Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:10566

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

January 3, 2017

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Charles A. Rojas

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

Date

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (DE 72) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 75)

INTRODUCTION

On March 11, 2016, Paramount Pictures Corporation (“Paramount”) and CBS Studios Inc.
(“CBS,” and, together with Paramount, “Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against
Axanar Productions, Inc. and Alec Peters (“Peters,” and, together with Axanar Productions,
“Defendants”). The FAC alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and
vicarious copyright infringement.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability
and injunctive relief, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (collectively “Motions”). For the
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES both Motions.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts are as follows:

Plaintiffs Paramount and CBS own the copyrights to Star Trek motion pictures and television
series, respectively. Star Trek is a popular science fiction franchise. Since debuting it on television in
1966, CBS has produced six Star Trek television series totaling more than 700 episodes. A seventh
series is scheduled to premiere in 2017. Paramount has produced thirteen full-length Star Trek motion
pictures since 1979; the most recent was released in 2016. In addition, Plaintiffs have licensed numerous
Star Trek derivative works (together with the Star Trek television series and the Star Trek motion
pictures, the “Star Trek Copyrighted Works”), including books, games, merchandise, and audio-visual
works such as documentaries. These Star Trek Copyrighted Works have transported the hearts of a
legion of fans to the Star Trek universe.
The original Star Trek television series (“The Original Series”) chronicle the adventures of the
spaceship U.S.S. Enterprise and its crew as they explore space, the final frontier in the twenty-third
century. U.S.S. Enterprise is one spaceship in the Starfleet of United Federation of Planets (the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:10567

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

“Federation”). The Original Series feature humans and fictitious species such as Vulcans and Klingons.
A human character known as Garth of Izar (“Garth”) appear in one episode. As depicted in The Original
Series, Garth is a former starship captain and famous among Starfleet officers for his exploits in the
Battle of Axanar. Planet Axanar seems to be the namesake of Defendant Axanar Productions.
Axanar Productions’ president is Peters, a long-time Star Trek fan. Like many other Star Trek
fans, Peters wants to make his own Star Trek production. However, going where no man has gone
before in producing Star Trek fan films, Defendants sought to make “a professional production” “with a
fully professional crew, many of whom have worked on Star Trek itself” and raised over a million
dollars on crowdsourcing websites Kickstarter and Indiegogo to fund their projects. (Pls.’ Statement
Uncontroverted Facts “Pls.’ SUF” ¶¶ 100, 102, ECF No. 72-1; Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ SUF “Defs.’ Resp.” ¶
83, ECF No. 87-1; Grossman Decl. Exs. CC, DD, ECF No. 72-32, 72-33.) Defendants first raised money
and produced a twenty-one minute film Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar (“Prelude”). Defendants released
Prelude on YouTube to promote and to raise funds for a full-length feature film (the “Axanar Motion
Picture,” and, collectively with Prelude, the “Axanar Works”). In addition to releasing Prelude,
Defendants have completed a script of the Axanar Motion Picture and have filmed and released a scene
(the “Vulcan Scene”) therefrom. The Axanar Works are set in the Star Trek universe twenty-one years
before The Original Series and depict the Battle of Axanar and the exploits of Garth.
III.

JUDICIAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may grant summary judgment only where
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Upon such a showing, the court may grant summary judgment on all or
part of the claim. See id. Facts are “material” only if dispute about them may affect the outcome of the
case under applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A
dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmovant. Id.
To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the movant must show that there are no genuine
issues of material fact as to matters upon which it has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Such showing “must establish beyond controversy every essential
element of” the movant’s claim or affirmative defense. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d
885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). On issues where the movant does not
have the burden of proof at trial, the movant needs to show only that there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmovant’s case. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
To defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmovant may not merely rely on its pleadings or
on conclusory statements. Id. at 324. Nor may the nonmovant merely attack or discredit the movant’s
evidence. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 701 F.2d 95, 97 (9th Cir. 1983). The
nonmovant must affirmatively present specific admissible evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue
of material fact for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:10568

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

“[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, ‘[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be
believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.’” Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861,
1863 (2014) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). The court may not determine credibility of witnesses
or weigh the evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Nonmovant’s “version of any disputed issue of fact . .
. is presumed correct.” Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456 (1992). To
grant summary judgment, the court should find that evidence is “so one-sided that [the movant] must
prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
IV.

