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 8 – Philosophical Comics - April 27, 2017
- Elvis is Everywhere? Of Cosplay and Impersonations - April 19, 2017
- Semantic Shenanigans Episode 6 – Space, the Final Reality - February 22, 2017
Axanar Defense Declarations and Leave to File Document under Seal
The defense declarations and the leave to file document under seal exist in the court system as separate documents. However, I combined them here, for clarity and brevity’s sake. Because we have all read way too much about this stuff already!
Bill Hunt Declaration
First of all, this document is heavily redacted. Hence, there’s nearly nothing to see here.
Erin Ranahan Declaration
In addition, this declaration exists mainly to cover the attached exhibits.
First of all, the following exhibits are filed under seal and unavailable: exhibit C and exhibit F.
In addition, this document consists of plaintiff CBS’s response to defense’s first request for production.
Furthermore, this document consists of plaintiff Paramount’s response to defense’s first request for production.
In addition, this exhibit consists of a few pages of witness Robert Meyer Burnett’s deposition testimony. It covers the cameo appearance of the starship Enterprise in Prelude (and as scripted for the as-yet unmade full-length feature film).
Furthermore, this exhibit consists of pages from witness Christian Gossett’s deposition testimony. And on page 7:
Q. Okay. Do you think Prelude to Axanar
benefited CBS or Paramount in any way?
Q. And why not?
A. Because of simple mathematics. The elements
of scale regarding a global branded piece of
entertainment compared to that of a fan film are
incomparable. One is irrelevant compared to that.
Because this email exchange between lead counsel for both defense and plaintiff concerns motion practice, I’ll submit it without comment. However, you might want to download it. Because, reasons.
Finally, although the relevance is specious at best and the source has major issues, we have the Wikipedia definition of the term ‘mockumentary’.
I can’t even.
Alec Peters Declaration
First of all, on page 2, Peters states:
My legal training and subsequent research into copyright issues furthered
my understanding that using more obscure characters (as opposed to central Star Trek
characters) and infusing originality (as opposed to replicating prior works), including
through style and incorporating alternate sources, would weigh against infringement,
and/or in favor of fair use.
In addition, after stating no profit was intended, on page 6, he adds:
Beginning in 2015, I had concerns and personal disagreements with both
Christian Gossett and Terry McIntosh that caused them to disassociate with Axanar
Productions and Axanar. Both Mr. Gossett and Mr. McIntosh strongly dislike me and
would like to bring me and Axanar down, which has been demonstrated extensively
through social media and other interviews.
First of all, the following exhibits are under seal: 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, and 16.
First of all, this exhibit consists of an email exchange between Peters and Liz Kalodner
In addition, this exhibit consists of a Facebook post about a proposal for a fan film convention.
While this exhibit includes Exhibit 4, it also has a comment from Marian Cordry where she writes:
And the Fan Film bandwagon just keeps rolling on … .. .
Furthermore, this exhibit consists of a press release written by Mike Bawden regarding defendant Peters working with James Cawley on a Garth of Izar vignette.
In addition, this exhibit consists of a Facebook post by an unknown person on the Axanar FB group, regarding copyright. And the response from Axanar is dated August 12 (probably of 2015, but that cannot be confirmed from the provided documentation).
So then this exhibit consists of Facebook (?) posts regarding a planned book. Furthermore, Peters refers to his and Ms. Kingsbury’s convention involvement as being at a particular level because they are (as he states) ‘professionals’.
In addition, this exhibit consists of a blog post from the Axanar site regarding their relationship with the plaintiffs.
Furthermore, this exhibit consists of auction information, including a statement that 10% of the proceeds were earmarked for Axanar.
In addition, this exhibit consists of a Facebook post by Axanar (but specifically posted by Jonathan Lane) alleging New Voyages was the first professional fan film.
Finally, this exhibit consists of a Facebook exchange where fans complain about plaintiffs’ action.
And, inadvertently, seem to indicate they might be less inclined to purchase plaintiffs’ products.
Which would kind of help prove the plaintiffs’ damages, yes?
Leave to File Document Under Seal
Because this document is essentially technical in nature, I won’t post it. However, if you want a copy, feel free to send me a note via the Contact page, thanks. Furthermore, most of the exhibits are under seal; hence I’ll just comment on what I can.
Objections to John Van Citters’s Statement
Essentially, this exhibit consists of objections to John Van Citters as a potential expert for plaintiffs.
Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Facts
Because this document is really similar to the Defense Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Uncontrovertible Facts, I won’t repeat myself here.
Finally, for November 29, 2016, defense filed an objection to plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Hence that comes up next. Because I want to keep these blog posts short. So please stay tuned!