs’ claims based on the Axanar Motion Picture to proceed. This argument is unavailing. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for injunctive relief and Defendants are not restrained by the filing of this Complaint. Rather, Defendants are on notice that Plaintiffs allege certain copyright infringement allegations against them. This ruling does not affect Defendants choice to proceed with the production of the Axanar Motion Picture.

That part feels like a bit of a stretch, because obviously this kind of case could serve as significant disincentive to proceed, and lots of courts have found mere barriers to publication of content to be a form of prior restraint. For example, there was a case that once found a tax on paper and ink to represent a First Amendment violation.

However, at this point, the Judge has seen enough to say that the case should move forward and that Paramount/CBS have stated at least enough of a claim to move forward.

Filed Under: axanar, copyright, fan film, klingon, star trek
Companies: axanar productions, cbs, paramount, paramount pictures

The Fight Over Copyrighting Klingon Heats Up, And Gets More Ridiculous

from the are-we-really-fighting-over-this? dept

Last year, we wrote about a somewhat speculative article by Charles Duan from Public Knowledge, connecting the ridiculous result of the Oracle/Google fight on the copyrightability of software APIs, to the idea of trying to claim copyright in a language, with a particular focus on Klingon, the made up language from the Star Trek universe. And, then, of course, back in March, that speculative hypothetical became much more real, when Paramount's lawsuit against a Star Trek fan film did, in fact, argue that Klingon was covered by copyright, and that the fan film violated that copyright.

A bunch of things have happened since then, as this mess careens towards trial, and we wanted to catch you up. First, the lawyers for the fan film, put together by Axanar Productions, challenged many of the claims made by Paramount in its amended complaint, noting that many of the things listed as copyright infringing, clearly were not -- including the language of Klingon.

The Klingon language... itself is an idea or a system, and is not copyrightable. As the Supreme Court held in the context of a system of bookkeeping, although copyright protects the author’s expression of the system, it does not prevent others from using the system. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 101 (1879). The mere allegation that Defendants used the Klingon language, without any allegation that Defendants copied Plaintiffs’ particular expression of that language, is therefore insufficient to state a claim for copyright infringement as to any protected element.

That filing similarly challenged the idea that costumes (such as "gold shirts") or geometric shapes (like "triangular medals on uniforms") were copyrightable. Oh, and also lots of things that clearly predate the Star Trek universe, like the idea of transporters ("have existed in science fiction since 1877") and warp drive ("have existed in science fiction as early as 1945").

Paramount Pictures, not surprisingly, disagreed on all of this, insisting that all of these things absolutely were legitimately covered by copyright. First, it argues (somewhat convincingly...) that the issue is not these individual items, but rather the entire collection of them, creating a "world" that is covered by copyright, and that the fan film is obviously creating a derivative work, which they claim infringes. But then Paramount Pictures decides to attack the claims that these individual things can't be covered by copyright anyway. On the question of copyright in Klingon, they actually argue that Axanar's argument "is absurd."

Language is part of dialogue, which represents one aspect of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works and may be considered (at a later point) in a substantial similarity analysis.... Defendants argue that the Klingon language is not copyrightable because it is a useful system... Again, this issue is not yet before the Court – and certainly is not an issue to be addressed on a motion to dismiss.

Moreover, this argument is absurd, since a language is only useful if it can be used to communicate with people, and there are no Klingons with whom to communicate. The Klingon language is wholly fictitious, original, and copyrightable, and Defendants’ incorporation of that language in their works will be part of the Court’s eventual substantial similarity analysis. Defendants’ use of the Klingon language in their works is simply further evidence of their infringement of Plaintiffs’ characters, since speaking this fictitious language is an aspect of their characters.

And then things got even more fun. A group called the Language Creation Society, represented by Marc Randazza, sought to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, which is well worth reading, in part because the section headings, along with a few key words, are in Klingon. For example, there's this: If you're wondering, the footnotes reveal the translation. The ending of the first paragraph would read as "it lacks reasons." The two words in the latter paragraph are translated as "pathetic" and "arrogant." The pronunciations are also included in the footnotes, but I'll let you explore those yourself. The full brief is worth reading as it lays out, in great detail, why Klingon cannot be covered by copyright. It goes through a bunch of legal reasons, with caselaw citations, and then also points out conceptually just how stupid this is:

To claim copyright in a language is to claim ownership over all possible thoughts and artistic expression that might employ that language. If not ownership, such a claim at least provides some support for the idea that the copyright owner could, at some point, simply pull the plug on any future development in the language. It is a breathtakingly vast legal assertion that encompasses particular expression that the claimed copyright owner, by definition, cannot even conceive of.

