PeterDavid.net

I too hope they are settled quickly

I can't actually find where Harlan talks about it on his website (is his website actually www.harlanellison.com?). Can any helpful poster put up a link? My first reaction was "Isn't his work for Paramount work-for-hire...?"...but there must be more to the story, and I'm no legal mind, and I'd like to see his own words first.

Ah ha. I just actually noted PAD did not actually say Harlan was talking about it on his website, just that readers of his website probably are aware of it. Distinction taken.

Amen to that.

I'm sorry, Peter, because I know he's your friend, but this is just pure douche-baggery.

Bully, I think this might pointyou in the right direction:
http://harlanellison.com/heboard/unca.htm?beg=145&num=25

Hope that works. You'll have to scroll down to the header'The Next Big Battle' but at least you'll get the primary source rather than a secondhand version. I should have mentioned it when I chimed in about this on another thread (apologies, Peter), but I think I was simply responding to something somebody else said at the time.

I have a sneaking suspicion this is gonna cause Strange New Worlds no end of grief...SNW submissions are restricted to canon (So, among other things, no NF stories) partly because of the copyright issues of non-canon characters...but there have been a fairly good amount of prizewinning submissions (including at least two grand prize winners) that utilize the events of "City". It would be a shame if we couldn't use the events of "City" in stories, either...

In terms of SNW, just because they (We? Currently working on a DS9 story meself) wouldn't be able to use anything from City doesn't mean that there isn't some OTHER time travel technique to be used, if it works for the story. Writers have been finding ways around obstacles in stories for a very long time. Half of my fun in writing something comes from putting my people in pickles and then trying to get them OUT.

That's just nonsense

Ellison has no legal claim whatsoever to the CotEoF script as it aired on television. All he owns is the original script.
And the Crucible books are only based on the final episode

It all comes down to the contract that Harlan Ellison signed way back when. It's hard to imagine they gave him one that allowed him to keep control of the characters and events created for story...but then again, to get a famous writer's story they may well have done things that were not typical. So who knows?

The only significance of PAD's situation would be that A-He got permission, which bolsters Mr. Ellison's case and B-If Pocket Books was unaware of this it would bolster THEIR case. They could argue that Ellison did not protect his supposed coyright in any real sense of the word.

The whole thing might have been avoided if they'd had the smarts and common decency to give him a big credit on the cover. It might have eevn boosted sales.

Something like this has come up before and it went against the author. Jerome Bixby created the STAR TREK Mirror universe in a 1967 episode. When DEEP SPACE NINE revived the Mirror universe on an episode 25 years later, he tried to get royalties but his claim was turned down because Paramount owned all rights to what he'd created.

They could argue that Ellison did not protect his supposed coyright in any real sense of the word.

I would imagine that, if Ellison actually has a case, then this will be one of Pocket's biggest defenses, because this trilogy is only the latest to use stuff from that episode of TOS, and Ellison has apparently never thrown a shit fit before over it.

Yeah, and when the final DS9 mirror story aired, Bixby died something like two weeks later. That's not really precedent we want to follow.

TWL

abc, I'm curious: have you actually seen the agreement Harlan Ellison signed with Paramount? If so, it's awfully irresponsible of you to be commenting on pending litigation. If not, then how do you know what rights Ellison does or does not retain with respect to "The City on the Edge of Forever?"

Steve, regarding your allegations of "douche-baggery," remember that we live in a capitalist system. Ellison created something of value, so much so that Paramount is still profiting from it to this day. Ellison believes he is legally entitled to: a.) control what is done with that which he created, and b.) receive compensation for its use. He is pursuing his claim through the courts, which is the appropriate venue. That doesn't sound very "douche-baggy" to me.

It's standard practise in the american television industry.
The authors don't own anything they are writing for TV shows.
If Ellison wanted any creative control over it, he should have written an original book

Don't you think Pocket Books would have been aware of the situation and negogiated something if he had any real claim?

And yeah, it's douche-baggery that he's throwing a fit over it now, but not over any previous uses of the Guardian of Forever. "Imzadi" isn't the only other case

"I'm sorry, Peter, because I know he's your friend, but this is just pure douche-baggery."

I appreciate your concern over my feelngs. Now...do you have any concern with actually knowing what you're talking about? I mean, if you're a Paramount lawyer, or a WGA lawyer, or a Pocket Books staffer, or someone who has some sort of first person knowledge of the agreements involved, then I would very much like to know the details of your information. If, on the other hand, you're just spouting off, okay, but your opinion is based on absolutely nothing and THAT might actually be worth apologizing for.

PAD

// That's just nonsense

Ellison has no legal claim whatsoever to the CotEoF script as it aired on television. All he owns is the original script.
And the Crucible books are only based on the final episode //

Ellison and Paramount/Pocket (or thier respective lawyers) obviously disagree on this point. Which way the law falls is of course yet to be determined.

What I find curious is why this is only coming up now, Edith Keebler and the Gardian have appeared in other Trek licensed material, aside from PAD's own Trek work there are a few other Trek novels where they appear, (Yesterday's Son and it's sequal come to mind), the guardian also appeared in one of the animated shows, (one of the watchable episodes of the animated shows), and made a few appearances in the comics back when DC had the lisence. There's also been toys, models and X-Mas tree ornimates of the gardian.

I doubt these escaped HE's notice. (Espcially since there was a picture of him standing next to the model in a TV guide a decade of so back). Did he approve and get paid for those uses and not this one? If he didn't get paid, give permission, or complain about those uses, you can be sure that Paramount and Pocket Books legal teams will use that fact against him.

James Van Hise mentions Jerome Bixby and the Mirror Universe. In that situation, Bixby's loss had more to do with the way the WGA factored royalties--the Mirror Universe was a concept, not a character, and thus not something he could claim royalties for. On the flipside, Ted Sturgeon's estate would have received royalties for T'Pau had she been a regular character on Star Trek: Enterprise (as had been planned), which led the producers to simply rename the character T'Pol. Same character, different name, no royalty payments.

I can, however, think of a situation that's a bit more applicable--Norman Spinrad's complaints over Wildstorm's Planet Killer miniseries, which pit the Voyager against the Doomsday Machine. Spinrad was quoted at the time as saying he felt this was a theft of his intellectual creation, but there was nothing he could do as he had no ownership of the Doomsday Machine and Paramount did.

If Ellison's contract with Norway Productions and Desilu were different than Spinrad's contract for "The Doomsday Machine," then Ellison may have a case. But why would Ellison have had a different contract?

Whatever happens, it will be interesting.

abc, you are in essence using the "everyone just knows" argument, which is, in fact, a very poor argument, because "everyone" doesn't "just know." There are always exceptions.

Again, unless you've seen the contracts involved, and know enough about the legalese to properly interpret them, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

I have this odd notion that the courts will hammer it out, and that you and I won't have an influence on those proceedings. But that's just me.

Copyright and Trademark are two completely different things. If you don't fight every abuse of trademark, you can lose your trademark. Which is why if you buy a copy of Writers Digest (or other similar magazines) you will see several ads in each issue from companies (such as Kimberly Clark) reminding writers to use a trademark symbol after their product names (such as Kleenex).

However, this is not the case with copyright. You can pick and choose your battles. Harlan not suing over a copyright violation in one instance, can sue over a copyright violation in another instance. It shouldn't have any effect on his chances in court. Which is one reason most authors will ignore fan fiction. It's just as much a violation of copyright as commercial use, but they know they will be able to fight future abuses when it really matters.

PAD has stated in the past, I believe, that one reason we will never see Captain Calhoun on the small or large screen is because Paramount is unlikely to desire paying him for the rights. So from this I deduce it's not unheard of for creators to retain the rights for the use of characters.

Beyond this, I know nothing about the facts of the case.

James Van Hise mentions Jerome Bixby and the Mirror Universe. In that situation, Bixby's loss had more to do with the way the WGA factored royalties--the Mirror Universe was a concept, not a character, and thus not something he could claim royalties for.

I can, however, think of a situation that's a bit more applicable--Norman Spinrad's complaints over Wildstorm's Planet Killer miniseries, which pit the Voyager against the Doomsday Machine.

But why would Ellison have had a different contract?

I know nothing about the contracts, but, does this make sense:

Mirror Universe: Concept
Doomsday Machine: Concept
Edith Keeler: Character

It makes sense to me. But I know nothing about the contracts. I'm taking the above poster's word for it that some contracts have specified a difference between characters and concepts.

...Edith Keebler...

No, it's Spock who had the pointy ears. And I'm pretty sure there were no cookies in COTEOF.

Reasonable questions all, none of which I've discussed with Harlan for the obvious reason that he can't talk about it. If I had to take a guess--and that's all it is--perhaps it has to do with the notion that images of the Guardian (such as toys and models) aren't covered by any agreements because they don't involve creative use of the characters or creations in "City." They're just licensed images. You also don't know *when* agreements were made, or what they contained. What if--for instance--Harlan had an agreement with Paramount that basically said the rights of the original characters reverted to him after--say--twenty years? Or thirty years? Wouldn't that explain why something was not actionable at one point, but actionable later on?

It's not unprecedented. Consider the case of Peggy Lee. Of all the people who wrote or sang songs for Disney, only Peggy Lee was crafty enough to put together a deal in the 1950s that got her big bucks for her "Lady and the Tramp" contribution decades later. Her contract was written so that she argued--successfully--that Disney didn't have the right to use her songs in the home video market release, even though that market didn't exist back in the 1950s.

Anything is possible, is all I'm saying.

PAD

// way back in the day when I first came up with the plot, I called him and asked permission. He gave me the okay, I wrote the book, and dedicated it to him. //

This brings up a question about working on material you didn't create and don't own, that I'm curious how you feel about. Obviously you called Harlan way back, have you ever done that any other times with any other creators? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't do this for every story you write with a character or concept that was created by someone else. (I may be wrong but I doubt you called Stan and/or Jack everytime you wrote an issue of the Hulk for instance). So the question is where do you draw the line? Why get Harlen's OK and not Stan's?

This isn't picking on you, it's something that was on my mind from watching the Batman Animated series on DVD recently. On the Legends of the Dark Knight episode comentary it was mentioned that they got Frank Miller's write off to adapt his style on the Dark Knight sequence, but Bruce Timm also made it clear in his comentary that they didn't get a sign off from Dick Spang, (whose art style was also homaged in that episode). This made me go, "why'd they feel they had to get Miller's OK, but not Sprang's?".

I know you can't answer for them and don't expect you to. The point is that it didn't seem to be the first time I heard a creator go, "well I wanted to do this with character A but I made sure it was ok with Creator A first".

It seems like a lot of creative folk have a line and feel they need to run some things by the original creator, but never seem to feel they have to do that with everything they work on that they didn't create. So obviously there's a line there, and it may be different for different creators, I'm just wondering where yours is?

And conversly how would you feel if it went the other way. If another writer used concepts or characters from a New Frontier novel would you be bothered?

Thanks

// It's not unprecedented. Consider the case of Peggy Lee. Of all the people who wrote or sang songs for Disney, only Peggy Lee was crafty enough to put together a deal in the 1950s that got her big bucks for her "Lady and the Tramp" contribution decades later. Her contract was written so that she argued--successfully--that Disney didn't have the right to use her songs in the home video market release, even though that market didn't exist back in the 1950s //

You're right, Peggy Lee isn't the only one with forsight. Orson Welles had the forsight to protect Citizen Kane from being colorized, (he actually put in his contract "cannot change the black and white" photography of the film"), decades befor the technoligy to colorize a film existed.

On the other side of the coin Brian Epstien had the Beatles sign a contract where they lost thier publishing and movie rights after 10 years because, (according to sources), no one had ever heard of a pop group still being popular after 10 years.

Here's Ellison's take:

Neither Paramount nor Pocket Books has the publication or adaptation rights to CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER (which were reserved by me from the git-go when it was originally aired back in the '60s, under the "separation of rights" terms of the Writers Guild of America, West MBA--the Minimum Basic Agreement with all tv/film producers, including Paramount, which licenses the STAR TREK franchise to Pocket Books). Every Pocket Books STAR TREK editor from the beginning of their publishing liaison with Paramount (particularly John Ordover) has known this. I published the story in book form years ago. CITY remains in print in a White Wolf trade paperback, and the publication indicia therein clearly indicates Paramount has signed off on their status! It was copyrighted and registered by The Kilimanjaro Corporation, not to mention that my name is both trademarked and registered, as is that of the Corporation; and Pocket Books has ABSOLUTELY no right to use the characters and/or the story I created, IN ANY WAY without my--and TKC's-- permission. I have my agent, Richard Curtis, on this.

Assuming he's portraying things accurately, then he's got a case. Personally, I'd be surprised if any production company had agreed to leave characters in a show the property of the writer instead of the studio, but I have no experience in the legal or writing profession to back that up.

Tell you what, I'll apologize for the "Douche-bag" crack if it turns out that Ellison has the slightest legal leg to stand on.

The guy who created the Nike "Swish" got less than a thousand dollars for it. The McDonalds brothers sold to Ray Kroc for a comparatively modest fee. Did they deserve more? As cold as it may seem,-- No, they did not. They knew what they were getting into when created and/or sold their properties to another. *THAT's* capitalism as well. Now, I admit to having only a layman's knowledge of such things, but it seems to me that legal precedent is WAY against him.

So if this actually turns out to be more than another frivolous law-suit clogging up the courts by someone trying to claim something that they have zero legal right to, I'll apologize here and publically.

If it turns out that HE's just spouting off, then my opinion of the man stands. An opinion I've held ever since he published his original script, btw.

Frankly, Peter, as a tie-in writer yourself I would think that the possible precednt this would set would be a frightening one. How could this possibly not have a Richard Arnold-level negative effect on the Trek fiction line?