DISCUSSION

Both Motions raise two core issues – whether the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the
Star Trek Copyrighted Works, and whether Defendants have a valid fair use defense under the
Copyright Act. The Court will discuss the two core issues after first addressing the jurisdictional issue of
ripeness, and will afterward discuss Plaintiffs’ claims of Defendants’ willful, contributory, and vicarious
infringement, and Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief.
A. The Action with Respect to the Axanar Motion Picture Is Not Premature
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims with respect to the Axanar Motion Picture are premature
because the motion picture is not completed. The Court disagrees.
Defendants’ assertion invokes the judicial doctrine of ripeness. The doctrine is derived from
constitutional limitations on judicial power. Nat’l Park Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803,
808 (2003). “The ripeness doctrine is . . . designed to separate matters that are premature for review
because the injury is speculative and may never occur from those cases that are appropriate for federal
court action. Through avoidance of premature adjudication, the ripeness doctrine prevents courts from
becoming entangled in abstract disagreements.” Ray Charles Found. v. Robinson, 795 F.3d 1109, 1117
(9th Cir. 2015).
Repeating the argument from their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants assert that without the
completed Axanar Motion Picture, the Court cannot make the necessary comparisons to determine
copyright infringement. The Court explained its rejection of this argument in the order denying
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Order Re: Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss 6-7, ECF No. 43.) The Court will not
repeat its rationale here, except to note that evidence of a final shooting script satisfies the judicial
standard for summary judgment. (See Pls.’ Reply Defs.’ Resp. “Pls.’ Reply” ¶ 57, ECF No. 102-1.) The
final shooting script is factually distinguishable from the “screenplay adaptation . . . currently
underway” in Team Angry Filmworks, Inc. v. Geer that Defendants cite to support their argument. 171
F. Supp. 3d 437, 446 (W.D. Pa. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claim against the Axanar
Motion Picture is not based on “abstract disagreements” and is ripe for adjudication. Ray Charles
Found., 795 F.3d at 1117.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:10569

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

B. The Determination of Subjective Substantial Similarity Should Be Left to the Jury
With respect to the first core issue, the Court finds that the Axanar Works have objective
substantial similarity to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. The Court leaves the question of subjective
substantial similarity to the jury.
The goal of the Copyright Act is “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . .”
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994) (quoting U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8).
Under the Act, “the owner of copyright . . . has the exclusive rights . . . to prepare [and to authorize]
derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 106. To establish a copyright
infringement claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of
constituent elements of the work that are original.” Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P.,
462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361
(1991)). Where direct copying is not at issue, “proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that
the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and that the two works are substantially similar.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “‘Substantial similarity’ is not an element of a [copyright
infringement claim]. Rather, it is a doctrine that helps courts adjudicate whether ‘copying of the
constituent elements of the work that are original’ actually occurred when an allegedly infringing work
appropriates elements of an original without reproducing it in toto.” Range Rd. Music, Inc. v. E. Coast
Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2012).
Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiffs have ownership of copyrights to the Star Trek
Copyrighted Works, and that Defendants have access to these Works. Thus, the copyright infringement
claim can live long and prosper if the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek
Copyrighted Works.
In the Ninth Circuit, the substantial similarity analysis involves an objective extrinsic test and a
subjective intrinsic test. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1398
(9th Cir. 1997). The intrinsic test determines whether the “ordinary, reasonable person would find the
total concept and feel of the [two works] to be substantially similar.” Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841,
847 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended on denial of reh’g (Aug. 24, 2004). Sometimes a feeling is all we
humans have to go on. But for substantial similarity, the law demands more. “The extrinsic test
considers whether two works share a [substantial] similarity of ideas and expression as measured by
external, objective criteria” – in a Vulcan-like manner. Id. at 845. For summary judgment, if the court
concludes that the two works are substantially similar under the extrinsic test, the intrinsic test “must be
left to the jury.” Id. at 845; accord Funky Films, 462 F.3d at 1077. If the court does not find substantial
similarity under the extrinsic test, summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate. Swirsky, 376 F.3d
at 845. Thus, the Court will perform the extrinsic test, starting with an analysis of whether Defendants
used copyright protected elements from the Star Trek Copyrighted Works.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:10570