The filing also points out how silly the assertion above, by Paramount, that since there are no Klingons to communicate with, it's not a language and therefore is copyrightable:

First, this is a non-sequitur; a process or system need not be “useful” in order to preclude copyright protection, and Plaintiffs provide no authority to the contrary.

But more importantly, this is an insulting assertion. Many humans speak Klingon. The annual qep'a' involves singing and storytelling in Klingon. (See Exhibit 6.) People get married in Klingon. (See Exhibit 10.) Linguist d'Armond Speers even spent three years teaching his infant son to speak Klingon. (See Tara Bannow, “Local company creates Klingon dictionary,” MINNESOTA DAILY (Nov. 17, 2009), attached as Exhibit 12.) Speaking and writing in Klingon is not simply a matter of transposing words from a different language, either; it has an unusual grammatical structure that provides a different connotation than other languages....

And insult aside, Plaintiff’s contention is absurd. A language is not constrained to a given ethnic or racial group. By their logic, Ancient Greek is not “useful” because the Ancient Greeks are no longer with us, and the language has no native speakers, despite it being the original language of some of the seminal literary and philosophical works of the western world. Plaintiffs’ logic would seem to dictate that French is not “useful” if spoken by a native German.

Well, it probably won't surprise you to find out that Paramount Pictures and its pricey lawyers weren't too pleased about Randazza's/Language Creation Society's filing. They've filed an opposition. They argue (perhaps correctly), that the filing comes way too late, but also claim that the issue of the copyright in Klingon is "not before the court."

In its application and amicus brief, LCS is asking the Court for an advisory opinion on whether fictional languages are copyrightable. This is not at issue in the motion to dismiss. At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court will determine whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence of their Star Trek Copyrighted Works and whether Plaintiffs have alleged infringement by the Defendants. The Court has not been asked to perform a substantial similarity analysis at this stage of the proceeding, and especially not to determine the independent copyrightability of the Klingon language (or fictitious languages in general) outside of context of Star Trek works.

Instead, they argue again that Klingon is just one piece of the puzzle that they're using to show that Axanar is an infringing work. But, of course, that makes no sense. Because they were the ones who started this off by claiming that Klingon was covered by its copyright. And if Klingon is not copyrightable, then they can't make use of it as an example of how Axanar is infringing.

Meanwhile, Axanar Productions then hit back at Paramount Pictures in a new filing on Friday, claiming that in its opposition to the Language Creators' brief, it "raised new arguments."

First, while Plaintiffs now argue that the Klingon language is “merely one aspect of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works” and that Defendants’ use of Klingon is “further evidence of their infringement of Plaintiffs’ characters” (Dkt. 38 at 3-4), in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) Plaintiffs do not limit their allegations in this way. In the FAC, Plaintiffs claim ownership over “Klingons” as a race (FAC at 12) and over the appearance of Klingons (FAC at 13-14), and they claim separately to own the “Klingon language” (FAC at 32). In fact, the Klingon language is listed as a “Star Trek Copyrighted Work” according to the chart in the FAC. Id. Plaintiffs are hard-pressed to link their claim to the Klingon language to an actual character when their FAC does not identify a single specific Klingon character, let alone any character they claim Defendants have infringed through using the Klingon language.

They also point out that the question of whether or not Klingon is covered by copyright is pretty important in establishing whether or not Paramount has a legitimate claim:

Indeed, like recipes in a cookbook, while the Klingon Dictionary may be protected from wholesale copying, the individual Klingon words contained therein and expression flowing from the Klingon language system are simply not protected. This Court should decline to allow Plaintiffs to stifle expression in Klingon when this matter can be resolved now as matter of law.

And, yes, it's amazing that a copyright lawsuit has resulted in someone begging the court not to "allow Plaintiffs to stifle expression in Klingon." What a world we live in.

The Axanar filing also accuses Paramount of shifting standards when convenient:

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion claims that substantial similarity analysis is “unnecessary” here. Opp. (Dkt. 31) at 11:7-9. But now, Plaintiffs are reversing course and suddenly claiming that the individual works they alleged in the FAC are just pieces for a broader substantial similarity analysis. Plaintiffs cannot invoke the substantial similarity test only when convenient, and cannot complain about parsing out Plaintiffs’ claim to the Klingon language when their FAC does just that. FAC at 32. Further, the FAC remains unclear about (1) which episodes and films that Plaintiffs claim to own are at issue here (rendering it impossible to even begin to engage in any substantial similarity analysis), and (2) how the Court could engage in a substantial similarity analysis with respect to the Potential Fan Film when it has not yet been made.