// The guy who created the Nike "Swish" got less than a thousand dollars for it. The McDonalds brothers sold to Ray Kroc for a comparatively modest fee. Did they deserve more? As cold as it may seem,-- No, they did not. They knew what they were getting into when created and/or sold their properties to another. *THAT's* capitalism as well. Now, I admit to having only a layman's knowledge of such things, but it seems to me that legal precedent is WAY against him. //

It has nothing to do with precident and everything to do with contracts. THe people you mentioned signed bad contracts, why do you assume Ellision also signed one.

Back in the golden age of comics everything was work for hire and the creators never owned anything, yet somehow Will Eisner was able to retain ownership and control of the Spirt. The point, there are always exections.

It's reasonable to assume that most of the writers on the original Trek had standard contracts, and thus wouldn't be able sue, but that doesn't necessarily mean that HE had one.

As has been stated, Orson Welles was able to keep his films from being colorized, where John Houston wasn't, why? Welles had a different (better) contract. Peggy Lee got DVD and video royalties from Disney, when others who worked on Disney films of that era didn't, why? Better contract. Those exampes are as much as a precident as the ones you mentioned, these things work both ways.

^ I imagine that, if Ellison gets his way, each tie-in covers will be a covered in television writers' names like logos on a NASCAR vehicle, as every single author of every single element referenced in the novel would have to be cited and credited.

I read the original post, and found myself irritated beyond any reasonable measure that the guy who brought it to Ellison's attention mentioned he never read tie-in novels, as a rule. I have to wonder whether, if he did, he'd be as eager to report such slights to other authors, because there are a whole heck of a lot of them. Sadly, I recently mailed my new copy of the "Vulcan's Glory" reprint home, so I can't check, but I don't believe I spotted the words "Theodore Sturgeon" anywhere in it. Nor, I believe, were any of the writers of the many (and I do mean many) other episodes directly referenced, partially novelized, or otherwise synthesized into "Crucible" credited.

Though, I find it rather disturbing that Ellison refers to himself as a "working writer" when he's trying to piggyback on someone else's 1800 page Star Trek opus on the basis of something he essentially disowned. It is, after all, based on the mutilated, aired version of "City."

// Copyright and Trademark are two completely different things. If you don't fight every abuse of trademark, you can lose your trademark. Which is why if you buy a copy of Writers Digest (or other similar magazines) you will see several ads in each issue from companies (such as Kimberly Clark) reminding writers to use a trademark symbol after their product names (such as Kleenex).

However, this is not the case with copyright. You can pick and choose your battles. Harlan not suing over a copyright violation in one instance, can sue over a copyright violation in another instance. It shouldn't have any effect on his chances in court. Which is one reason most authors will ignore fan fiction. It's just as much a violation of copyright as commercial use, but they know they will be able to fight future abuses when it really matters. //

I don't pretend to know about these things, but I was under the understanding that a copyright could be argued to have been "abandoned". Or is that just trademarks?

Though, I find it rather disturbing that Ellison refers to himself as a "working writer" when he's trying to piggyback on someone else's 1800 page Star Trek opus

If you ever write a novel/screenply, and someone takes your ideas and uses them for another work, and doesn't get your permission, do you promise not to care?

If Ellison managed to sign a contract where he retained the rights...that's what copyright is for. He's not being a jerk, he's getting what he is deserved.

And it sets no precedents...except as a warning to authors and studios about watching what they sign.

I don't pretend to know about these things, but I was under the understanding that a copyright could be argued to have been "abandoned". Or is that just trademarks?

That's just trademarks. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm an aspiring author, and have researched these issues, and am 99.9% certain.

Trademarks can last forever if they aren't abandoned. But the protections are more limited.

Copyright protections are more extensive, but they have a limited duration, and don't disappear until the duration has elapsed.

The only comparable thing to 'abandonment' I have seen with copyrights is a strange argument I've heard has been successful recently: that you made a good faith effort to contact the copyright holder, and were unable to locate them. I think HE is relatively easy to find, and Pocket Books wouldn't be able to make that argument if the contract works against them.

"douche-baggery" - The worst idea for and upscale boutique EVER!

JAC

Posted by Darren J Hudak at September 7, 2006 08:41 PM
// way back in the day when I first came up with the plot, I called him and asked permission. He gave me the okay, I wrote the book, and dedicated it to him. //

This brings up a question about working on material you didn't create and don't own, that I'm curious how you feel about. Obviously you called Harlan way back, have you ever done that any other times with any other creators? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't do this for every story you write with a character or concept that was created by someone else. (I may be wrong but I doubt you called Stan and/or Jack everytime you wrote an issue of the Hulk for instance). So the question is where do you draw the line? Why get Harlen's OK and not Stan's?//

Possibly because Stan Lee was an employee of Marvel Comics and Jack Kirby was an artist-for-hire when they co-created The Hulk! Also, neither one of them had obtained any copywrites, by contract or purchase, to any of their works.

Anyone who's had as many scrapes with the law as Harlan's had could conceivably possess the legal savvy to obtain a clause that would limit ownership of a script after X number of years, especially from a TV show that was cancelled two years after even a popular show was broadcast.

Also, the original script was published in book form not once but TWICE, the first time with permission from Paramount! Who can say that this ISN'T part of Harlan's Claim of Ownership?

No doubt this will be set the most dramatic legal precedent since Harlan and his friend Ben Bova won their case against ABC for their "Brillo Plagarized to make Future Cop" case nearly 3 decades ago!

What a lawyer he would have made if HE passed the bar!

Though, I find it rather disturbing that Ellison refers to himself as a "working writer" when he's trying to piggyback on someone else's 1800 page Star Trek opus

If you ever write a novel/screenply, and someone takes your ideas and uses them for another work, and doesn't get your permission, do you promise not to care?

Well, if it was work-for-hire as part of a serial, and I said the final version was a butchering of my work, and the story elements (which are not quite the same as the raw ideas) are used in a spin-off or sequel that outweighs my original by a good 30 times, and it's the dozenth or more time its happened without prior comment by me, then, yeah, I won't care. I'd rather not even know about it, honestly. Water under the bridge.

Though, I have considered the possibility of someone using my work (not any work I've done, but my work), and I do admit I would go in to get what was due to me. However, the analogous situation to that would be the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode "Sub Rosa" and Ann Rice's "The Witching Hour."

Steve, if you think Ellison wastes time on lawsuits he doesn't think he can win, you don't know him very well. Ellison vs. Robertson in which he took on AOL. Settled in Ellison's favor in 2004. Ellison vs. ABC-TV and Paramount, 1980. Better known as the Brillo/Future Cop case. Ellison gets a $337,000 settlement. Ellison vs James Cameron for his claim that elements of The Terminator were based on two episodes of The Outer Limits. Ellison wins an out of court settlement plus a retroactive acknowledgement in the end credits from that point on. Ellison claims on his website that he's 16/0 in terms of lawsuits, which suggests that just maybe he knows what he's doing. Or as Peter himself pointed out in the title of his blog about Ellison's AOL win in June 18, 2004, 'I always win.'

PAD, on a completely unrelated note, I'm very upset with you. How am I supposed to appreciate the grim-and-gritty, cinéma vérité nature of Fin Fang Foom now that you've pointed out that he flies with vestigial wings??

John -
If Ellison managed to sign a contract where he retained the rights

One point I've seen mentioned elsewhere is that, to a degree, this may be true: that Ellison managed to retain the rights... to his original script.

But not the version that actually aired, which is what Crucible works from. And which Star Trek fiction is allowed to work from without Ellison's input.

Joe Nazzaro -
which suggests that just maybe he knows what he's doing

Or that he spends too much time bringing lawsuits against people. Maybe he could get involved in the technology patent business? He'd make a better killing there. :P

Of course, I'd take this whole situation in stride if Ellison weren't making threats against everybody and anybody involved with the book and turning this into a personal vendetta.
The comments on his blog did nothing to help me see his side of things. To be brutally honest, his little rant reminds me of the way Byrne normally acts - a 'I'm right, you're scum' attitude.

Correct me if I am wrong but Ellison has a case here.

Edith Keeler wasn't ever used as a character in any of the new Trek novels.

The least they could have done was ask permission to use the character, as Peter has.

By not asking permission to use Keeler in a novel series may open Pocket up to litigation.

I just have a feeling after all is said in done we will see as we did in Cameron's Terminator "acknowledgment to the works of Harlan Ellison" somewhere in future editions.....

More thoughts on the Ellison thing....

I just have a feeling that Ellison would not rant about this on his website unless he had cause to. ...and a possible way to have a case that has merit....

I am sure he consulted with the people that represent him before started this in the first place.

"Posted by Hulkin Vulcan"

Raaaaa Logic Smash!

JAC

For what it's worth, I just started reading 'Cruicble: McCoy' and so far, to quote the spotlight character of book two: "Fascinating."
But my main question is:
When all is said and done, depending upon the outcome, how much liability does the author David R. George III have?
In his intro, it's clear that he had the backing of both his editor and the licensor's (CBS/Viacom/Paramount) representative to write the trilogy. So what is his status in all this?
Also, will the concluding volumes to the trilogy be published?

One would think that an author contracted to write a novel in a franchise would expect any potential legalities to have been hammered out by those who have contracted him to do the work.

Of course, from what I recall of Ellison's rant, his ire seems to be focused on Pocket and Paramount, so I doubt David R. George III is in much, if any legal danger.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by Darren J Hudak

You're right, Peggy Lee isn't the only one with forsight. Orson Welles had the forsight to protect Citizen Kane from being colorized, (he actually put in his contract "cannot change the black and white" photography of the film"), decades befor the technoligy to colorize a film existed.

The classic cse here is William Boyd, who got rich by foreseeing that television was going to need programming and would pay for it.

He did the "Hopalong Cassidy" films for (basically) union scale (less than he could have gotten, he has some clout) and all television rights.

The studio brass thought he was crazy, and signed off on it.

And comes the time that teevee needed programming for kids, there was Wiliiam Boyd with the rights to something like seventy short feature films.

And the rights to make more specifically for teevee in the mid fifties...

Darren J. Hudak: What I find curious is why this is only coming up now, Edith Keebler…
Luigi Novi: (Snicker.) Images of Kirk trying to save the entire future of a cookie empire… :-)

And Peter, I just finished Fall of Knight last night. Awesome way to end the trilogy! :-)

"...Edith Keebler...

No, it's Spock who had the pointy ears. And I'm pretty sure there were no cookies in COTEOF."

Cookies Out of the Tree of Forever?

Actually, doing a story that retroactively changes her name to Edith Keebler throughout the timeline would probably solve things. And get a nifty sponsor ontop of it. You know. Elves, man.

Correct me if I am wrong but Ellison has a case here.
Edith Keeler wasn't ever used as a character in any of the new Trek novels

I could be wrong here, but I think that unlike television, the use of characters in book tie-ins doesn't involve paying royalties to the original author

// You're right, Peggy Lee isn't the only one with forsight. Orson Welles had the forsight to protect Citizen Kane from being colorized, (he actually put in his contract "cannot change the black and white" photography of the film"), decades befor the technoligy to colorize a film existed.

The classic cse here is William Boyd, who got rich by foreseeing that television was going to need programming and would pay for it.

He did the "Hopalong Cassidy" films for (basically) union scale (less than he could have gotten, he has some clout) and all television rights.

The studio brass thought he was crazy, and signed off on it.

And comes the time that teevee needed programming for kids, there was Wiliiam Boyd with the rights to something like seventy short feature films.

And the rights to make more specifically for teevee in the mid fifties... //

And lets not forget, that George Lucus asked for, and got, the merchendizing and sequal rights to a little film called "Star Wars", at the time the head of 20th Century Fox was convincied the film would be a minor flop, (who could know), so who cared about sequals and besides movies studios really didn't make much on toys and t-shirts and things, (Lucus, genious that he was, changed that).

// Correct me if I am wrong but Ellison has a case here.

Edith Keeler wasn't ever used as a character in any of the new Trek novels. //

The Guardian, (also a character created by HE), has appeared in several novels. And Edith has made small cameo flashback appearances in at least two books I can think of.

// The least they could have done was ask permission to use the character, as Peter has. //

Would be a nice thing to do, OTOH, should Pocket have to do that everytime a novel uses a character or concept from the greater Trek universe? What about other license, the comics, video games, role playing? For that matter, what about future use in TV spin offs or movies? Just being devils advocate here.

// I just have a feeling after all is said in done we will see as we did in Cameron's Terminator "acknowledgment to the works of Harlan Ellison" somewhere in future editions..... //

I suspect you're correct. Interesting to note that Ellison did not win a lawsuit in that case, he threatened one and the producers and the studio settled and it really ticked off James's Cameron that they did. He said in many interview that he didn't plagerize and he wanted the thing to go to court so he could "clear his name". And to be honest I think Cameron has a point, I'm not sure if it had gone to court Ellison would have won that case.

// Possibly because Stan Lee was an employee of Marvel Comics and Jack Kirby was an artist-for-hire when they co-created The Hulk! Also, neither one of them had obtained any copywrites, by contract or purchase, to any of their works. //

Other's besides Stan and Jack, (including Ellison I might add), have worked on and added to the Hulk legend over the years so I still think it's a valid question, when do you call the creator VS when you don't. To keep it in the Trek universe, PAD has used characters and concepts not created by Harlan in some of his other Trek work, did he clear those with the original authors or was HE and the guardian a special case?

Ellison did not win a lawsuit in that case, he threatened one and the producers and the studio settled and it really ticked off James's Cameron that they did. He said in many interview that he didn't plagerize and he wanted the thing to go to court so he could "clear his name"

Sounds just like Alan Moore's comments about the suit against League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which his studio also settled.