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

1. The Axanar Works Use Copyright-Protected Elements
To perform the extrinsic test, the court dissects the works down to their constituent elements,
filters out and disregards unprotectable elements in the copyrighted work, and compares the protectable
elements with their counterparts in the allegedly infringing work “for proof of copying as measured by
substantial similarity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Funky Films, 462 F.3d at 1077.
The dissecting and filtering steps are necessary because not all expressions in a copyrighted work are
protectable since copyright only protects “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. The two steps
are used “to determine the scope of copyright protection before [the] works are considered as a whole”
in the comparison step. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, 109 F.3d at 1398. Thus, the court should not
overzealously disregard unprotectable elements and “blind [itself] to the expressiveness of their
ensemble.” Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., 704 F.3d 173, 180 (1st Cir. 2013). Indeed, “a
combination of unprotectable elements is eligible for copyright protection . . . if those elements are
numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes
an original work of authorship.” Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2003). The extrinsic test
examines “specific expressive elements[:]the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and
sequence of events in [the] two works” to determine if “articulable similarities” exist. Benay v. Warner
Bros. Entm’t, 607 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2010).
Here, Defendants argue that characters and species used in the Axanar Works are not subject to
copyright protection under Plaintiffs’ copyrights. The Court concludes otherwise at least with respect to
Garth of Izar.
The Ninth Circuit applies “a three-part test for determining whether a character in a . . .
television program . . . is entitled to copyright protection.” DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012, 1021
(9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1390 (2016). “First, the character must generally have physical
as well as conceptual qualities. Second, the character must be sufficiently delineated to be recognizable
as the same character whenever it appears . . . Third, the character must be especially distinctive and
contain some unique elements of expression.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]
stock character such as a magician in standard magician garb” is not distinctive. Id.
Applying the three-part test to Garth of Izar leads to the conclusion that he is entitled to
copyright protection. Garth first appeared in an episode in The Original Series. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 10.) Since
Garth has appeared as a live character, he has physical as well as conceptual qualities. See Towle, 802
F.3d at 1021. As stated above, Garth was a former starship captain and was famous among Starfleet
officers for his exploits in the Battle of Axanar. (Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 25-26.) In fact, his exploits were required
reading at the Starfleet Academy. (Id. ¶ 26.) He charted more planets than any other Starfleet captain.
(Pls.’ Reply ¶ 25.) In the episode, Garth discussed his victory in the Battle of Axanar with Captain Kirk,
the Captain of U.S.S. Enterprise. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 11.) In addition, a 2003 novel, titled Garth of Izar and
copyrighted by Paramount, further developed the character. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 28.) Garth’s identity as a
Federation hero sufficiently delineates him and sets him apart from a stock spaceship officer.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:10571

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

Also prominent in the Axanar Works are two fictional species from the Star Trek Copyrighted
Works: Klingons and Vulcans. Klingons are a militaristic, alien species from the planet Qo’noS. (Id. ¶
15.) They are long-time enemies of the Federation. (Id. ¶ 17.) Klingons have distinctive physical
features including ridged foreheads, dark hair and skin, and upward sloping eyebrows. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Klingon men have facial hair. (Id.) Vulcans are a part of the Federation, a species that suppresses
emotions in favor of logic and reason. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21.) They are advanced technologically. (Id. ¶ 21.)
Vulcans have pointed ears and upswept eyebrows. (Id. ¶ 19.) Vulcan men usually have a bowl-shaped
haircut. (Id. ¶ 20.) Taken together, these characteristics of Klingons and Vulcans are not “elements of
expression[s] that necessarily follow from the idea” behind the expressions (visual expressions, for
example) and may be entitled to copyright protection. Pasillas v. McDonald's Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 443
(9th Cir. 1991).
Additionally, Plaintiffs submit evidence showing several costumes from the Star Trek
Copyrighted Works similar to those Defendants use in the Axanar Works, including a Klingon officer’s
uniform from the motion picture Star Trek VI – The Undiscovered Country. (Van Citters Decl. ¶ 26,
ECF No. 88-70.) This uniform has a gray tunic with shoulder covers and a red neckpiece. Evidence also
shows Vulcan Ambassador Soval’s Asian-style long robe and a drape decorated with Vulcan writing.
(Id. ¶¶ 23, 46.) The artistic aspects of these costumes that “can be identified separately from, and are
capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian purpose of the costumes” may be copyright
protectable. Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1221 (9th Cir.
1997). “[A]rtistic work . . . receives broader protection because of endless variations of expression
available to artist.” Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994). The
combination of artistic visual elements of these uniforms likely contains original expressions protectable
under the Copyright Act.
The evidence also includes settings from the Star Trek Copyrighted Works such as planets
Axanar, Qo’noS, and Vulcan (including a shot of Vulcan from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock);
military spaceships including Klingon battlecruisers, Vulcan ships with an engine ring, and Federation
spaceships with their iconic saucer-shaped hull (e.g., the U.S.S. Enterprise), space travel elements such
as spacedocks, and Vulcan buildings – cathedrals with sword-blade-shaped domes. (Van Citters Decl. ¶¶
34, 36, 48-50, 62; Pls.’ Statement Genuine Issues Opp’n Mot. Summ. J. “Pls.’ SGI” ¶ 112, 129-30, ECF
No. 88-69.) The evidence further describes plot points, sequence of events, and dialogs from the Star
Trek Copyrighted Works such as the Federation, the Klingon Empire, and conflicts between the two in
the Four Years War at the Battle of Axanar (which is also described in a Paramount-licensed game
including a supplement titled Four Years War, (Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 30, 32)), the Vulcan council, the teachings
of Vulcan philosopher Surak, the use of the Federation logo, stardate, transporters and warp drive,
weapons such as phasers and photon torpedoes, and the Klingon language. (Van Citters Decl. ¶¶ 37-41,
52, 55, 58; Pls.’ Reply ¶¶ 58-60, 126.) Finally, the evidence describes mood and theme of the Star Trek
Copyrighted Works as science fiction action adventure, specifically a military space drama. (Van Citters
Decl. ¶ 53; Pls.’ Reply ¶ 81.) All these elements appear in the Axanar Works. Although each of these