Needless to say, there's likely much more to come on all of this, and I imagine that it will continue to be quite entertaining. That said, while the larger issue may seem silly, the underlying issues here are of extreme importance. As in the Oracle/Google case, allowing copyright over something as simple as instructions or the concept of a language, represents a massive expansion of copyright law in a manner that clearly stifles both innovation and expression. We should be quite worried when courts are willing to allow such absurdities.

Filed Under: apis, copyright, fan films, klingon, languages, star trek
Companies: axanar productions, cbs, paramount pictures

Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube

from the funny-how-that-works dept

As you may recall, back in 2007, entertainment giant Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion, arguing that it was nothing more than a piracy site. Of course, Viacom's case faltered, badly, when it was later revealed that over 100 of the videos it listed as infringing had been... uploaded by Viacom employees as part of a marketing strategy. That act alone showed that even Viacom employees recognized the site had "substantial noninfringing uses." After seven years of battling it out in court, the two sides finally settled last year. However, it does seem noteworthy that Paramount Pictures, the major Hollywood movie studio that is owned by Viacom just announced that it had posted over 100 of its own movies for free on YouTube in their entirety.

This is important for a variety of reasons, but most of all it shows that, once again, when legacy entertainment firms learn how to embrace new technologies, rather than sue them, they're better off. Legacy entertainment companies have basically tried to sue or kill every new technological innovation that somehow challenged new business models. They sued over radio, television, VCRs, cable TV, MP3 players, DVRs and internet video. And yet, once they learned how to use each of those, they realized how great these platforms were in helping to distribute, to promote and to monetize their works.

If Viacom had succeeded in its lawsuits and killed off YouTube, would these movies be available for free online today? I think most people would agree the answer is "no way."

This is a big part of the reason why I get concerned about attempts to shut down businesses that some insist are "nothing but piracy sites." The VCR was "nothing but a piracy tool." The MP3 player was "nothing but a piracy tool." Radio was "nothing but a piracy tool." And YouTube was "nothing but a piracy site." And yet... given the chance to grow and to innovate, these services show that they are successful because they're providing a better product. Suing them out of existence takes away opportunities like this, where companies learn that they can benefit from these (often free!) services to better promote, distribute and monetize their own works. It's easy to think that something that is often used for infringing works in the early days is never going to be anything useful or legitimate, but that ignores the history of innovation in this space. Every new innovation originally looked like a piracy tool. Until it no longer did. Perhaps, rather than trying to kill off every new service, Hollywood should take a lesson and realize that maybe it should be figuring out better ways to embrace them early on, rather than many years later.

Filed Under: copyright, free, free movies, innovation, movies, piracy sites, promotion, youtube
Companies: google, paramount pictures, viacom, youtube

Paramount Pictures Thinks A Discussion Of GhostVPN Is Really A Pirate Link To The Movie Ghost

from the dmca-all-the-things!! dept

As you may remember, Viacom once sued YouTube for $1 billion dollars over video clips on the site. Right before the case was set to start, Viacom had to scramble and remove some of the alleged infringements from the complaints, because the company realized that Viacom employees had uploaded the clips as part of their marketing campaign. Suing YouTube over clips that you yourself uploaded is not a good look, and it's a big part of the reason why Viacom's arguments fell flat in court. Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, and it would appear that the "level of care" that the company takes in sending DMCA notices has not improved much over the years.

Torrentfreak has the latest round of ridiculously bad DMCA takedown notices coming from a major Hollywood studio. Whereas in the old days, we'd see takedowns occur based on a single word, it appears that here, Paramount has upgraded its auto-censorbot to use two words. Here it appears that anything that is vaguely associated with a movie, plus the word "utorrent" must automatically be wiped from the internet. Take, for example, this conversation on the utorrent forums about how to configure Cyberghost VPN. It's all pretty innocuous, but Paramount Pictures apparently hired one of these fly-by-night censorship outfits by the name of IP-Echelon to take it down, because clearly any use of the word "Ghost" and "utorrent" must be infringing -- even when "ghost" isn't even written out as a separate word. The Torrentfreak article has a number of similar situations, including one where someone said "imagine that" in a comment, and another where someone used the word "clueless" and Paramount/IP-Echelon insisted they were linking to infringing copies of the movies "Imagine That" and "Clueless." But that's clueless.

