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 Motion Objections
The Axanar Motion Objections (to the various Motions in Limine by both parties) have arrived. Fortunately, even though there are a lot of documents, they mostly do not require a lot of analysis. Because we have all read these arguments already. Hence I will not comment much, unless it is something truly of interest. However, as always, if you do not understand something or want me to go over it again, please feel free to contact me and I will endeavor to answer you as quickly as I can.
We will start with defense.
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #8
Again, references to quality go directly to brand confusion and possibly to personal benefit. This one comes with a Grossman declaration and a pair of exhibits. Exhibit A was filed under seal.
And on Page 2, it says:
The professional nature of the Axanar Works includes the fact that Peters
used numerous experienced Star Trek professionals (such as actors, make-up artists
and visual effects personnel) to replicate Star Trek. Peters is contesting that his
works have the same “concept and feel” of Plaintiffs’ works, but the evidence
relating to his use of experienced professionals, including a number of whom were
employed on authorized Star Trek work supports Plaintiffs’ position that the Axanar
Works were intended to copy, and did copy, Plaintiffs’ works, and were intended to
have the same look and feel as the Star Trek works, and did have the same look and
feel as those works.
Mr. Peters made the following statement on the
Indiegogo website for Axanar:
Axanar is the first fully-professional, independent Star Trek film. While
Some may call it a ‘fan film’ as we are not licensed by CBS, Axanar
has professionals working in front and behind the camera, with a fullyprofessional
crew – many of whom have worked on Star Trek itself –
who ensure Axanar will be the quality of Star Trek that all fans want to
This exhibit consists of screenshots from the Indiegogo campaign.
And this exhibit consists of transcribed excerpts from podcasts.
Note: this motion sought to preclude plaintiffs from “referencing the quality of defendants’ works.”
Response to Axanar Defense Motions In Limine to Exclude Evidence #1
And we have yet another Grossman Declaration.
In addition, there are exhibits. Exhibit B was filed under seal.
And in this exhibit, defendant Peters refers to having put about half of his own money into the initial $150,000 budget.
Exhibit C is the same Gossett email as the one in Exhibit B for motion in limine #2, so I won’t reupload it.
In addition, Exhibit D is the same Gossett deposition excerpt as the one in Exhibit C for motion in limine #2, so I won’t reupload it.
This exhibit is of interest as it contains an email exchange between defendant Peters and Terry McIntosh regarding how removing the ‘Star Trek’ name from their Facebook group meant they were behind with likes. Hence, assuming this email chain ends up admitted into evidence, it brings the ‘Star Trek’ name issue front and center.
Finally, the last exhibit consists of a Peters tweet which we have seen before, where he asked for press coverage.
Furthermore, this motion sought to exclude “the use of the ‘Star Trek’ name.”
The following dates are coming up:
- January 9, 2017 Pretrial Conference
- also, by January 24, 2017 parties must file their proposed jury instructions
- January 31, 2017 Trial
And of course the matter can still settle at any time. Therefore I thank you, as always, for your kind support.