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:10572

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

elements may not be individually original and copyright protectable,1 they are “numerous enough and
their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of
authorship,” especially when combined with the costumes and fictional characters and species, examples
of which are described above. Satava, 323 F.3d at 811; see Swirsky, 376 F.3d at 849 (citing Three Boys
Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir.2000)) (citing with approval a finding of substantial
similarity based on the combination of five unprotectable elements).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants use copyright-protected elements in the Axanar
Works.
2. The Works Share Objective Substantial Similarity
Under the extrinsic test, the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted
Works. This conclusion finds strong support in Defendants’ intent for the Axanar Works. “Defendants
expressly set out to create an authentic and independent Star Trek film that [stayed] true to Star Trek
canon down to excruciating details.” (Pls.’ Reply ¶ 152 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Indeed,
Defendants set out to create a motion picture “prequel” to The Original Series. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 75.) To
achieve this goal, Defendants set the Axanar story in the Star Trek universe. Defendants used the Four
Years War supplement “as a bible” in developing the script of Prelude. (Grossman Decl. Ex. I, ECF No.
72-11.) Defendants intentionally use or reference many elements similar to those appeared in the Star
Trek Copyrighted Works, some of which are discussed above in Part IV.B.1. (Pls.’ Reply ¶ 51; Peters
Dep. 46:19-55:6, 82:6-85:12, ECF No. 74-1.) Klingons in the Axanar Works use some of the same
weapons as those in Plaintiffs’ works. (Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 23, 50.) The physical appearances of Klingons and
of Vulcans (including Ambassador Soval) resemble those in Plaintiffs’ works. Id. In fact, the same actor
who played Soval in the Star Trek: Enterprise series reprised his role in Prelude, a fact Defendants
noted in its Kickstarter promotion. 2 (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 23; Grossman Decl. Ex. HHH 4, ECF No. 88-63.) The
U.S.S. Enterprise and Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser from The Original Series each make a short appearance
in Prelude. (Peters Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 90-10.) Star Trek fans love Defendants’ faithfulness to the Star
Trek canon; Peters considers himself “the keeper of faith with fans.” (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 54.) The many
excruciating details Defendants intentionally duplicate from the Star Trek Copyrighted Works surely
contain some “specific details of [prior creators’] rendering of ideas” that are “protectable.” Metcalf v.
Bochco, 294 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2002).

1

Some elements such as U.S.S. Enterprise may be individually copyright protectable under the DC
Comics three-part test. See DC Comics, 802 F.3d at 1024 (holding that the Batmobile is a copyrightprotected character). However, because Plaintiffs’ allegation is that Defendants infringe the Star Trek
Copyrighted Works as a whole, the Court does not undertake an analysis beyond Garth for which
evidence in unredacted records is relatively abundant.
2
The Court notes this fact simply to emphasize the great length to which Defendants went to stay true to
the Star Trek canon. The appearance of the actor is not original to Plaintiffs and is thus not copyright
protectable.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 7 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:10573