Steve: "The guy who created the Nike "Swish" got less than a thousand dollars for it. The McDonalds brothers sold to Ray Kroc for a comparatively modest fee. Did they deserve more? As cold as it may seem,-- No, they did not. They knew what they were getting into when created and/or sold their properties to another. *THAT's* capitalism as well."

Unless you were privy to the negotiations that resulted in either of the aforementioned transacations, or the contracts they signed, you don't know what they did or didn't deserve. For all we know, those people may have been screwed over but didn't realize it, and their lawyers weren't good enough to secure all of their rights (assuming they had lawyers -- I don't know if they did). Anything's possible. Moreover, unless you were privy to the thoughts of those people as they sold that which they created, you don't know what they did or didn't know.

There is a world of difference between assumptions and actual knowledge.

Besides, those two situations may be completely irrelevant to Ellison's case. It all depends on the contract he signed with Paramount.

Steve: "Now, I admit to having only a layman's knowledge of such things, but it seems to me that legal precedent is WAY against him."

Steve, I'm trying to be nice. But what you wrote above is tantamount to saying, "Gee, I really have no basis for forming an opinion but I'm going to do it anyway." A "layman's knowledge" of such things is no knowledge at all. The law is extremely complex. And, again, so much depends on the wording of the contract Ellison signed.

Steve: "So if this actually turns out to be more than another frivolous law-suit clogging up the courts by someone trying to claim something that they have zero legal right to, I'll apologize here and publically."

Even if Ellison loses, it doesn't mean the case was frivolous. One can never predict what the courts will decide. It's always a roll of the dice.

Since Ellison created something of value and believes he has a legal claim to ownership of that something, I think he is well within his rights to take his case to court. If he is wrong, that's no reason to pillory him.

And this isn't a nuisance suit. Ellison did write "City." He did create the character of Edith Keeler. The question is whether he owns certain rights. That's a far cry from the person who says, "Gee, I wrote a story about Mermaids, so the movie 'The Little Mermaid' is infringing on my rights.'" THAT'S a true nuisance suit. Ellison's claim, on the other hand, is the sort of thing the courts were created to sort out.

Steve: "If it turns out that HE's just spouting off, then my opinion of the man stands. An opinion I've held ever since he published his original script, btw."

Steve, an opinion is only worth as much as the quality of the knowledge and thoughts that form it. You're basing your opinions about this case on a lot of blanket assumptions, and therefore they're not worth much.

Before you become angry, please note I didn't say you are unintelligent (because I don't believe you are), nor did I say your none of your opinions about anything are worthwhile (I wouldn't dare make such a blanket statement). But in this instance you are failing to recognize the limits of your knowledge.

One would think that an author contracted to write a novel in a franchise would expect any potential legalities to have been hammered out by those who have contracted him to do the work.

I think that's probably correct. As I recall, Ellison sued Warren Magazines over a blatent plagerism of A BOY AND HIS DOG that appeared in 1984 (the magazine). I don't recall anything about the writer of the story getting nailed.

(there was also the strange case of the Incredible Hulk rip-off of SOLDIER. I say strange because it was written by Bill Mantlo, a friend of Ellisons and may have originally been supposed to be an adaptation...I never could find a straight answer on how exactly this happened. Marvel gave Ellison some money and a promise of future credit, though how that was supposed to be done I don't know.)

I suspect you're correct. Interesting to note that Ellison did not win a lawsuit in that case, he threatened one and the producers and the studio settled and it really ticked off James's Cameron that they did. He said in many interview that he didn't plagerize and he wanted the thing to go to court so he could "clear his name". And to be honest I think Cameron has a point, I'm not sure if it had gone to court Ellison would have won that case.

I think there were interviews where people involved with the production kept mentioning how THE OUTER LIMITS was an inspiration for Terminator, which would certainly have helped Ellison's case. I'm just surprised that the makers of CYBORG 2087 didn't get in the act.

// I suspect you're correct. Interesting to note that Ellison did not win a lawsuit in that case, he threatened one and the producers and the studio settled and it really ticked off James's Cameron that they did. He said in many interview that he didn't plagerize and he wanted the thing to go to court so he could "clear his name". And to be honest I think Cameron has a point, I'm not sure if it had gone to court Ellison would have won that case.

I think there were interviews where people involved with the production kept mentioning how THE OUTER LIMITS was an inspiration for Terminator, which would certainly have helped Ellison's case. I'm just surprised that the makers of CYBORG 2087 didn't get in the act. //

I know Ellison has said that someone specific involved with the production told him Cameron kept mentioning the Outer Limits episodes, if that person said it in interviews I'm unaware. Cammeron has denied he ever said that so it still comes down to a he said/she said kind of a thing. IMO, while there are some simularities between the Terminator and HE's Outer Limits episodes there's a whole lot thats different. I have a hard time seeing it as plagerism, it always seemed more like, different writers, simular material, completly different takes on that material. Which is why I understand Cameron's annoyance at the studio for settling.

So much speculation here. It seems Ellison at least got a credible claim. Without seeing the supportin documents, that's all it is, but that's what the court is for, to review those and determine what's what. It's true that most work-for-hire material belongs legally to the employer. But it's a matter of what the specific contract and agreements involved say, rather than any hard and fast rule of law. And the great thing about contracts is that, within certain limits, you can do anything. I always looked at contracts as private lawmaking. So long as it doesn't involve anything illegal, you can put anything you want into a contract.

Copyright is pretty expansive, and it's a concept that the public seems to misunderstand a lot. It can cover a lot of things...characters, concepts, settings, etc. So the Star Trek Mirror Universe can be covered by copyright. It's more than a concept, it's a setting, complete with characters and stories. Any derivative work is covered by the copyright. Now, you could go off and write a Star WARS Mirror Universe story if you wanted...assuming you had the right to use the Star Wars copyrights...and at worst you'd get called unoriginal. But the Star Trek copyright holder (Paramount, presumably) couldn't say boo to you legally.

So if Ellison retained copyright over the original material created for the story...the setting and characters unique that that story, essentially all the fictional characters and events outside of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, the Enterprise, etc., then he does retain copyright control over them.

As a copyright, it can't be lost. Well, technically, he could allow it to be used so much that it's determined to have entered the public domain, and then he'd have no right to control it anymore. But he's not done that, so it's a moot point. Letting PAD use it with permission doesn't run any risk of eroding his copyright at all. If anything, it strenthens his position, because he's exercising a copyright owner's option to allow additional creative use of his property. He doesn't have to charge for it...he may, but nothing requires him to.

What probably happened is that the insitutional knowledge at Pocket Books/Paramount that knew that the original City material wasn't freely available moved on...either retirement or otherwise...and the replacement editors read a pitch, thought "hey, that's a great idea...I wonder why we haven't published a story like that before?" Hearing no explanation as to why, they gave the greenlight, commissioned an author, worked up publicity, and sent it off to the printer. All of which costs a good deal of $. Ellison gets word, sends a letter off, and Pocket Books is more or less trapped. They've invested too much to just stop, so they have to fight, at least at first. Their lawyers will likely read Ellison's briefs on the matter, advise a settlement offer, and that'll be the end of the matter.

// As a copyright, it can't be lost. Well, technically, he could allow it to be used so much that it's determined to have entered the public domain, and then he'd have no right to control it anymore //

Ah yes, that's what I was thinking of when I made the comment about copyrights being "abandoned" above.

It's funny, the internet is full of references to the interview that Cameron supposedly gave where he mentioned The Outer Limits as an influence but none of the ones I have found say where the interview took place or actually have quotes from it. So maybe that's a story that has just been repeated to the point where everuone assumes that it's true (I thought it was a Starlog interview but I have no desire to dig up those old issues to find out).

The Allan Moore LXG lawsuit is a more serious matter since Larry Cohen accused the company of deliberately ripping off his idea, which would make Moore little more than a plagerist for hire. Small wonder he was furious.

What was interesting about the LXG suit was that Cohen didn't sue Moore, Jim Lee, or DC Comics over the comic book. He sued the studio over the movie, claiming he pitched a similar idea years earlier. So, the studio was accused of stealing an idea that they had clearly bought from another author. From their perspective, they made a nuisance go away. From Moore's he had his name dragged through the mud over an accusation that he stole a movie idea from someone he never met, made it into a comic book, and then sold it to a movie studio.

Yeah, he had a right to be pissed.

As for Harlan Ellison's (R) suit: I'm not going to pretend to know what his contract with Paramount in the 60s said, but he's been through so many copyright disputes that I would say that few authors have more knowledge of copyright law today than he does. Let the case shake out in the courts and see what happens.

I have a question. Didn't The Guardian get used in animated series? Why no fallout back then? Or did I just miss the fallout in my innocent younger days?

"I think there were interviews where people involved with the production kept mentioning how THE OUTER LIMITS was an inspiration for Terminator, which would certainly have helped Ellison's case."

Yeah, but I seem to remember Cameron pretty much being consistent in saying that the story idea came to him due to a dream/nightmare. But like you I can't find anything. I tend to also think it was Starlog or Fangoria but, even if I had the will and the time, most my back issues of lots of things got trashed in a freak flood two years ago.

Don't you just hate trying to look up trivia from the pre-net days?

Letting PAD use it with permission doesn't run any risk of eroding his copyright at all.

Here's a question.

I know some authors are pickier than others when it comes to copyright stuff. Ellison seems like the type to let nothing slip past him, regardless. Yet, this issue apparently hasn't come up before, even though Trek tie-in novels have used these characters in the past.

If Ellison really did sign off on all these previous uses for derivative works of City, wouldn't each of these books have a "such and such used with Ellison's permission" on the copyright page?

I mean, that's what Ellison is demanding now - he wants his name on the cover of the Crucible books, so why wouldn't he have had credit in the past?

Is there a credit to Ellison on the copyrights page of Imzadi? There isn't one in Yesterday's Son.

I posted this at the John Byrne Forum, but it's just as applicable here:

I still wonder if Harlan knows about the Star Trek novel FIRST FRONTIER. It tells the tale of an alien reptilian race that goes back in time millions of years to deflect the asteroid that hit Earth during that era, so that the dinosaurs don't go extinct. Thus the dinosaurs evolve into a sentient reptilian species, not unlike the ones who deflected the asteroid, and humanity never gets the chance to spring into being. Kirk and the Enterprise are returning from a time travel mission as history is altered, so history basically changes around them while they're traveling through the timestream and they don't get affected by the changes. When they return to the 23rd century, they discover that everything they knew is gone, and they're the only hope to restore the proper timeline.

Why do I bring this up? Well, if any of you have ever read the Stephen King nonfiction book DANSE MACABRE, you'll probably recall a lengthy account from Harlan Ellison, in which he discusses the idea that he pitched to Paramount for the first Star Trek movie, back in the mid-1970s.

Guess what the story was about!

"Here's a question.

I know some authors are pickier than others when it comes to copyright stuff. Ellison seems like the type to let nothing slip past him, regardless. Yet, this issue apparently hasn't come up before, even though Trek tie-in novels have used these characters in the past.

If Ellison really did sign off on all these previous uses for derivative works of City, wouldn't each of these books have a "such and such used with Ellison's permission" on the copyright page?

I mean, that's what Ellison is demanding now - he wants his name on the cover of the Crucible books, so why wouldn't he have had credit in the past?"

Maybe...If that was a condition of allowing their use. There's nothing that says that a copyright owner has to catch every misuse of his property, or that he has to treat every misuse or approved use the same way. It could very well be that previous books called Ellison up like PAD did, and got his prior approval. They'd have been smart to get it in writing, but that's not necessary. It could also be that Ellison just didn't notice at the time, and by the time he did, he didn't think it worthwhile to do anything about it. He's not putting his property rights at any risk of eroding by missing a book here and there that appropriates his property.

Ah, the internet...

the place where any half-wit with $1000 can get a computer and then tell the rest of the world that the rest of the world is f***ed up, but they aren't.

Also the place where any person with a hatred for another person can find any excuse to attack that person while hiding under the table in fear of retribution.

Idiots and cowards.

and by the time he did, he didn't think it worthwhile to do anything about it

Is there anything in Ellison's previous and current rants to indicate that he would ever pass on a chance to go after somebody with a lawsuit?

Unfortunately, he seems very proud of his ability to drag people into court, whether that's a fair impression or not.

This post is separate from my previous post because it has specific responses, not just a rant.
------------------
Harlan Ellison has better contracts than most other people because he writes them that way. A contract is a two-way device. One needn't accept the first contract that is offered and may make changes to that contract. The previously mentioned Will Eisner had a good contract that others did not. Bob Kane had a better contract than others did. If other creators did not have good contracts, that is mostly their own fault for not demanding such. Unfortunate, but true.
-------------------------------
I didn't see where Harlan is demanding that his name appear on every cover, but that seems a likely possibility. Something like "Using characters created by Harlan Ellison".
-------------------------------
Harlan Ellison is a passionate man. Passionate about many things. It only makes sense that he would pursue a lawsuit just as passionately as he does anything else. If some happen to see this as a personal vendetta, they may do so. Doesn't make it true. But Harlan would most likely not say "I am right and you are scum".
--------------------
"One can never predict what the courts will decide."
Especially now.

// As a copyright, it can't be lost. Well, technically, he could allow it to be used so much that it's determined to have entered the public domain, and then he'd have no right to control it anymore //

Ah yes, that's what I was thinking of when I made the comment about copyrights being "abandoned" above.

I think when the phrase "abandoned" is used with respect to copyrights, it has more to do with copyright whose owners willfully cede their rights to another party, or to the public domain. It doesn't seem to usually mean "abandoned" in it's everyday sense of "unused" or "neglected".

That said, one of the more interesting issues in current copyright law has to do with orphaned copyrights: works that are still under copyright protection, but whose proprietors are difficult or impossible to identify (for example, if a book's author dies without heir or estate.)