And, yes, it's certain that many of the other links in these notices were to actually infringing files. But just because you legitimately take down some links, it doesn't excuse trying to censor perfectly legitimate content.

Filed Under: dmca, forums, takedowns, vpn, words
Companies: ghostvpn, ip-echelon, paramount pictures

It's Not Such A Wonderful Public Domain, As Paramount Plans To Block 'It's A Wonderful Life' Sequel

from the shameful dept

If you spend enough time in copyright circles, you know the story of the copyright on the iconic film It's A Wonderful Life. Due to a filing error in 1974, an attempt to renew the copyright on the film failed, thus putting the film itself into the public domain. This meant that, in the late 1970s and 1980s, the film was shown on various TV networks every holiday time -- cementing its reputation. While the film had won a few awards when it was released, it had been a box office flop. It was only the regular showings on TV, thanks to its public domain status, that really gave the film the reputation it has today. Except... the movie itself is based on a short story, called "The Greatest Gift." That story has remained under copyright. In 1993, the copyright holder of that story at the time suddenly announced that since the film was a derivative work of the story, it remained under copyright as such a derivative work. In 1998, Paramount bought the company that held the copyright, and thus, today it claims that it holds the copyright on the film -- though, really only the copyright on the underlying story that the film is based on.

Still, many people recognize (or remember) that the film itself is supposedly in the public domain, and some of them had recently put together a plan to make a sequel, which would even star actress Karolyn Grimes, who played the little girl ("every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings!") in the original film. Except... Paramount has done what Paramount does, and said that no such sequel can be made without a license. So, basically, this film that became so popular because of its public domain status has had that status robbed.

In theory, you can see how a filmmaker could try to tip toe around this issue, by making sure that none of the copyright-covered elements from the original story are then included in the sequel, but it would probably be almost impossible to pull that off in any reasonable way. While I recognize that this is mixing up iconic holiday stories, shame on Paramount for being such a Scrooge, stomping out the public domain and stifling creative endeavors.

Filed Under: derivative works, it's a wonderful life, public domain, sequels
Companies: paramount pictures, viacom

Did Hollywood Not Use Available DMCA Tools Just To Pretend It Needed SOPA?

from the transparency's-a-bitch dept

The more you dig into Google's new copyright transparency reports the more eye-catching info you find. Julian Sanchez, for example, has noticed the rather interesting timing of massive explosions in Hollywood studios using Google's DMCA takedown system for search... in correlation with key elements of the fight to get SOPA passed. For example, there's a really big spike in DMCA takedowns for search the week of November 14th.

Hmmm... what happened that week? Oh, that's right: the House Judiciary Committee hearings about SOPA, where part of the "evidence" for why SOPA was needed was the MPAA's anti-piracy boss Michael O'Leary insisting that doing Google searches on certain movies led you to links to pages where you could download unauthorized copies. He was wrong, actually -- as our own tests showed, they took you to legal versions. But isn't it interesting to see that, for example, the very first search takedown that Lionsgate sent to Google happened on November 15th? Similarly, it's interesting to see that right after the SOPA blackouts made it clear that SOPA was going to die... there's another new "burst" of takedown filings. Twentieth Century Fox appears not to have used the system at all until January 30th of this year -- or a week or so after SOPA was officially declared dead. How about Paramount Pictures, one of the more vocal supporters of SOPA? It filed just one search takedown prior to the whole SOPA debate. But about a month after SOPA was declared dead, suddenly Paramount started using the tool. NBC Universal certainly had been a regular user of the system all along -- but right after SOPA died, its usage clearly trended upwards -- whereas prior to that, its usage looked pretty flat.

In other words, you could certainly make a reasonable case that the studios went to Congress to complain about how they couldn't get rid of search results they don't like from Google... when they hadn't even tried to use the tools available which appear to do the job they wanted.

There certainly may be other factors, but it's possible that the studios had been holding back on using the tools as a way of providing extra "evidence" of a problem that had to be addressed by law. Again, as Sanchez points out:

How about before you break the Internet, you try USING THE F***ING TOOLS YOU ALREADY HAVE?

A reasonable question, but don't expect a reasonable answer.

Filed Under: dmca, hollywood, house judiciary committee, michael o'leary, sopa
Companies: google, lionsgate, mpaa, nbc universal, paramount pictures, twentieth century fox