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

Defendants argue that the works are not substantially similar because Defendants “create[d] their
own story about the obscure character Garth of Izar and the general events surrounding him.” (Defs.’
Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. Partial Summ. J. “Defs.’ Opp’n” 9, ECF No. 87.) Defendants’ argument fails for two
reasons. First, the Court does not agree that Garth, being a featured character in one television episode,
the title character of one novel, and having appeared in Four Years War, is obscure or lightly sketched.
Cf. Olson v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 855 F.2d 1446, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1988) (calling characters lightly
sketched who are “depicted only by three- or four-line summaries in [a] screenplay, plus whatever
insight into their characters may be derived from their dialogue and action”). Second, Defendants use
many elements from the Star Trek universe in their works, not just Garth of Izar and the general events
surrounding him. See id. (even lightly sketched characters together with other extrinsic test elements
may be enough for a finding of infringement). Indeed, Defendants use and reference so many distinctive
and widely recognized elements from the Star Trek universe that the Axanar Works invoke Star Trek in
the minds of viewers. Together these elements are “qualitatively important” enough for a finding of
substantial similarity, even if they are “relatively small in proportion to the entire work” (which they
arguably are not). Swirsky, 376 F.3d at 852. Defendants’ extensive use of elements from the Star Trek
Copyrighted Works to create a Star Trek prequel can constitute infringement in spite of Defendants’
new story. See TMTV, Corp. v. Mass Prods., Inc., 645 F.3d 464, 470–71 (1st Cir. 2011).
Defendants further argue that the Axanar Works are inspired by many sources. (Defs.’ Opp’n 9.)
Assuming that to be true as the Court must on a summary judgment against Defendants, the argument
still fails. Defendants must obtain permission to use protectable expression from any and all preexisting
sources to which their work bears substantial similarity. Greene v. Ablon, 794 F.3d 133, 158 (1st Cir.
2015).
Finally, Defendants cites Hogan v. DC Comics where the court found no substantial similarity
even though the main character of the two works share many attributes:
both were half-human, half-vampires named Nicholas Gaunt; were young white males
with pale skin, a medium build, dark, tired eyes, and dark, scraggly hair; sought to learn
the truth about their origins, and did so through flashbacks; faced the choice of pursuing
good or evil; were indoctrinated into the forces of evil by killing.
(Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 4 (paraphrasing Hogan, 48 F. Supp. 2d 298, 310-11
(S.D.N.Y. 1999).) Hogan is factually distinguishable from this case, however. The Hogan court found
pronounced differences in the “total look and feel [of the two works], the interactions of the characters
and the plot.” Hogan, 48 F. Supp. 2d at 311. The two main characters are drawn quite differently. Id. at
312. The defendant author independently created the idea of her work, before the plaintiff sent his work
to defendant DC Comics. Id. at 314. For example, the defendant author offered detailed evidence
explaining how and why she chose the name Nicholas Gaunt, supporting her assertion that the shared
name was not a result of copying. Id. at 306-07. Here, Defendants intentionally use elements from the
Star Trek Copyrighted Works to create works that stay true to Star Trek canon down to excruciating
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 8 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:10574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

details. Defendants even touted that “Axanar feels like Star Trek.” (Grossman Decl. Ex. CC, ECF No.
72-32 (emphasis original).) The Hogan finding is inappropriate here.
After reviewing evidence before the Court, including the Axanar Works, the Court is satisfied
that Defendants have achieved their goal of creating authentic Star Trek films and script. The Axanar
Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works, at least under the extrinsic test.3
3. The Jury Will Decide Subjective Substantial Similarity
“The intrinsic test is subjective and asks whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the
total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar.” Three Boys Music Corp., 212 F.3d at
485. The jury, not the court, is ordinarily the reasonable person. There is, however, some uncertainty for
cases involving nonliterary works whether intrinsic test must be left to the jury when the court finds
substantial similarity under the extrinsic test. Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 826 (9th
Cir. 2002). But Plaintiffs do not cite to, and the Court cannot find, any case law in the Ninth Circuit
where the court finds summary judgment for the plaintiff after applying the intrinsic test.4 Thus, the
intrinsic test appears to be “exclusively the province of the jury” in the Ninth Circuit. Funky Films, Inc.,
462 F.3d at 1077. The Court will leave this test to the jury.
C. Defendants Are Not Entitled to a Fair Use Defense
In the event that the jury finds substantial similarity under the intrinsic test and hence copyright
infringement, Defendants nonetheless may be free from liability if they can establish that their copying
falls within fair use. “[F]air use of copyrighted materials [is] necessary to fulfill copyright’s very
purpose, ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . .’” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 575
(quoting U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8). The Copyright Act provides four factors for the determination of
fair use. 17 U.S.C. § 107. “All [four factors must] be explored, and the results weighed together, in light
of the purposes of copyright.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578. The Court analyzes each factor in turn.
1. Purpose and Character of the Infringing Use
The first factor is “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(1). This factor asks
“whether and to what extent the new work is transformative,” in other words, whether the new work
“adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new
expression, meaning, or message,” or merely “supplant[s] the original.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579
(internal quotation marks omitted).
3

The Court reaches this conclusion without resorting to “a lower standard of proof” permissible
“[w]here a high degree of access is shown.” Swirsky, 376 F.3d at 844.
4
The only such case the Court found is from the First Circuit. See TMTV, Corp. v. Mass Prods., Inc.,
345 F. Supp. 2d 196, 213 (D.P.R. 2004), aff’d, 645 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2011).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 9 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:10575