Not that any of that has much to do with the HE case. But as mindful people have said above, that's what courts are for.

Assuming he's portraying things accurately, then he's got a case. Personally, I'd be surprised if any production company had agreed to leave characters in a show the property of the writer instead of the studio, but I have no experience in the legal or writing profession to back that up.

your standard contract for Doctor Who has the writers owning the characters they created. when a character was intended as an ongoing character, an exception would be written into the contract.

the character of Nyssa, if i recall correctly, was not intended as a recurring character, so Johnny Byrne (no relation i'll assume) owned her character and got lots of royalties when they decided to make her a companion for two more seasons.

your standard contract for Doctor Who has the writers owning the characters they created

That's because it's the standard in British television.

Alan Coil -
I didn't see where Harlan is demanding that his name appear on every cover

From Ellison's webpage:

"Whether I insist they withdraw all copies of the book out there now, and make them add my credit to the cover and indicia, or just reprint it in its entirety, I have also not decided."

// Yeah, but I seem to remember Cameron pretty much being consistent in saying that the story idea came to him due to a dream/nightmare. //

That's the way I've always heard/read it, if Cameron ever said anything different I'd certainly be interested to read it.

I still wonder if Harlan knows about the Star Trek novel FIRST FRONTIER. It tells the tale of an alien reptilian race that goes back in time millions of years to deflect the asteroid that hit Earth during that era, so that the dinosaurs don't go extinct. Thus the dinosaurs evolve into a sentient reptilian species, not unlike the ones who deflected the asteroid, and humanity never gets the chance to spring into being. Kirk and the Enterprise are returning from a time travel mission as history is altered, so history basically changes around them while they're traveling through the timestream and they don't get affected by the changes. When they return to the 23rd century, they discover that everything they knew is gone, and they're the only hope to restore the proper timeline.

Holy crap, you're kidding, right? I remember Ellison talking about that idea and thinking about how cool it would be. (Isn't that also the one where some studio nitwit demanded that ancient Mayans be somehow put into the story because he's read something about ancient Mayans and thought that it would "be cool" to have some ancient Mayans in it to satisfy the vast clamor from John Q Public for more stories about ancient Mayans?)

// It's funny, the internet is full of references to the interview that Cameron supposedly gave where he mentioned The Outer Limits as an influence but none of the ones I have found say where the interview took place or actually have quotes from it. //

Without seeing the interview in question, (context and all), I can't defend or condem either way, but I can point out that being influenced by something and plagerizing it are two different things.

// your standard contract for Doctor Who has the writers owning the characters they created

That's because it's the standard in British television. //

As Alan Moore has pointed out many times, Work for Hire as a concept does not exist in England.

Hmm,

I wonder what Harlan's reaction will be when the Star Trek scripts volume is released with the broadcast version of the City on the Edge of Forever script?

www.cafepress.com/roddenberry

"As Alan Moore has pointed out many times, Work for Hire as a concept does not exist in England."

Which, if American law was less inclined to grant so much power to corporations, should be the way we go as well. Yet we willingly cede tons of rights to fictional entities all in the name of making a buck.

Okay, everybody line up -- FOE on one side, EOE on the other. We'll settle this with a game of "Red Rover, Red Rover."

Which, if American law was less inclined to grant so much power to corporations, should be the way we go as well.

I'm not sure I'd agree.

I like my shared universes, like Star Trek, Marvel Comics, and Dragonlance, the way they are.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but I'd hate to think of what would happen should the Terry Nation Estate suddenly decide they'd like the Daleks to appear in, say, Battlestar Galactica (if BG were being made in Britain).

Bill Mulligan wrote:
//Holy crap, you're kidding, right?//

Nope!

Bill Mulligan wrote:
//I remember Ellison talking about that idea and thinking about how cool it would be. (Isn't that also the one where some studio nitwit demanded that ancient Mayans be somehow put into the story because he's read something about ancient Mayans and thought that it would "be cool" to have some ancient Mayans in it to satisfy the vast clamor from John Q Public for more stories about ancient Mayans?)//

Yep, that's the one.

FIRST FRONTIER is a really good novel, actually--I quite enjoyed it. But the whole time I read it, I wondered, "Does Harlan know about this?"

Overall, this is one [censored] way to celebrate Star Trek's fortieth anniversary today!
If any want something a little more retrospective on the day, please go to www.thefreechoice.info
Thank you in advance for your patronage.

// I'm not sure I'd agree.

I like my shared universes, like Star Trek, Marvel Comics, and Dragonlance, the way they are.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but I'd hate to think of what would happen should the Terry Nation Estate suddenly decide they'd like the Daleks to appear in, say, Battlestar Galactica (if BG were being made in Britain). //

I wouldn't worry, Terry Nation made serveral attempts to market the Dalaks outside of Dr Who. (A comic strip, a play), none of them were as sucessfully as the Dr Who episodes with the Dalaks.

Jerry C wrote, "I have a question. Didn't The Guardian get used in animated series? Why no fallout back then? Or did I just miss the fallout in my innocent younger days?"

I don't know, but I would imagine that Mr. Ellison was sent the screenplay and signed off on it--just as he did on IMZADI.

If Harlan does know about the book te reason he hasn't done anything about it because he couldn't prove it was taken from him.

Also people can say no other writer would have something in their contract, but if anyone would HE would.

Harlan is many things but i'll always remember him as the who took the time to call me after I posted on his message board saying I was doing a presentation on A Boy and His Dog, and hoped to forward him some questions.

There has been some question as to why HE is doing this now when there has been other books that utilized Edith Keeler and the Guardian (which I regard as a character BTW). Without reviewing all the books, I would hazard a guess that it might depend on how they were used in the other stories and how close this new book’s plot hews towards concepts in HE’s original script as opposed to the other books.
And in an only semi-related note, wasn’t there a TREK novel that had them traveling back in time (Through the Guardian?) to basically the series SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS that got recalled?

Frankly, Peter, as a tie-in writer yourself I would think that the possible precednt this would set would be a frightening one. How could this possibly not have a Richard Arnold-level negative effect on the Trek fiction line?

OK, I’m not getting the reference here. Can someone clue me in?

Hmmm. Probably the reason that Harlan has not gone after Pocket Books for past trangressions is that he was not informed of them. Remember, he learned about this due to someone posting about it on his forum. It would be ridiculous to imagine that Harlan is otherwise keeping track of Star Trek Fiction.

Did anybody else who read First Frontier keep expecting the Sleestak to show up?

Now, one problem I have with the Harlan Ellison/James Cameron/Terminator link up. Couldn't you, if you were imaginative, say that any sci-fi story (or any other genre, really) is derivative of something that came before? I mean, if you wanted to be broad-sweeping with it, couldn't you say that all robot stories are derived from R.U.R? (Interesting trivia note, here-the word "robot" actually comes from a Czechezlovakian phrase that means servitude or slavery) I'm not saying that Harlan Ellison doesn't have a case here, or that Cameron did or didn't take some idea or whatever. I don't know that. Just kind of thinking. Now I have to go turn off my smoke detectors.

Rich,

I'll give it a shot. Commence cluing in. :-)

Richard Arnold was hired in the late '80s by Paramount as the TNG research assistant, but he also got heavily involved with the licensing side -- novels and comics in particular. During that period (mostly 1990-91) lots of memos, signed by and ostensibly written by Roddenberry, started making all sorts of extremely odd suggestions and in many cases tossing proposals entirely for what seemed inconsistent reasons. In at least some of those cases, when someone at Pocket managed to get a personal meeting with Gene, he suggested minor if any changes and thought things sounded good.

The conclusion drawn by many, many people at the time is that Richard was taking on much more authority than he should have been doing, and several writers such as Diane Duane walked away from the Trek line entirely.

A few months after Gene's death, Richard was removed from his position. He still appears to have a successful career doing the convention circuit, but he's been out of the licensing loop for a very long time.

If you do a Google Groups search for "Richard Arnold" and "interview" in the period of late 1991, you'll find a Usenet archive of a lengthy interview with him (conducted by yours truly) and the results of some followup research (also conducted by yours truly). I wouldn't say that said interview had any effect in terms of the grand scheme of things, but you may find it enlightening in terms of who RA is and how he was perceived by many at the time.

Hope this helps. (And obviously, if I'm misremembering something I'd appreciate it if other people knowledgeable about that era could weigh in.)

TWL

// There has been some question as to why HE is doing this now when there has been other books that utilized Edith Keeler and the Guardian (which I regard as a character BTW). Without reviewing all the books, I would hazard a guess that it might depend on how they were used in the other stories and how close this new book’s plot hews towards concepts in HE’s original script as opposed to the other books.
And in an only semi-related note, wasn’t there a TREK novel that had them traveling back in time (Through the Guardian?) to basically the series SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS that got recalled? //

If memory serves the plot had Spock encountering some of his human ancesters who were characters from that series, the in joke being the actor who played Spock's dad was in that series. The writer thought he was being cute and having an in joke, no one at Paramount or Pocket books got the joke, (like me they probably never saw the series), so it got published without anyone making a fuss. It was pulled after readers pointed it out, persumably to avoid a lawsuit. (As far as I know no lawsuit every happened). Forget the name of the book or the author but it was fairly early on in the publication history of Trek novels. (Didn't read the novel, but I do remember reading about it in fan magizines at the time).

// Hmmm. Probably the reason that Harlan has not gone after Pocket Books for past trangressions is that he was not informed of them. Remember, he learned about this due to someone posting about it on his forum. It would be ridiculous to imagine that Harlan is otherwise keeping track of Star Trek Fiction. //

Anythings possible, I would find it absolutly amazing that in 30 something years of Trek novels that no one, (fan, fellow writer, ect), would have mentioned it to him, but it is possible.

Another thought occurred to me after reading Harlan's entry in his website:

Roddenberry made it a point to contact established SF writers to submit scripts to Star Trek, as opposed to just mainstream TV writers as shows like "Lost in Space" did at the time. What if Harlan was the only one, among all of these writers, who felt that Trek had a strong potential for longevity IN PRINT as well as on the small or big screen and made it a point to include a "Retain ownership of printed property" clause [b]before COTEOF was green-lighted[/b], knowing that the WGAW protected printed and viewed material separately to avoid plagiarism suits by writers of either and both mediums while TPTB at Paramount didn't and probably STILL DON'T?

It would at least have the benefit of proving what a bunch of know-nothings the Hollywood suits are and what a shrewd operator Harlan has continued to be over the decades!

Of course, what would you expect from a guy who critisized pre-adolescent beauty contests 20 years before Jon-Benet Ramsey was born and knew what a dynamite series "All in the Family" was before it first appeared on the air worldwide? Like Peter, he's a man of vision!

I'm not saying that Harlan Ellison doesn't have a case here, or that Cameron did or didn't take some idea or whatever. I don't know that. Just kind of thinking.

One account has it that Paramount discovered that someone involved with Terminator bragged about ripping off Outer Limits. that would have been bad for them. Personally I don't think the links between Soldier, Demon With A Glass Hand and Terminator are great enough to rise to the level of plagerism but SOMETHING must have convinced the company to settle.

Ellison is many things but stupid isn't one of them. I'm really thinking that his contract has clauses that will make Pocket Books want to make this all go away.

Tim & Darren,

Thanks.

Now many only remaining question is-

Who is going to run out to their local book stores tomorrow to grab a copy or two to hoarde for an inevitable ebay sale in case of the book being recalled? ;)

If memory serves the plot had Spock encountering some of his human ancesters who were characters from that series, the in joke being the actor who played Spock's dad was in that series. The writer thought he was being cute and having an in joke, no one at Paramount or Pocket books got the joke, (like me they probably never saw the series), so it got published without anyone making a fuss. It was pulled after readers pointed it out, persumably to avoid a lawsuit. (As far as I know no lawsuit every happened). Forget the name of the book or the author but it was fairly early on in the publication history of Trek novels. (Didn't read the novel, but I do remember reading about it in fan magizines at the time).

The novel was Ishmael, by Barbara Hambly (and the series it tied in to was "Here Come the Brides," not "7Bf7B"). One noteworthy point about the novel is that it provides closure to the TV series, something the series itself never did (or so I'm told).

Hmmm. I understand that the book is now going into a second printing.

1 //I'm not saying that Harlan Ellison doesn't have a case here, or that Cameron did or didn't take some idea or whatever. I don't know that. Just kind of thinking.

One account has it that Paramount discovered that someone involved with Terminator bragged about ripping off Outer Limits. that would have been bad for them. Personally I don't think the links between Soldier, Demon With A Glass Hand and Terminator are great enough to rise to the level of plagerism but SOMETHING must have convinced the company to settle. //

Maybe, maybe not. Company's very often settle if it's in thier best interest to settle something. NBC once settled an increadibly dumb lawsuit that Cher brought against Saturday Night Live, (apparently she didn't like one of thier jokes about her).

Anyone with a grammer school knowledge of the first admendment would have told NBC that Cher didn't have a chance of winning her suit, SNL was clearly protected by the first admendment and previous court decisions on public figures and parody/satire but someone in the NBC legal department thought it was easier and cheaper to settle.

Till this day, because of that settlement SNL cannot make fun of Cher, (they can make fun of the President, the Pope and the mafia but not Cher, does that seem right).

A few years later Cher, (who obviously doesn't have a sence of humor about herself), tried to do the same thing with Howard Stern, Stern and his lawyers did the exact oppisite of what NBC had done, they basically said, publicly and on the air, "come and get me". Cher, realizing that Stern, unlike NBC, was not going to be bullied into a settlement dropped the suit a couple of weeks later.

The point, settlements (especially with big coporations) sometimes have nothing to do with who's right an who's wrong and everything to do with "is it cheaper to make this go away now or to fight it".

