Along the way, she has about a decade and a half of data analysis work under her belt and currently works as a blog coordinator for a high-end wedding blog and also as a blogger for hire (topics include diverse subjects like ad retargeting but also the nursing job market), and has a shingle out to work on social media presence, with a focus on independent authors as she is also a published science fiction author. Plus, she has been a community manager for a large Q & A website since 2002, which is before that existed as a job title.
She was raised on Long Island so, when she is riled up, the accent gallops back out and she can sound like Fran Drescher with a law degree. She lives in Boston with her husband of over 20 years and more computers than they need.
She can always be bribed with pie.
Latest posts by Janet Gershen-Siegel (see all)
- Semantic Shenanigans Episode 16 – Wakanda Driving Privileges - May 13, 2018
- Semantic Shenanigans Episode 15 – Coldplay Justice - January 27, 2018
- Indie Writer Woes – Protect Yourselves! - November 17, 2017
Axanar David Grossman Declaration and Exhibits
The David Grossman Declaration was added as a part of the recent Application for an Ex Parte order.
There are a lot of documents here; we’ll get through them together, page by page, okay? This blog post paginates so it won’t load a ton of images every time.
So then on the last page, the remaining requests:
- Monetization of the Axanar works and materials distributed in connection with the Axanar works (they mean, most likely, information about the donor store)
- and the financial document marked as ‘Highly Confidential’
So as always happens, we start with a cover sheet.
First of all, this exhibit consists of a series of emails where defendant Peters reported what he thought were potential infringement issues to the head of CBS Products, John Van Citters. These documents go directly to the heart of the question of whether Peters knowingly infringed.
Furthermore, certainly these documents make a rather convincing case that he knew what infringement was (this all will potentially go to damages).
And the first email is from Peters to Van Citters and asks whether costume shop Anovos can use actors’ images. So I draw your attention to the date: January 30, 2010. Yes, this email precedes the existence of the Axanar works.
So then the following page shows a July 18, 2011 email, again from defendant Peters to Mr. Van Citters. And in this email, defendant Peters uses the term ‘infringement’.
Hence he knew the term.
And on this page we have an email exchange between defendant Peters and Mr. Van Citters; both halves are dated July 18, 2011. Because the placement shows the newer email first (e. g. the response), I will reverse the order for the sake of clarity. As a result, we get the Peters note, where the timestamp reads 2:59 PM, PDT. And Peters wrote:
That is Prop Store of London. They are giving those out at SDCC as advertised on their FB page.
I don’t know if you even care. But stuff like this sets off my legally trained mind (and besides they
are a competitor that needs to get knocked down a peg).
And Van Citters responds thusly (timestamp reads 3:26 PM, PDT):
Do care! Have forwarded to legal for action, hope we can.
Hence for all who have condemned certain persons as being ‘haters’ (a mature and measured pejorative if I ever heard one) might wish to inspect these documents carefully. And if anyone wants a copy, they are more than welcome to hit ‘Contact‘ and request one. I have paid for these documents. Have a copy on me! Yet keep in mind that defendant Peters has never said these are not his emails and/or not his words.
And so I invite all and sundry to draw their own conclusions.
So this page consists of an email dated December 22, 2012, wherein defendant Peters reports on fan production Farragut as selling the music accompanying their fan film.