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

Here, Defendants set out to create a motion picture “prequel” to The Original Series. (Pls.’ SUF
¶ 75.) Although Defendants wrote their own scripts for the Axanar Works, they used the Four Years
War supplement “as a bible” in developing the script of Prelude. (Grossman Decl. Ex. I.) The final
shooting script of the Axanar Motion Picture fleshes out the narrative in Prelude and has the same
purpose and character. (See Defs.’ Mot. 4, ECF No. 77-1 (“the Vulcan Scene and the Potential Fan Film
are both intended to build off of the Prelude storyline.”).) Defendants intentionally use or reference
many elements similar to those in the Star Trek Copyrighted Works to stay true to Star Trek canon down
to excruciating details. (Pls.’ Reply ¶¶ 51, 152; Peters Dep. 46:19-55:6, 82:6-85:12.) Viewed as a whole,
the Axanar Works do not have “a further purpose or different character, altering the [Star Trek
Copyrighted Works] with new expression, meaning, or message.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. On the
other hand, Defendants want the Axanar Works to supplant the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. Peters
“was interested in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek.” (Pls.’ Reply ¶ 108.) He wanted
to create “a whole new way that fans can get the content they want, by funding it themselves.” (Pls.’
SUF ¶ 110.) He used “a fully-professional crew – many of whom have worked on Star Trek itself – [to]
ensure Axanar will be the quality of Star Trek that all fans want to see.” (Id. ¶ 100.) The Axanar Works
are not transformative.
But the inquiry does not end here. An integral part of the first factor is determining “whether [the
infringing] use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(1).”
“The crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain
but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the
customary price.” Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985). The
customary price can include licensing fees; id. at 542, Sarl Louis Feraud Int’l v. Viewfinder Inc., 627 F.
Supp. 2d 123, 130 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); and “non-monetary calculable benefits or advantages.” Soc’y of
Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory, 689 F.3d 29, 61 (1st Cir. 2012).
Here, it is undisputed that the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs for a license. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 100.)
It is undisputed that Peters hoped to derive non-monetary benefits, for example, other job opportunities,
from the Axanar Works. (Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 105-06, ECF No. 103-8; Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 106.) Defendants “profit
from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.” Harper & Row, 471
U.S. at 562. The Axanar Works are commercial.
Defendants argue that the Axanar Works are not commercial because they are, and will be,
distributed for free. (Defs.’ Add’l Material Facts (“Defs.’ AMF”) ¶¶ 75-76, 107, ECF No. 87-1.) This
argument is unpersuasive because, even though Defendants do not profit directly from distributing the
works, “common experience suggests that [Defendants] stood to gain at least indirect commercial
benefit from the [viewership] boost which [they] had reason to hope would (and in fact did) result from
the” Axanar Works. Roy Exp. Co. Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, Black Inc., A. G. v. Columbia
Broad. Sys., Inc., 503 F. Supp. 1137, 1144 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff’d sub nom. Roy Exp. Co. Establishment
of Vaduz, Liechtenstein v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 672 F.2d 1095 (2d Cir. 1982) (cited approvingly
by Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562). The successful fundraising campaign leveraging the popularity of
Prelude is an example of such indirect benefit.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 10 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:10576

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

Defendants also argue that the Axanar Works are transformative because they are
mockumentaries5 – fictions presented in a documentary form – a form of parody according to
Wikipedia. (Defs.’ AMF ¶ 74.) For the purposes of copyright law, however, parody must use some
elements of a prior work to create a new work that criticizes the substance or style of the prior work.
Campbell, 510 U.S. at 580. “The parody must target the original, and not just its general style, the genre
of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole.” Id. at 597 (Kennedy, J., concurring). “The threshold
question when fair use is raised in defense of parody is whether a parodic character may reasonably be
perceived.” Id. at 582.
Here, the Court has difficulty discerning from the Axanar Works any criticism of the Star Trek
Copyrighted Works. This is not surprising since Defendants set out to create films that stay faithful to
the Star Trek canon and appeal to Star Trek fans. (Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 54, 100.)
Thus, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
The second factor, “the nature of the copyrighted work,” also weighs in favor of Plaintiffs. 17
U.S.C. § 107(2). This factor includes two aspects: “the extent to which [the copyrighted work] is
creative and whether it is unpublished.” Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1177 (9th Cir.
2012) (citing Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 563-64). Fictional stories and motion pictures tend to be
creative works with original elements. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586.
Here, the Star Trek Copyrighted Works include thirteen motion pictures and six television series
set in a fictional universe. These works have transported the hearts of a legion of fans to the Star Trek
universe. The creativity in these Works and their status as published works are not disputed. They are
the type of works that are given broad copyright protections.
3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
The third factor is “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(3). This factor considers the quantity, quality, and
importance of the materials used. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 587. “As the statutory language indicates,
[copying is not] excused merely because it is insubstantial with respect to the infringing work. As Judge
Learned Hand cogently remarked, ‘no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his
work he did not pirate.’” Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 565 (emphasis original).
Here, Defendants intentionally use elements from the Star Trek Copyrighted Works to create
works that stay true to Star Trek canon down to excruciating details. These elements in Star Trek canon
are important to Star Trek fans and hence to the success of any Star Trek work. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 54.) They
5

The Axanar script is not in a mockumentary form. (See Grossman Decl. Ex. AA, ECF No. 74-9.)