Darren, I'd never heard that story. That's classic.

I'm amazed that EVERYONE didn't threaten to sue SNL after that foolishness.

I've been reading, and posting, here for over four years now. I've been trying to comment in this thread, but my posts are getting caught in a filter holding posts pending review to protect against "malicious intent" from "first time posters". This post is partially a test to see if I can get anything through, partially to point out to anyone monitoring the folder that I have been posting (from the same e-mail, under my real name) for several years, and partially, if this post actually goes through, to see if anyone else has encountered this problem.

// Darren, I'd never heard that story. That's classic.

I'm amazed that EVERYONE didn't threaten to sue SNL after that foolishness. //

I imagine most people have a better sense of humor then Cher obviously does. BTW there's one other person SNL cannot make fun of for legal reason, Fred Silverman. Silverman was in charge of NBC for a while during SNL's early years and was made fun of a lot, first by John Belusi and then, (even naster) by Al Franken. Franken did a bit on weekend update where he pointed out that Silverman had not added any hit shows for the last two seasons and yet got a new car as part of his salery, Franken asked viewers to write and call Silverman and tell him that he should give his car to Franken because at least Franken was on a hit show, (arguably the only hit show NBC had at the time). Viewers did, by the tons. Siverman was not amused, when he left NBC, under not so plesent circumstances, part of his package was that SNL could never again mention his name.

Well, that post got through. Maybe something about the quotations in my lost post is messing things up...

Bill Mulligan - you mentioned Bill Mantlo's use of the Harlan Ellison story "Soldier" without the proper credit. That rang a bell with me, and I was able to find at least a partial answer in my back issues. In the letters page of Incredible Hulk #289, "The Editors" used a bold-typed yellow box to acknowledge Ellison and apologize to him and his fans, blaming a "last-minute mix-up" on his missing credit from the front page of Incredible Hulk #286. Several lines of copyright info for "Soldier" were also printed. If (either of my attempts at) my previous post gets out of the hold-and-check folder, you can read the entire text of what they wrote (or, if you want, I can try typing it out again). But anyway, that's what I know of Marvel's fulfilling of "a promise of future credit".

Thanks Luke. So it was approved by Harlan before it was published? That makes sense (though, come to think of it, I also recall Ellison's lawyer calling Jim Shooter a plagerist during the Fleisher trail. Wonder if it was referring to this or some other event).

"Whether I insist they withdraw all copies of the book out there now, and make them add my credit to the cover and indicia, or just reprint it in its entirety, I have also not decided."

Thanks, Craig.

Darren, how long ago was that Cher/SNL suit? I certainly don't recall hearing anything about it, and it's rather amusing since "Mad TV" did its own Cher-based skit several years back; it was actually a send-up of the old "Sonny and Cher" TV show with Sonny being replaced by "Sonny's Widow"--the mock program was called the "Sonny's Widow and Cher Show" (Alex Borstein was Mary Bono and Mo Collins was Cher).

"The point, settlements (especially with big coporations) sometimes have nothing to do with who's right an who's wrong and everything to do with "is it cheaper to make this go away now or to fight it"."

Sometimes there's more involved than that. It's entirely possible that NBC had some sort of TV show in development with Cher, or that there were some other sort of business ties that were in the hopper that NBC didn't want to jeopardize. You know, like Viacom didn't want to piss off Tom Cruise and so scotched the repeat of the "South Park" episode because they wanted him to promote MI3.

PAD

// Darren, how long ago was that Cher/SNL suit? I certainly don't recall hearing anything about it, and it's rather amusing since "Mad TV" did its own Cher-based skit several years back; it was actually a send-up of the old "Sonny and Cher" TV show with Sonny being replaced by "Sonny's Widow"--the mock program was called the "Sonny's Widow and Cher Show" (Alex Borstein was Mary Bono and Mo Collins was Cher). //

Sometime in the late 80's-early 90's, the Mike Myers era if memory serves. And yeah Mad TV has done "Cher" and I haven't heard anything about her going after them. If memory serves what ticked Cher off on SNL were some jokes about her then current boyfriend, same thing she got ticked off at Stern for, only Stern didn't cave in like NBC did and she ended up dropping the suit against him a few weeks later.

Craig J. Ries: "I like my shared universes, like Star Trek, Marvel Comics, and Dragonlance, the way they are.

"I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but I'd hate to think of what would happen should the Terry Nation Estate suddenly decide they'd like the Daleks to appear in, say, Battlestar Galactica (if BG were being made in Britain)."

Craig, your sentiments remind me of those expressed by people commenting on the recent legal wrangling over the rights to Superman and Superboy. Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, widow and daughter of the late Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel respectively, filed paperwork some years ago to terminate at the point of renewal the transfer to DC Comics of the Superman copyrights. They later filed similar paperwork to terminate the transfer of the Superboy copyrights.

Some people have opined that it would be best for DC to ultimately prevail for the sake of the viability of the Superman franchise. In other words, some people are saying, "I like Superman comics as they are, so I don't want the heirs of one of Superman's co-creators to prevail."

Sorry, but I find that a bit crass.

Craig, you are in essence arguing that it would suck if the tables were tipped in favor of the very people who actually create the concepts and characters that so entertain you. As though one's own enjoyment of certain "shared universes" should take precedence over something that might improve the lot of the very people who create the concepts and characters necessary for corporations to have something to exploit.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a happy capitalist, in spite of the rough edges of capitalism. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst economic system out there, except for all the other ones.

That said, when I think of what happened to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who may not have been legally screwed but were certainly screwed morally and ethically, I am saddened. I am further saddened to hear intelligent and decent people such as yourself expressing resistance to the idea that the system could change in a way that is favorable to creators.

As though that would be such a bad thing!

Wow.

Quite intense topic going on here.

see, I feel kinda goofy now. I really just came in to say that 1) I read the first book of this series, Crucible : McCoy Provenance of Shadows by David R George III - and darnnit, it was a good story.

and..

2) To say I wish Mr. Elison luck - without clue one as to the intentions of him or any of the parties involved in the suit, simply because - well if he's a friend of Mr. Davids he's probably a half-decent fellow.

That's my piece - discuss your legal details.

Yeah, it's a good thing that Viacom didn't do anything to piss off Tom Cruise; otherwise, he might have, I don't know, terminated his multi-million dollar production deal and they certainly wouldn't have wanted that! Sorry, I was being glib.

I know it would never happen, but I'm actually sort of intrigued by the idea of the Daleks appearing in BSG, even as fifth-removed cousins to the Cylons. But I think there's some weird cultural thing about the Daleks, where they never really caught on here in America, unlike Britain where they're so much a part of the popular culture. Anyway, Terry was a friend and I wouldn't mind his widow Kate making a few bucks; I imagine the BBC doesn't pay all that well.

The interesting alt-history of the Daleks is the universe where NBC decides to pick up Nation's Daleks! series, and they pair it up with Star Trek's second season for a two-hour sci-fi programming block.

It's partly because of Nation's desire to launch an American Dalek franchise that "The Evil of the Daleks" was intended to destroy the Daleks in Doctor Who--the production staff didn't want to do further Dalek stories if that meant unintentionally promoting someone else's product--so Troughton's "the final end" was meant as exactly that, the final end of the Daleks for all time. By the time of "Day of the Daleks," some five years later, Nation's plans for a separate Dalek television series had fizzled, and the Doctor Who producers felt that it was time to bring the Daleks back.

// But I think there's some weird cultural thing about the Daleks, where they never really caught on here in America, unlike Britain where they're so much a part of the popular culture. //

Well the Doctor himself never caught on in the US, other then as minor cult thing. There was a minor surge in popularity and even some US marketing around the time they started showing The Tom Baker episodes here, but it didn't last long, (seems this little thing called "Star Wars" came out a year or so later and pretty much took the attention of American youth and sci fi lovers away from anything else).

Having said that, the Baker episodes were popular enough in the US that most Americans who remember Dr Who remember him as the guy with the scarf.

"You know, like Viacom didn't want to piss off Tom Cruise and so scotched the repeat of the "South Park" episode because they wanted him to promote MI3."

At least they started showing it again after the movie had its run.

And I loved seeing Tom come out of the animated closet again during the opening of the Emmys. It felt like Conan was backing them up by doing it again.

Did Ellison ever take issue with the 1998 Kurt Russell movie SOLDIER? I've always wondered that because Russell's character is similar to Quarlo in Ellison's "Soldier."

--

Now, one problem I have with the Harlan Ellison/James Cameron/Terminator link up. Couldn't you, if you were imaginative, say that any sci-fi story (or any other genre, really) is derivative of something that came before?

It's pretty hard for a show to become a hit, other than a cult hit, if it is not broadcast in the major cities.

Dr Who was not carried by the Detroit channels. I only discovered it by accident when I turned the dial (See, younguns, a dial was on the front of the tv. You had to get up and walk across the room to change the channel.) to channel 30, a PBS channel, and turned it too far and found channel 32 (or was it 31; it was all so long ago) which was out of Ontario, Canada. The signal was so weak that I had to turn up the sound to hear over the hissing of the background noise.

The trouble we had to go to in those days before cable.

(My friend's 14-year-old son would now be shouting, "Shut up, Old Man.")

Craig, you are in essence arguing that it would suck if the tables were tipped in favor of the very people who actually create the concepts and characters that so entertain you.

I just feel that if you're creating something for one product, like the Daleks for Doctor Who, that it isn't really a good thing if you can suddenly then take said product and hand it over to something else... like maybe a competitor.

That said, when I think of what happened to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who may not have been legally screwed but were certainly screwed morally and ethically, I am saddened.

*shrug* Each case is unique. But I don't think anybody expected Superman to last 65 years. Or Doctor Who to last +43, or Star Trek to last 40.

The only way anybody has truly been screwed, if at all, is in the fact that the products created have managed to last so long, something that few could predict at the time, and the value of said products now is far greater than when they were created. But, nobody ever said capitalism is fair in this way.

Craig J. Ries: "I just feel that if you're creating something for one product, like the Daleks for Doctor Who, that it isn't really a good thing if you can suddenly then take said product and hand it over to something else... like maybe a competitor."

Why not? If a publisher or producer realizes that a character introduced into their "shared universe" is a potential goldmine, they can always negotiate with the author later to obtain exclusive rights. That sounds a lot fairer to me than a work-for-hire arrangement under which any character an author creates becomes the property of a corporation in exchange for nothing but a page rate.

Craig J. Ries: "*shrug* Each case is unique. But I don't think anybody expected Superman to last 65 years. Or Doctor Who to last +43, or Star Trek to last 40.

"The only way anybody has truly been screwed, if at all, is in the fact that the products created have managed to last so long, something that few could predict at the time, and the value of said products now is far greater than when they were created. But, nobody ever said capitalism is fair in this way."

Athletes who have a good year re-negotiate contracts all the time, and no one bats an eyelash about that anymore. But when someone points out that a creator hasn't seen more than the tiniest sliver of one iota of the profits generated by one of their creations, people say, "Oh, well, that's capitalism."

I guess that's why I'm inclined to be sympathetic to someone like Harlan Ellison, who fights for what he believes to be his due. Because so many people are inclined to believe that creators are due so little.

Being a writer meself, I'm sympathetic with Mr. Ellison's fight. But one thing occurs to me. (I haven't read his City book, so if this is in there, I apologize) Does the fact that this story was written for a show created by somebody else change anything? I mean, if he'd taken out all the Trek elements and made everything unique unto itself and made that into a movie or show or whatever, would he get anything different than a writer for a show created by someone else? Was City always meant for Trek? If a story is written for an established "universe", does the addition to the universe include everything, and once it's in is it out of the creator's hands? Now, I don't see anything wrong with going back and giving credit where credit is due. In fact, it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, though, Bill's right. Creators get so little credit. All I ever heard about was Peter Jackson with the LOTR movies. I really can't remember hearing Tolkien's name once on any of the entertainment shows. (Granted, Stace is the one in our house that watches them, so I might've missed it.) Really, the only creators that I can really really recall getting any kind of attention are Mario Puzo and George Lucas. Even the majority of Spielberg's stuff he didn't create. (Ironically, though, I like what he DID create better than the rest of his work.)

Thinking of what Craig said, about nobody expected Superman to last 65 years, is that because it was "just" a funny book? Or is it that so much of popular culture is here today, what the hell WAS that, tomorrow?

That sounds a lot fairer to me than a work-for-hire arrangement under which any character an author creates becomes the property of a corporation in exchange for nothing but a page rate.

Well, this may sound arrogant on my part, but if you don't like the work-for-hire arrangement, don't do it.

PAD has made quite a living doing for several shared universes, such as DC, Marvel, and Star Trek, and I don't think it's hurt him any in the long run, as he's still been able to create unique things, even within said shared universes (such as Star Trek: New Frontier).

Athletes who have a good year re-negotiate contracts all the time, and no one bats an eyelash about that anymore.

I don't think it's really fair to compare the publishing world to sports.

But then, free agency in some sports, like MLB, is a pretty recent thing, and before that, the owners of the clubs really did hold the player's life in their hands.

So, I guess the thing to do would be if you don't like the rules, do what you can to change them. But, as I said, I like Star Trek the way it is, and if I ever wanted to write for Star Trek and had the chance to do so, I'd happily accept the way things are.

Alan Coil, when you say _Doctor Who_ wasn't carried on the Detroit channels, what time period do you mean? Because it was shown on channel 56 in the mid to late 1980s, and at least once on channel 62 in the early 1980s. The latter was the first time I encountered the show, though I don't think I knew what it was at the time. I do remember the episode, though. It was "Pyramid of Mars", and the scene was the one where the Doctor must solve the Riddle of Horus to save Sarah Jane.

