Readers of Harlan Ellison’s webpage–and even some non-readers–are aware that Harlan is launching a legal action against Pocket Books over current and upcoming novels about Edith Keeler.
Quite a few folks have been asking me if this will have any impact on “Imzadi” which, as anyone who has read it knows, is basically an inversion of “City” and features the Guardian of Forever. Although I already suspected the answer, I called Harlan and he personally assured me that “Imzadi” will not be a part of the litigation, for two reasons: First, he’d never cause a close friend that kind of grief, and second, 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.
In terms of the case itself, I know all the parties involved and–for all I know–I might be called for deposition because of “Imzadi.” Plus, y’know…not a lawyer. So I’m not commenting beyond saying that I certainly hope matters are settled quickly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
PAD
• 
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 pìšš øff 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.
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 pìšš øff 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 pìšš øff 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 hëll 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 hëll 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 hëll, or that the people who accept such assignments are whørëš. 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 dámņ 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” ….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 šhìŧ! 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.