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 11 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:10577

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

are an indispensable part of what makes Star Trek “Star Trek.” While it is difficult to quantify the
amount of the portion used in relation to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works as a whole since “the
portion” involves many recurring elements in the Star Trek universe and the Star Trek Copyrighted
Works are numerous, it is fair to say that elements of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works pervade the
Axanar Works. For example, every scene involving a Klingon or a Vulcan can conjure up Star Trek in
the minds of fans. The same is true of Federation spaceships, Klingon battlecruisers, transporters,
phasers, and so on. The elements from the Star Trek Copyrighted Works that Defendants use are
qualitatively important because they give the Axanar Works the Star Trek feel and enable Defendants to
stay true to the Star Trek canon. Thus, the third factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs as well.
4. Effect of the Use upon the Potential Market
The fourth factor is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(4). This factor “requires courts to consider not only the extent of
market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also whether unrestricted and
widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant would result in a substantially adverse
impact [of market substitution] for the original” and for derivative works. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 587,
590 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “The market for potential derivative uses includes
only those that creators of original works would in general develop or license others to develop.” Id. at
592.
Here, the prequel depicted in the Axanar Works is the kind of potential derivatives Plaintiffs
“would in general develop or license others to develop.” Id. Plaintiffs have already developed a 2003
novel and licensed a role-playing game based at least in part on Garth of Izar and the Battle of Axanar
from one episode of The Original Series. (Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 4, 10, 11, 25-32.) The second Star Trek motion
picture was a derivative work that expanded on another episode of The Original Series. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 82.)
Although the Axanar Works are set twenty-one years before The Original Series, it is not outside the
timeframe for Plaintiffs’ potential derivative work. (Id. ¶ 74.) Indeed, the Star Trek television series to
premiere in 2017 goes back in time and takes place ten years before The Original Series. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.)
Judging by the success of Defendants’ fundraisers, the Axanar Works are the type of work “for which
there [is] a separate demand that [Plaintiffs] may one day seek to exploit.” Ty, Inc. v. Publications Int’l
Ltd., 292 F.3d 512, 519 (7th Cir. 2002). Defendants’ attempt to treat the Battle of Axanar as a private
little war is unpersuasive.
Defendants further argue that there is no evidence that the Axanar Works have acted as market
substitutes to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. (Defs.’ AMF ¶¶ 102-04.) However, this lack of
evidence is understandable given the nature of the existing Axanar Works. Prelude is intended as a
promotional piece to the feature-length Axanar Motion Picture. Prelude in that sense cannot be a market
substitute of Star Trek television series or motion pictures, just as a trailer does not substitute for a
feature-length film. The Axanar Motion Picture has not yet been made or released and its script is not
yet released. Hence it cannot have any market impact. On the other hand, Defendants have successfully
raised over a million dollars from Star Trek fans at Defendants’ prompting of funding the Axanar
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 12 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:10578