And yes, the station you're thinking of was channel 32. It was still showing _Doctor Who_ in the mid to late 80s, but in its original format, rather than showing all the "chapters" of an episode in one block, as channel 56 did. As I recall, channel 32 aired it on Thursdays.

These days, of course, people in metro Detroit have an advantage over most of the rest of the country in that we see the new _Doctor Who_ series months before anyone else does. Because we can pick up channel 9 out of Windsor.

Rick

P.S. speaking of dials, when my now 15-year-old cousin was 7, she first encountered a TV set with dials. She had no idea what purpose they served.

Craig J. Ries: "Well, this may sound arrogant on my part, but if you don't like the work-for-hire arrangement, don't do it."

Unfortunately for some creators -- particularly those just starting out -- it's the only viable option. For some creators, "don't do it" is tantamount to telling them not to create for a living even though such is their life's dream. I dunno if that's arrogant, but it's certainly far too glib.

Craig J. Ries: "PAD has made quite a living doing for several shared universes, such as DC, Marvel, and Star Trek, and I don't think it's hurt him any in the long run, as he's still been able to create unique things, even within said shared universes (such as Star Trek: New Frontier)."

I'm not going to presume to comment on Peter's situation. He can do that if he so chooses.

But there are many documented instances where writers have created characters for naught but a page rate, only to watch as corporate entities profited like crazy from said characters. Marv Wolfman's creation of the character Blade is another example.

Craig: "I don't think it's really fair to compare the publishing world to sports."

Why not? Both businesses involve talented people providing entertainment that generates revenue.

"But then, free agency in some sports, like MLB, is a pretty recent thing, and before that, the owners of the clubs really did hold the player's life in their hands."

Yes, the system changed so that the people providing the entertainment that generates the revenue have more power. Yet you're arguing that such a change would be a bad thing if it benefited T.V. writers, for example. I don't see why.

Craig J. Ries: "So, I guess the thing to do would be if you don't like the rules, do what you can to change them. But, as I said, I like Star Trek the way it is, and if I ever wanted to write for Star Trek and had the chance to do so, I'd happily accept the way things are."

Craig, you're engaging in the "kitchen sink" method of arguing: i.e. you're throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. Your original argument was that you'd hate to see authors have more control over that which they've created because it might interfere with your enjoyment of certain shared universes. I think that's a bit self-centered. Writers and other creators are human beings, and I see nothing wrong with any changes to "the system" that provide them with more control over and profits from their creations.

Your final remark indicates that you may not be a writer. If I am correct, then bear in mind that it is easier by far to talk about these ideas in the abstract then it is to actually watch as one of your creations generates huge volumes of revenue that you don't get to touch.

Ultimately, Craig, it's not about you or me. It's about people who actually created something of enduring value. If more creators getting better deals results in some inconvenience for you or I, well... I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Craig J. Ries: "Well, this may sound arrogant on my part, but if you don't like the work-for-hire arrangement, don't do it."

Bill Myers: Unfortunately for some creators -- particularly those just starting out -- it's the only viable option. For some creators, "don't do it" is tantamount to telling them not to create for a living even though such is their life's dream. I dunno if that's arrogant, but it's certainly far too glib.

It may be worth recognizing that in U.S. copyright law, works-made-for-hire became much more precisely defined and delineated when the Copyright Act of 1976 took full effect. What is and is not a work-made-for-hire and the ramifications of making work-for-hire are far better definied now than they were before that law took effect. That being the case, I would certainly agree that anyone entering into a work-made-for-hire now can and should know exactly what he/she's getting into, and if he/she does not, then he/she has only him/herself to blame.

For works created before that law took full effect, well, things can get far murkier. It's telling that many of these sorts of contentious copyright situations have to do with works created prior to the 1976 law--be they Superman, Superboy, City on the Edge of Forever, Blade, or whatever else. And when disputes arise for such works, they can be complex to unravel and, as said above, in a real way, that's what courts are for.

Your original argument was that you'd hate to see authors have more control over that which they've created because it might interfere with your enjoyment of certain shared universes.

Yes. I thought I made this pretty clear with my first post.

If you are writing for somebody else's property, then I don't see the problem in the fact that you should be expected to give up rights to said creations.

If I am correct, then bear in mind that it is easier by far to talk about these ideas in the abstract then it is to actually watch as one of your creations generates huge volumes of revenue that you don't get to touch.

I am not a writer, no, but I had the opportunity once to directly submit a story for a Dragonlance anthology.

While the story wasn't accepted in the end, I was willing to accept the circumstances that surround such a publication: that I'd lose the rights to the characters and the story itself.

I enjoy Dragonlance and I would've been happy to have been able to contribute to a shared-world that many other people enjoy as well. I know people who would also be more than willing to leap at the opportunity I had.

With PAD's work, he has also had the opportunity to also profit from the creations of others. Is this such a bad thing? I won't speak for PAD, but I don't think it would be.

I don't see why.

Well, when you can find me a writer that tv is willing to pay millions of dollars to in the first place, rather than the actors...

I just plain feel that single ownership and control, whether individual or corporate, is the best way for a shared universe to work. Here in the US, that's how things work, and aside from the occassional Ellison, it seems to have worked out for most of the folks involved. And, yes, in every situation, it's not going to work out for somebody, for whatever reason; that's just The Way Things Are, regardless of whether it's books or athletes or whatever else you can come up with.

Now, if you want to argue whether writers should be getting a bigger share of the pie, regardless, then I'll happily agree with you there. I don't much care for the fact that in tv, the writers are probably only getting a pittance compared to what some actors are getting, when the writers are working just as hard as anybody else. But I still think if you're contributing to a universe, those creations should stay with that universe.

Oh, and just for the record, I love superhero comics, and, like any good comic reader, I've come up with some characters of my own over the years.

But if I ever had the chance to writer for a Marvel or DC, I wouldn't want to introduce some of these characters in their books because I know I'd be giving up the rights to them.

Because of this attitude, these characters may never see the light of day. And it's probably very naive of me to think that way, but it's my choice, isn't it? :)

ATKokmen: "That being the case, I would certainly agree that anyone entering into a work-made-for-hire now can and should know exactly what he/she's getting into, and if he/she does not, then he/she has only him/herself to blame."

I suppose so. But think about a hungry author who finds his or her big break in the form of a work-made-for-hire assignment? How easy would it be to turn that assignment down, knowing that he or she doesn't really have enough "street cred" to demand a better deal? Especially given that another opportunity may not come along for quite some time... if ever?

I'm not arguing that the proletariat should revolt against the bourgeoisie, mind you. I was merely responding to Craig's assertion that work-made-for-hire should be the norm for shared universes because he's afraid that giving authors more control and/or remuneration might negatively impact his reading pleasure.

I find it ironic, by the way, that one would balk at the idea that creators, the ones who actually produce that which we find so entertaining, would receive more control and/or rewards for their work. Corporations are paper entities that don't create anything. The resources of corporations can be instrumental in reaching a wider audience than would otherwise be possible, but without content to distribute corpororations have nothing. Why should the idea of a system that evolves to give more power to creators, the lynchpin of the entire entertainment process, make people so vertiginous? I really don't understand it.

I'm not decrying the current system, per se. It is what it is. I'm merely astonished that anyone would be so opposed to the idea of that system changing to benefit creators.

Craig J. Ries: "If you are writing for somebody else's property, then I don't see the problem in the fact that you should be expected to give up rights to said creations."

Craig, I never said the current system was a problem per se. I was merely responding to your assertion that the system should stay the same because that's how you prefer it. My point: if things evolve to give more power to creators, that's not a bad thing. After all, by definition you can't have creations without creators. If the system evolves to recognize that fact, I cannot see any harm whatsoever.

If corporations want to keep shared universes intact in an environment favoring creators' rights they could always negotiate with the creators to make it worth their while to sell those rights. God forbid that a system evolve where someone could get more than a page rate for a creation that goes on to be a huge money-maker! Next, I'll be asserting that people should receive a decent paycheck for a hard day's worth of valuable work!

Craig J. Ries: "I am not a writer, no, but I had the opportunity once to directly submit a story for a Dragonlance anthology.

"While the story wasn't accepted in the end, I was willing to accept the circumstances that surround such a publication: that I'd lose the rights to the characters and the story itself.

"I enjoy Dragonlance and I would've been happy to have been able to contribute to a shared-world that many other people enjoy as well. I know people who would also be more than willing to leap at the opportunity I had."

Craig, I am a would-be writer, and I too would jump at any valid opportunity, including a strictly work-made-for-hire assignment. In a heartbeat.

I never said there was anything wrong with that. I'm simply asserting that there is also nothing wrong with creators having more leverage, more control, and more choices.

Craig J. Ries: "Well, when you can find me a writer that tv is willing to pay millions of dollars to in the first place, rather than the actors..."

Sure I can. They're called producers. When you build up enough street creds as a writer in television, you can sometimes get a shot at pitching your own show to the networks. You don't get absolute control, but you get a hell of a lot more control. Remember when "Buffy" changed networks?

Craig J. Ries: "I just plain feel that single ownership and control, whether individual or corporate, is the best way for a shared universe to work. Here in the US, that's how things work, and aside from the occassional Ellison, it seems to have worked out for most of the folks involved. And, yes, in every situation, it's not going to work out for somebody, for whatever reason; that's just The Way Things Are, regardless of whether it's books or athletes or whatever else you can come up with."

No, it's not just "The Way Things Are," it's the result of choices that have been made and continue to be made every day. And again, I'm not arguing that editors/publishers/producers that offer work-made-for-hire assignments are going to hell, or that the people who accept such assignments are whores. I'm merely arguing that the possibility of the system evolving isn't inherently a bad thing, that's all.

Craig J. Ries: "Now, if you want to argue whether writers should be getting a bigger share of the pie, regardless, then I'll happily agree with you there. I don't much care for the fact that in tv, the writers are probably only getting a pittance compared to what some actors are getting, when the writers are working just as hard as anybody else. But I still think if you're contributing to a universe, those creations should stay with that universe."

Craig, I'm not arguing that anything SHOULD change, just that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if something DID change.

Think of it this way: "Thor" is a character in the public domain. I could do a comic-book about Thor, and include Odin, Loki, and the rest, and Marvel legally couldn't do a damn thing about it as long as I didn't infringe on those elements that are unique to Marvel's version, like the costumes, or Dr. Donald Blake, or Jane Foster, etc. And somehow, Marvel makes Thor work as part of a shared universe nevertheless.

Craig J. Ries: "Oh, and just for the record, I love superhero comics, and, like any good comic reader, I've come up with some characters of my own over the years.

"But if I ever had the chance to writer for a Marvel or DC, I wouldn't want to introduce some of these characters in their books because I know I'd be giving up the rights to them.

"Because of this attitude, these characters may never see the light of day. And it's probably very naive of me to think that way, but it's my choice, isn't it? :)"

It's not naive, and yes, it is your choice. I never said otherwise.

But if creators were afforded more choices, I cannot fathom how that could be a bad thing. And yes, I've read your arguments, but I just don't find them persuasive.

And yes, I've read your arguments, but I just don't find them persuasive.

Well, I wasn't out to win this particular argument, or try and convince you to change your mind. :)

Fair enough, Craig. Not everything has to be a win-loss proposition.

My last few posts were aimed more at clarifying my position moreso than anything. I got the sense that you were reading my arguments as "work-made-for-hire = bad," which wasn't what I was trying to convey.

Agreeing to disagree always works nicely in these situations.

All this could have been avoided if the editor acknowleged Harlan as the author to "City" ....but in the words of John Belusi....But Nooooo......they decided in their wisdom not to say anything......

I don't know if the book has been pulled but there are no more copies of it at my local bookstores.

I have never seen Harlan rant this much unless he has a real case here. I still believe there is going to be a change in the credits or a reprinting. The bad publicity is something Paramount and Pocket will want to avoid.

All this could have been avoided if the editor acknowleged Harlan as the author to "City"

Well, it will be up to Harlan to prove that he has a case or not. As it stands, there were a number of people who contributed to the final aired version of the episode... should they all have their names on the cover? After all, it's only fair if they contributed...

I don't know if the book has been pulled but there are no more copies of it at my local bookstores.

The 40th Anniversary stuff has proven to be very popular: Burning Dreams is getting a 2nd printing after only being out a couple of weeks, and the anthology Constellations went for a 2nd printing before it even hit store shelves.

So, it probably just sold out.

Craig J. Ries: "Well, it will be up to Harlan to prove that he has a case or not. As it stands, there were a number of people who contributed to the final aired version of the episode... should they all have their names on the cover? After all, it's only fair if they contributed..."

Not necessarily. Ellison created Edith Keeler. It was not a collaborative process. The people who came on board to do rewrites didn't reinvent the character, but worked with that which Ellison created.

By the same token, J. Michael Straczynski can fairly say he created "Babylon 5," even though he brought other writers in on occassion -- including our esteemed host, Peter -- to write for the show.

A side note: I thought Edith Keeler was a much richer and more believable character in Ellison's version of the script than in the version that aired. The aired version had Keeler propping up the spirits of the downtrodden by speaking of a future in which men will travel to the stars. As though people whose bellies are growling with hunger would give a shit! That was Roddenberry's obsession: going to space would make everything perfect.

In Ellison's version, Keeler inspired people with true wisdom. She told people just surviving another day, and not hurting anyone while doing it, was something to hold onto. She pointed out that hunger was real, but fear and despair were not. You could believe she was truly inspiring people, and that Kirk could so easily fall in love with her.

So much for "central control" providing the best results for shared universes.

Not necessarily. Ellison created Edith Keeler. It was not a collaborative process. The people who came on board to do rewrites didn't reinvent the character, but worked with that which Ellison created.