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

projects instead of “dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on . . . cable channels” on which
the Star Trek Copyrighted Works are shown. (Id. ¶¶ 83, 110; Pls.’ Reply ¶ 102.) Peters “was interested
in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek” – the way to Eden perhaps. (Pls.’ Reply ¶ 108.)
He wanted to create “a whole new way that fans can get the content they want, by funding it
themselves.” (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 110.) Defendants used “a fully-professional crew – many of whom have
worked on Star Trek itself – [to] ensure Axanar will be the quality of Star Trek that all fans want to see.”
(Id. ¶ 100.) Peters also sought to distribute the Axanar Works on Netflix. (Pls.’ Reply ¶ 104.)
Defendants promoted an August 2015 draft of the script “the best Star Trek movie script ever!” on their
Facebook page. (Grossman Decl. Ex. Z, ECF No. 72-29 (emphasis added).) Under these facts,
Defendants evidently intend for their work to effectively function as a market substitution to the Star
Trek Copyrighted Works. There is little doubt that “unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort
engaged in by [Defendants] would result in a substantially adverse impact [of market substitution] for
the [Star Trek Copyrighted Works].” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 587. The fact that Defendants distributed
Prelude and the Vulcan Scene for free online and intend to likewise distribute their future works may
likely increase the risk of market substitution as fans choose free content over paid features. (Defs.’
AMF ¶¶ 75-76, 107.)
Defendants further argue that the Axanar Works, through their promotional value, actually
increase the sale and visibility of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. (Defs.’ AMF ¶¶ 114-15.) But “the
boon to the [latter] does not make [Defendants’] copying fair.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 591 n.21.
Thus, the Court finds that the fourth factor also weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.
5. Weighing the Four Factors
The Court thus finds that all four fair use factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. If the jury does not
find subjective substantial similarity, Defendants did not infringe and fair use defense is moot. If the jury
finds subjective substantial similarity, the Axanar Works are rightfully considered derivative works of
the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. Rejection of Defendants’ fair use defense is consistent with
copyright’s very purpose because derivatives are “an important economic incentive to the creation of
originals.” Id. at 593.
D. The Determination of Willfulness Must Be Left to the Jury
“To prove ‘willfulness’ under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant
was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were the result of
‘reckless disregard’ for, or ‘willful blindness’ to, the copyright holder’s rights.” Friedman v. Live Nation
Merch., Inc., 833 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016). One “who reasonably and in good faith believes [his
conduct does not constitute copyright infringement], is not ‘willful’. . . .” Evergreen Safety Council v.
RSA Network Inc., 697 F.3d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David
Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04 (Matthew Bender rev. ed. 2012)). “A determination of
willfulness requires an assessment of a defendant’s state of mind. Questions involving a person’s state of
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 13 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:10579

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

mind are generally factual issues inappropriate for resolution by summary judgment.” Friedman, 833
F.3d at 1186 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Here, Star Trek has a long history of fan films that stayed free from copyright disputes. (Lane
Decl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 75-26.) Although Peters repeatedly stated that the Axanar Works were not to be
called fan films, Defendants assert that this statement was made only to distinguish the quality of the
Axanar Works (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 103; Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 103.) Thus, Peters’ belief that the Axanar Works were
noncommercial fan films in light of his understanding from CBS that it would tolerate such films creates
an issue of his state of mind that must be adjudicated by the jury. (See Defs.’ AMF ¶¶ 113, 118.)
Furthermore, before creating the Axanar Works, Peters sent several emails to CBS to report third parties
whom he believed were using Star Trek intellectual property without authorization. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 117.)
Viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant Defendants, Peters’ actions demonstrate a respect
for Plaintiffs’ intellectual property that makes a finding of willfulness on summary judgement
inappropriate.
E. Evidence Supports Peters’ Contributory and Vicarious Infringement
“[O]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes
to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a contributory infringer.” Perfect 10, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1171 (9th Cir. 2007). One who “profits directly from the
infringement and has a right and ability to supervise the direct infringer” is liable for vicarious
infringement. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1032–33 (9th Cir.
2013).
Although the FAC alleges contributory and vicarious infringement against both Defendants,
Plaintiffs’ Motion only asserts these allegations against Peters. (Compare FAC ¶ 56-63 with Pls.’ Mot.
1, 19-20.) Thus, the Court will analyze these claims only with respect to Peters.
As to contributory infringement, Peters’ substantial involvement in, such as writing script for, the
Axanar Works materially contributes to the infringing conduct of Axanar Productions. (See, e.g., Pls.’
SUF ¶¶ 41, 112-14.)
As to vicarious infringement, Peters, as the president of Axanar Productions, was in charge of
and was responsible for its conducts. (Pls.’ SUF ¶ 112-113.) He was responsible for many of the artistic
decisions. (Id. 114.) He supervised and controlled Axanar Productions. (Id. ¶ 115.) Peters also profited
directly from the Axanar Works. (See, e.g., Grossman Decl. Ex. A 189:2-23, ECF No. 74-1.)
Accordingly, the Court finds contributory and vicarious infringement contingent upon the jury’s
finding of subjective substantial similarity.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 14 of 15

 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:10580

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E

Date

Title

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc.

January 3, 2017

F. Grant of Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Is Premature
Because the jury must determine issue of subjective substantial similarity for a finding of
copyright infringement, the Court cannot rule on Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief
at this time. Plaintiffs must motion the Court for such relief if the jury finds subjective substantial
similarity.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion above, the Court DENIES both Motions. The Court finds in favor of
Plaintiffs objective substantial similarity, invalid fair use defense, and Peters’ contributory and vicarious
infringement contingent on jury’s finding. The Court leaves subjective substantial similarity and
willfulness for the jury to determine. Findings of direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright
infringement are contingent upon the jury’s finding of subjective substantial similarity.
To the extent the parties object to any evidence relied on by the Court in this Order, those
objections are overruled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CR

Page 15 of 15