I know, I'm just pointing out that it's not so clear cut and dry to simply say stick Ellison's name on George's book due to elements used from "City", when for all we know the Crucible book also takes elements that were in fact contributed from other people to that script, and were not Ellison's at all.

By the same token, J. Michael Straczynski can fairly say he created "Babylon 5," even though he brought other writers in on occassion -- including our esteemed host, Peter -- to write for the show.

I would have to think that Straczynski's case is pretty unique in the tv business (and, good for him for getting it) since he wrote a great majority of the episodes himself.

Other shows, like TNG and DS9, obviously didn't work like that because they would even take outside submissions.

So much for "central control" providing the best results for shared universes.

*chuckle* Nothing's perfect. But then, who knows how that would've come out on screen?

The differences pointed out by folks between Ellison's version and the final, filmed version are certainly interesting. At worst, it provides a fun glimpse into how television works (it doesn't seem like much has changed in the last 40 years when it comes to scriptwriting). And it also shows the compromise that has to go into a script, week in week out.

All this could have been avoided if the editor acknowleged Harlan as the author to "City" ....but in the words of John Belusi....But Nooooo......they decided in their wisdom not to say anything......

Why in heaven's name would they? Did Vendetta have "Contains 'The Borg,' created by Maurice Hurley, and 'The Doomsday Machine' created by Norman Spinrad" emblazoned on the cover?

Further, if Ellison did get his way, would any of the other writers who made episodes and movies which the book incorporated get similar credit? Would there be an extra page reading,

With characters and situations from "The City On The Edge Of Forever," by Harlan Ellison, "Operation: Annihilate!" by Herschel Daugherty, "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky," by Rik Vollaerts, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan by Harve Bennett & Jack B. Sowards, Star Trek III: The Search For Spock by Harve Bennett & Leonard Nimoy, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home by Leonard Nimoy, Steve Meerson, Peter Krikes, Harve Bennett & Nicholas Meyer, Star Trek: Generations by Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, & Ronald D. Moore, and "Encounter At Farpoint" by D.C. Fontana and Gene Roddenberry

It would be only fair. I mean, if Ellison is too good to have his credit folded into "Based Upon STAR TREK Created By Gene Roddenberry" (which is basically what caused on fan to bring it to his attention in the first place), then why shouldn't the other writers who's work was directly adapted within the novel get similar recognition?

As has been pointed out, Ellison isn't acknowledged for "City" in McCoy: Provenance of Shadows. But neither are the authors of "Shore Leave," "Operation: Annihilate!" "All Our Yesterdays," "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky," and the Star Trek films one through four and Generations acknolwedged. The novel draws from all of those directly--more so than "City," as the novel novelizes moments from many of these episodes of films, whereas "City" is never novelized at any point in the novel. Why should Ellison receive his name prominently in the book and Ron Moore and Brannon Braga don't when their work is used in the novel and Ellison's isn't?

I'm not sure how more creator control of works would impede a shared universe. At the risk of admitting I ever watched wrestling, it'd be like competing wrestling products. Some performers own their stage names, other don't. But they do own their selves. So Hulk Hogan can don a black T-shirt and lose the red and yellow boots and underwear, and become Hollywood Hogan. Same guy, same moves, same persona, different company. And eventually he gets to go back to being Hulk.

But while he's under one contract or another, he's free to interact with any of the other characters also under contract. And could even do a cross-over where he gets to interact with the other wrestlers.

We've seen this in comics for a while now. DC and Marvel (not lately, sadly) even managed to put out a couple decent crossovers. Amalgam and the Avengers/JLA (which I still think is one of the better mega books in a while) are just a couple examples. Cerebus appeared in Spawn. The X-Men met the crew of Star Trek. The Image founders created a universe of creator-owned properties that shared a fictional universe. They invited others to play along.

If anything, giving the creators more authority over their works might encourage better stories. When you aren't as constrained by what happened during Steve X's run 10 years ago, maybe we'll get better overall stories.

But the work for hire does allow more creators to get their feet in the door. Take any basic writing course, and one of the first pieces of advice they'll give you is to be careful about signing away the rights on your work. If something's really near and dear to you, don't make that your first published work. Build up some credibility, get a following, make a name for yourself first. Most people that are writers have more than one story they want to tell...start with something you can do well, that will sell, but won't kill you if it goes on to be more succesful than you had thought, and you can't control it, because it's paving the way for you to be able to do what you really want to do.

The Image founders have been accused of holding back (partly their own fault, partly not). Sure they were...the characters they really wanted to do...their own...were held back. That doesn't mean they weren't working hard when working on other publisher's books.

David_cgc and Allyn, what Ellison does or does not deserve in terms of credit, control and or financial remuneration for those elements of "The City on the Edge of Forever" that were his unique creations depends not on some general principles of fairness, as you have incorrectly surmised, but instead on what is or isn't in the contract he signed with Paramount when he sold the script.

It doesn't matter what other Trek writers have or haven't received in terms of credit. It all depends on what was in Ellison's contract, which may not bear any similarities to the contracts signed by the other writers you mentioned.

I don't understand why people are so quick to jump to this conclusion or that. I don't know if Ellison is justified in his claims or not. But I do know that the courts are the appropriate venue in which to sort things out, and his contract with Paramount will provide the basis for doing the sorting.

David and Allyn, you're both creating a straw man position here. This argument has nothing to do with whether writers SHOULD be credited for concepts and characters they create (an argument that I agree with, by the way). This discussion is about whether or not Ellison actually owns some of the characters and concepts in question, and if he does, can Pocket/Paramount use them without his permission. The rest of this discussion is just window dressing.

Joe Nazzaro deals with one straw man above, but here are a couple more that need to be dragged back of the barn and set alight:

- "The script was work-for-hire." Ellison's outline, script and revisions were not, and are not, work-for-hire. The fact that he holds the rights to all three is prima facie evidence of that; the Writers' Guild MBA does not allow separation of rights for work-for-hire scripts. Which are extremely rare in any case.

- "Why shouldn't everyone who worked on the script receive credit?" Because the outline, script and initial revisions were written solely by Harlan Ellison, and any further revisions were not substantial enough to receive a Writers' Guild credit, therefore the rights reverted solely to Ellison. And anyone who's actually compared the original script, Ellison's revisions and the aired script will have a very hard time justifying any claim that Roddenberry, Fontana, Carabatsos or anyone else substantially altered the core of the story beyond what Ellison created. (It's a myriad of minor alterations that made the difference in Ellison's - and others' - opinion of the final product.) Were the case otherwise, there would be a shared credit on the episode under WGAw arbitration, as happens frequently on television series.

-"It's a shared universe." No more so than any other TV program, and it operates under the same rules - that MBA again - as virtually every other show. (TNG and the early years of DS9 are exceptions in that those shows were non-Guild, but the original show was WGAw-signatory.) A script for Star Trek is no different from a script for any other program of the era in how separation of rights is handled. The fact that the show has been franchised into umpteen other media does not change the contract.

Following on from this - dragging Babylon 5 into the mix doesn't help the argument. Joe Straczynski is credited as the creator of the series, just as Gene Roddenberry is the creator of Star Trek, but neither of them owns (or owned) the shows. The script books that JMS has been releasing are his own scripts, no one else's; Neil Gaiman and Fiona Avery have both published the scripts they wrote for B5 and Crusade - which they have every right to do under the MBA. If B5 was an exception to the norm, it was that the show had a "no-arbitration" policy: even though JMS, Larry DiTillio and (later) Avery made some alterations to virtually every script from an outside writer, that writer always received full credit and separation of rights unless the changes were so major as to constitute a rewrite (or, as in the case of one or more Ellison stories for that show, the outline and story were by one writer and the teleplay by another).

- And finally, "The issue was already decided in Jerome Bixby's case." The issues of Bixby's "Mirror" universe - and prior to that, the re-use of David Gerrold's "Tribbles" script for DS9 - dealt with television use and were handled by WGAw arbitration, not a court. Ellison's present case is a matter of publication rights, and the Guild's involvement is peripheral. Whether a court would consider the outcomes of those prior arbitrations in forming a decision is debatable, but they have no force in law other than as agreed by the parties involved.

Don Hilliard

Rick Keating:

The time period had to have been the late 70s. From 1975 through 1980, I lived in Monroe. Tom Baker was the only Dr I knew. Today, I also still watch channel 9 via my cable system.

Also listened to Dr. Demento on WTWR-FM at that time.

Don Hilliard: "Following on from this - dragging Babylon 5 into the mix doesn't help the argument."

It doesn't? I never said anything about who owned it. I was merely pointing out that you can say in all fairness that he created B5, even though others worked on it. I think it was a fair point and one I made in a logical way.

Everything I needed to know in life I learned from Dandy Don Hilliard. :)

Thanks for explaining it so well, Don!

Bill Myers: Sorry for any confusion - that was addressing the subsequent poster's idea that B5 was somehow "unique" in its operation. As you'll note, I fully agree that JMS is the creator of that show, just as Gene Roddenberry was the creator of Star Trek. My point was that a show's creator generally owns neither the show itself nor any scripts other than those by the creator himself.

Don Hilliard

Don, the confusion was probably mine! :) No harm no foul.

that was addressing the subsequent poster's idea that B5 was somehow "unique" in its operation.

My comment about B5's uniqueness was about the fact that JMC wrote (or is directly credited with) so much of it on his own. Nothing else. :)

The joy of a shared universe is that it's just that - "shared". By claiming exclusive ownership over an element of it, Harlan's making it just that little bit less shared. And it diminishes the whole.

So, while I'm a big fan of creators getting adequately rewarded for their efforts, I'm not in favour of them destroying the goose because they're not getting as much gold as they'd like to out of it.

I really can't imagine that the Pocket books line is so ludicrously financially rewarding that stuff like this isn't going to have a major affect on the bottom line, and, ultimately, make for fewer and duller novels.

The issue was not decided in Jerome Bixby's case IF, as I understand it, Ellison's contract retained rights unusual for the medium.

A-T C: There actually don't have to be any unusual rights in Ellison's contract. One of the "reserved rights" which reverts to the writer upon separation is right of publication: that is, the right to publish the script and to publish, in book form, material based on the script.

Bixby's case, as I said before, concerned use of his material in a television venue. Most television rights remain with the company upon separation, some of them requiring additional payment to the writer, and it was this that required arbitration. It's a very different set of circumstances.

Don Hilliard

"The joy of a shared universe is that it's just that - "shared". By claiming exclusive ownership over an element of it, Harlan's making it just that little bit less shared. And it diminishes the whole.

So, while I'm a big fan of creators getting adequately rewarded for their efforts, I'm not in favour of them destroying the goose because they're not getting as much gold as they'd like to out of it.

I really can't imagine that the Pocket books line is so ludicrously financially rewarding that stuff like this isn't going to have a major affect on the bottom line, and, ultimately, make for fewer and duller novels."

I don't quite understand the view represented here. I've seen it used when discussing the morality of downloading for no charge songs off the internet, especially those that are not available elsewhere. It boils down to: once something is created and put into the public stream, it becomes public property, and the owner loses his right to remove it from the public stream. If he doesn't keep it available, or make it fairly available, the public should be free to take it. Or force the owner to accept a "fair" payment for it.

We'll use Ellison as an example. He's not going around asking for a nickel from anyone that mentions his characters. He's not demanding that people ask his permission before talking about them. He's not doing anything to try and remove his creations from the public, or trying to exert an unreasonable control over them. All he's doing is trying to get control over how/whether they are used in other people's publications. And if he wants to deny every other publisher's request to make new stories using his characters, that's his right as the owner. Does that leave he literary world less rich? Maybe. But it certainly won't kill the Star Trek book franchise if it has to tell other stories.

I always liken it to if the house next to yours was a summer home, which you decided to break into and use during the winter. You fix the lock, clean the place up, and no one can tell you were there. But it doesn't make what you did right. And just because the owner isn't using it, doesn't make it ok that you did. It's not your property, and if you have to sit and stew over the nice house that you'd love to have just sitting fallow, them's the breaks.

I've seen it used when discussing the morality of downloading for no charge songs off the internet, especially those that are not available elsewhere.

Umm, no, the view isn't the same as your example, because piracy on the internet and work-for-hire writers signing contracts signing away the rights to what they created in said hire are not the same.

"Umm, no, the view isn't the same as your example, because piracy on the internet and work-for-hire writers signing contracts signing away the rights to what they created in said hire are not the same."

That's not the issue. The issue is a copyright owner being able to withhold his property from the market in some way, and the market being able to force the owner to release his property against his will, simply because there's a demand for the property.

The issue is a copyright owner being able to withhold his property from the market in some way, and the market being able to force the owner to release his property against his will, simply because there's a demand for the property.

And if the courts decide Ellison is wrong, the entire basis of your version of 'the issue' goes completely out the window.

Of course, that's what really should be discussed to begin with: whether or not Ellison actually has the rights to what he claims to have the rights to.

I'll explain myself a bit further - if you asked most people what they associate Edith Keeler with, they wouldn't be saying Harlan Ellison, they'd be saying Star Trek (well, probably they'd be saying "who?").

If Harlan had created her as part of an Outer Limits episode, that had no effect on a wider universe, then it'd be fine by me for him to be claiming all his rights - then again, it's quite probable that nobody would be interested in writing a novel about her.

But she doesn't exist outside of that wider universe. And the wider universe isn't as wide if everything in it is individually owned, prosecutable and removable on the whim of an individual creator.

If you contribute to a wider universe, you get the benefit of that wider universe in terms of publicity and access to an audience - as well as the chance to play with all the pre-existing material in that universe. It seems fair to me that anything that you leave behind in that universe is fair game for the next person to play around there to pick up and use.

The concept of ownership is fine for standalone material, but it doesn't work very well when what you own and what other people own starts to overlap and co-mingle.

I hate to keep playing devil's advocate here, but Bobb, you're clouding the issue with your example of downloading songs for free. I agree with your point that the public isn't entitled to have something for free (and believe me, as somebody who's seen thousands of his interviews reprinted in their entirety on the Net, often without attribution I experience it myself pretty much on a daily basis) but that's not what we're saying here. As you explain very well with your summer house analogy, it's all about somebody using something that doesn't belong to them without permission or compensation. In fact, in order to follow up what you were saying about 'public property,' what you're actually saying is that somebody is opening the doors to the summer house and letting anybody in. So the first part of your point doesn't jibe with the second point. You're arguing apples and oranges.

Nor is the issue at hand whether or not somebody is withholding his property from the market, or if he's being forced that release that property against his will. Ellison is not withtholding the characters from 'City,' which is borne out by the fact that Peter David simply picked up the phone and asked, so that's not the problem. The problem is that a publisher didn't even give Ellison a chance to make that choice. Would he have given that permission if asked? Maybe, maybe not, but now we'll never know.

If you contribute to a wider universe, you get the benefit of that wider universe in terms of publicity and access to an audience - as well as the chance to play with all the pre-existing material in that universe. It seems fair to me that anything that you leave behind in that universe is fair game for the next person to play around there to pick up and use.

So shouldn't the creator at least get mentioned in any book using his characters so he can get that publicity and audience?

And if it's a shared universe, then shouldn't there be some sharing of income if a character you've contributed makes money?

Seems to me that you're not being very consistent here--the universe is being shared only one way.

Roger, the problem I see with your idea, is that it isn't characters that make money for a shared franchise, it's the franchise as a whole that makes money for a franchise. Any character in the franchise is just that--in the franchise. Although, I do think that the creator of both the franchise and any individual characters does deserve credit. Just how much, though, is a problem.

"And if the courts decide Ellison is wrong, the entire basis of your version of 'the issue' goes completely out the window.

Of course, that's what really should be discussed to begin with: whether or not Ellison actually has the rights to what he claims to have the rights to."

No, it just means that whatever contract Ellison had at the time he created this material didn't give him ownership rights. The issue still remains, as demonstrated by Simon's post, that some in the consuming public hold for various reasons that creators should not have ownership rights over their creations.

When Marvel and DC jointly published Avengers/JLA, they created a shared universe where both sets of characters existed. Should we now hold that because this shared universe exists, Marvel is free to publish more JLA stories, and DC Avengers stories? That series is one of my favorite, and I'd love to see more done. But by enjoyment of that shared universe doesn't override the limited copyright permission each publisher provided to have that book created. Likewise, Cerebus appeared in Spawn. Just because Dave Sim gave a one-time approval for that use doesn't mean that McFarlane can now use Cerebus any time he wants to.

"I hate to keep playing devil's advocate here, but Bobb, you're clouding the issue with your example of downloading songs for free. I agree with your point that the public isn't entitled to have something for free (and believe me, as somebody who's seen thousands of his interviews reprinted in their entirety on the Net, often without attribution I experience it myself pretty much on a daily basis) but that's not what we're saying here. As you explain very well with your summer house analogy, it's all about somebody using something that doesn't belong to them without permission or compensation. In fact, in order to follow up what you were saying about 'public property,' what you're actually saying is that somebody is opening the doors to the summer house and letting anybody in. So the first part of your point doesn't jibe with the second point. You're arguing apples and oranges.

Nor is the issue at hand whether or not somebody is withholding his property from the market, or if he's being forced that release that property against his will. Ellison is not withtholding the characters from 'City,' which is borne out by the fact that Peter David simply picked up the phone and asked, so that's not the problem. The problem is that a publisher didn't even give Ellison a chance to make that choice. Would he have given that permission if asked? Maybe, maybe not, but now we'll never know."

It's more than that the public isn't entitled to use the property of others for free...it's that the public isn't entitled to use the property of others at all without the owner's permission. With a house, that means any use (with exceptions for emergency shelter and such). So back to the summer home example, even if the house is left unlocked, anyone going in without permission is still tresspassing.

I'm not sure I follow your inclusion of the house as public property, other than that some in the consuming public want to treat copyrighted material as though it were a hybrid of private and public property (or some just want to treat it like public property).

Whether an owner withholds his property, or shares it, is entirely up to the owner. And they are free to change their position at will (subject to any contracts they signed). So saying that Ellison hasn't withheld his creations is a moot point...it's still about an owner having control of his property.

It's more than that the public isn't entitled to use the property of others for free...it's that the public isn't entitled to use the property of others at all without the owner's permission. With a house, that means any use (with exceptions for emergency shelter and such). So back to the summer home example, even if the house is left unlocked, anyone going in without permission is still tresspassing.

Just a perhaps-helpful observation: there are fundamental differences between the very nature of physical properties (like a house, be it public or private) and intellectual properties (like a story or a copyright) which underlie the rationale (from whatever side) of treating them slightly differently. (For example, a physcial property cannot have multiple simultaneous users without each user's experience being diminished--I can't drive your car at the same time you drive your car-but intellectual properties don't have the same intrinsic limitation.)

That being the case, using a physical property as an illustrative metaphor related to an intellectual property, while sometimes helpful, may eventually break down as that metaphor is continued.

But I, as the saying goes, digress...

As far as Superman's perceived longevity when Siegel and Shuster signed over the rights, no, nobody really saw Superman as having much potential. The guys had tried marketing it as a newspaper strip and failed, and DC didn't even feature Superman on every cover the first few issues. Nobody knew what a winner they had.

As for Ellison's Outer Limits/Terminator suit, I find the resemblance nonexistent, but Ellison sometimes screeches "plagiarism" without much evidence. In one of his old movie-review columns, he blasted several screenwriters for "obviously" ripping off print SF, for example "The Hidden" being a blatant steal of Hal Clement's "Needle." While both have an alien cop hunting an alien crook, both occupying human bodies, I've read one and seen the other and I don't buy it for a second (and Ellison offers no quotes, comments or arguments other than he sees a similarity)

The most annoying part of the article was that Ellison does believe that Stephen King's "Running Man" is too close to one of Robert Sheckley's short stories to be coincidence, but decides (after discussion with King) that King must have read the story, then regurgitated the plot without realizing it years later, because "Stephen's too good to cheat." Of course, he doesn't give any of the other writers in the article the benefit of the doubt.

As to the City script, there are things I really, really like in Ellison's version (the paraplegic Great War vet, for instance) but some changes made in the final version I liked better.

I'll clarify what I mean by this. Dave Sim's Cerburus has an entire unverse of his own in which he makes sense. Similarly, the Marvel Universe and the DC universe both make sense in their own separate realms, away from any co-mingled stories.

Edith Keeler doesn't really make sense outside the Star Trek universe. If she was a pre-established character that Harlan had loaned to "Star Trek" (and ditto all the elements of "City on the Edge of Forever"), I'd be fine with it. But since she isn't, claiming rights to her every time she's used in "Star Trek" feels annoying.

Now, he's perfectly legally entitled to do so. I'm just as annoyed with the way the Terry Nation estate has carried on about the Daleks (who, Terry Nation learned in a long and painful way, don't really work outside of the Doctor Who mythos). I don't dispute they've got a legal right to do so, I just think they're annoying people for doing so.

So no, I'm not talking about whether it's legal or illegal. I'm talking about whether it's annoying.

Simon, I think annoyance is in the eye of the beholder. If I was Harlan Ellison and somebody posted something on his website basically saying, 'Say Harlan, have you seen this new Star Trek novel, the first of a proposed trilogy using 'City' as a springboard?' I guess I'd be pretty annoyed that my phone never rang. If I was Pocket/Paramount, I'd be annoyed that Harlan Ellison's lawyer is probably about to send a nasty letter that has to be dealt with!

Simon, I don't doubt that it's annoying. It's annoying to me when I see someone zooming around on the highway in a little sporty car that costs 3x what I paid for my car. Annoying because I can't afford those kinds of luxuries. But I wouldn't take away another person's toys simply because I can't have them, or use them.

The act of creation is pretty powerful, and it should come with certain right to control. We're talking about a fictional character here, not the cure for cancer. Society and the world aren't going to suffer if Ellison holds up a few book publications while this gets sorted out.

The obvious problem with putting the Daleks into Battlestar Galactica, by the by, is that the Cylons would all be dead by the end of the episode ("Four Daleks—four million Cylons—you are outnumbered!").

"The obvious problem with putting the Daleks into Battlestar Galactica, by the by, is that the Cylons would all be dead by the end of the episode ("Four Daleks—four million Cylons—you are outnumbered!")."

I used to be scared of the Daleks because the Doctor was scared of them. But when I thought of them in real life, they didn't seem so scary.

Then I saw them in the latest Doctor Who, and they got scary all over again. Impressive what a little modern SFX can do with what is essentially a large can with a laser.

"Edith Keeler doesn't really make sense outside the Star Trek universe."

Not completely true. The character's only exclusive Trek hook is that she was a junction point on which time turned. Outside of that, she could work in a non-Trek story or even a non-sci-fi story. She was partly based on a real person. I'm sure Ellison could tell more then a few very good stories with her set before the time of her death if he wanted to.

That's also a weak rule to apply to here. That could be said for any number of characters that are owned by their creators. .I know a lot of people that would be annoyed if the Harry Potter character is never written again by anyone after book seven. Tough. The creator has said no and may well stick to her guns.

The nut of the matter, as Ellison pointed out himself, is money.

He started out with a blank piece of paper in the typewriter. He did the work. If he was smart enough to get himself a contract that let him retain the rights to the character then more power to him. He should be paid, or at least asked permission, for the use of his character if he owns it. He should also be given credit for them if he so desires. Same with Terry Nation and the Daleks.

Is it annoying for fans? Yes and no. We don't get new stories with old favorites as often as we may like. But, as with a number of the later Dalek stories in Who, we also don't get stories using old favorites that we wished hadn't been made right after we were done watching them.

"The concept of ownership is fine for standalone material, but it doesn't work very well when what you own and what other people own starts to overlap and co-mingle."

It does if you play by the rules. PAD pointed out that he did so and no flag was thrown on the field. Someone must have years ago as no flag was thrown on the animated series use of The Guardian. Just be polite and play by the rules.

Well said, Jerry C. Very, very, very well said.

"The concept of ownership is fine for standalone material, but it doesn't work very well when what you own and what other people own starts to overlap and co-mingle."

It works great when you have a good contract that sets out everyone's rights. And then everyone honors that contract.

The problem here probably goes something like this: Pocket books obtains a license to publish new works based on Star Trek. It may even have come with a non-exclusive list of things they could do, maybe a non-exclusive list of things they can't do. Edith Keeler and related material is on neither list. Years go by, and an editor is chatting with an author about an idea based on City (which he had just seen on TV the night before). It sounds good, it's not on the strictly prohibited list (which contains things like no major character deaths, can't blow up the Enterprise, etc.), so off they go.

I don't think it's like they saw a restriction and went ahead anyway. Most issues like are unintentional.

who is the room right now? tell me quickly as possible

The problem here probably goes something like this: Pocket books obtains a license to publish new works based on Star Trek. It may even have come with a non-exclusive list of things they could do, maybe a non-exclusive list of things they can't do. Edith Keeler and related material is on neither list. Years go by, and an editor is chatting with an author about an idea based on City (which he had just seen on TV the night before). It sounds good, it's not on the strictly prohibited list (which contains things like no major character deaths, can't blow up the Enterprise, etc.), so off they go.

I don't think it's like they saw a restriction and went ahead anyway. Most issues like are unintentional.

I agree that it's likely that whatever missteps were made here could've arisen from ignorance ("We didn't realizing using this character would/could/should require extra permission.") rather than from intentional malfeasance ("Let's screw this creator!")

But while the scenario you outline for how the problem arose is largely sensible, I kinda doubt that a proprietor would license rights to a publisher years ago, give a few guidelines back then, and then let that publisher go on commisioning books without any further contact/approvals from the proprietor. Especially not with a property as high profile as Trek.

Equally likely to me is the idea that the publisher came up with the idea for the book, ran it past the proprietor for approval at some point (as a concept, as a manuscript, etc.), the proprietor OK'ed the project--not realizing the issues specific to this particular proposal, and the publisher continued on its way, until the overlooked problematic aspects came to light. If (and this is a big ol' speculative if) that's how this unfolded, then that might shed some insight on how the process broke down.

As has been said above, this is one for the courts to decide. Sure, some of us out in internet land may have some insight on how typical cases unfold, but this is an individual situation, might not be a typical case, and certainly involves arrangements we're not privy to.

My comment about B5's uniqueness was about the fact that JMC wrote (or is directly credited with) so much of it on his own. Nothing else. :)

While rare, it's not unique. Linda Bloodworth-Thomason wrote all the episodes of the first 4 seasons of Designing women by herself, and most of the rest too. Aaron Sorkin and David E. Kelly have also been the almost-sole writer on some of their series.

// Not completely true. The character's only exclusive Trek hook is that she was a junction point on which time turned. Outside of that, she could work in a non-Trek story or even a non-sci-fi story. She was partly based on a real person. I'm sure Ellison could tell more then a few very good stories with her set before the time of her death if he wanted to. //

And I'd be the first in line to read it if he ever decided to do such a story.

// I know a lot of people that would be annoyed if the Harry Potter character is never written again by anyone after book seven. Tough. The creator has said no and may well stick to her guns. //

And let's hope that after she's gone whoever inherits her estate keeps on that promise. There's been a lot of cases of creators saying, "I don't ever want anyone but me to work on this" only to have thier estate go back on this wishes in order to make some money.

Why do I suddenly hear a bunch of space hippies in my head chanting, "Herbert, Herbert, Herbert..."

-Rex Hondo-