Trek Movie says CBS owns Star Trek. Link Variety says CBS owns Star Trek Link Hollywood Reporter says CBS owns Star Trek Link Fortune magazine says CBS owns Star Trek Link I could also provide at least 57 other links stating the same thing, but I think the picture is clear.
To be fair, there is an article here from a Karzak post that states Paramount Television (who owned Star Trek at the time, IIRC) became part of CBS. If Star Trek belonged to Paramount Television, why would they part out Star Trek when they split?
Let's start with this link. Where in this link does it say that CBS owns Star Trek? This is based on a 10-K filing of Viacom, not CBS. And it talks about Star Trek as something it has control of, not licensing. Where in this story does it state otherwise? I thought maybe Anthony might have said it in his story outside of the quotes, but it's not there, either. He even says, "It is good to see that Star Trek is once again a key asset for Paramount and Viacom."
Son, what evidence would you accept? From the first link From the second link From the third link From the fourth link At this point your posts seem to be requiring that someone print hundreds of pages of legal documents clearly spelling out the entire relationship between Paramount, CBS, Viacom, National Amusements, and the hand of God. That ain't happening, so get over that particular holdup and lets move to the next level of "proof". This ain't the Obama birth certificate, so general and commonly available knowledge - you know Wikipedia level knowledge - will suffice. I am sure you will be shocked to see what Memory Alpha and Wikipedia have to say on the subject.
Paramount Television didn't own Star Trek pre-split. The former Viacom (pre-split) owned it. Viacom would distribute the television shows through Paramount Television. Once CBS was spun off, Paramount Television went with CBS. There, CBS renamed Paramount Television to CBS Television, and that is what has continued to control the Star Trek television library. Paramount Television is just starting to come back as a new entity, different from the old Paramount Television, as they are not the same company, nor have any of the same library. Viacom shied away from doing Paramount Television, according to news reports, because it didn't want to create investor confusion over how split Viacom was from CBS, already made confusing by its common ownership.
I think I am starting to get the picture... if Paramount Television exists, then since Paramount already makes Star Trek films and someone can prove that Star Trek is really owned by Paramount alsooooooo then there is a chance that some fan production could be pitched to PARAMOUNT instead of the evil people at CBS... then all will be well in the universe. Problem.... solved!
I am not your son, so you can check the condescending tone at the door. But I would absolutely accept something that actually ADDRESSES this. I mean, we could talk about the last link if you want, but I already stated my reasons why the other links you provided don't hold up at all. We are talking about who owns Star Trek outright, to the point of whether or not Paramount technically licenses Star Trek to make the movies, or if it owns some piece of it through its distribution rights. It's a legitimate question to ask, that we really don't know the answer to, because neither Viacom nor CBS have really definitively answered this question despite it being asked many, many times. What is commonly believed, however, is that CBS has both television and merchandising rights, while Viacom/Paramount has film rights. We see that in the fact that CBS handles everything to do with the television series, and Paramount handles everything it does with the films. I presented a story that appeared in The Wrap that did address this specifically. The only reason why I am not saying, "This is the end-all, be-all," is because the information is NOT attributed to an official source. So once again, it's an outside view, but from someone who covers the industry, and wrote quite extensively on why J.J. Abrams left Star Trek behind. Why I put credence in that particular story is because it was an industry trade publication (like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter), and because as far as I can tell, neither Paramount nor CBS disputed what was said. But the silence doesn't mean The Wrap is right, which is why I can't say it's definitive. I would very much like to know how this structure really is set up. Trust me, it would make it far easier for me to report on Star Trek, especially since the split ownership can be very, very confusing. I don't have a horse in the race on whether Paramount licenses it or not —*I just haven't seen anything that appropriately disputes what The Wrap reported two years ago. The story on the Chinese office building is really the closest I can see that says CBS owns Star Trek. But just like The Wrap story, it's not definitive. I am not saying that I am absolutely right. I never said that. I just said that I believe it to be right, based on what this story says, and the absence of anything else that counters it at that level or above. You cannot, however, go into a conversation to try and prove a point by flooding with links, where the links don't say anything near what you claim. In fact, the TrekMovie link you provided would support my position far more than it would yours —*Viacom, in that filing with the SEC, is explicit in calling Star Trek an asset, and nowhere does it discuss it as being licensed. Of course, whether it's licensed or not is most likely not a material disclosure required by the SEC. Star Trek is a major property, but not a key money-making property that would necessarily make or break Viacom if it went away. If it were, then Viacom may have to disclose a licensing deal with CBS, since it would be considered a material disclosure. So the absence of such a disclosure doesn't support my position, because it's probably not material. But this link, especially, does nothing to show that CBS owns Star Trek —*it seems, in fact, to say the exact opposite, as this is a financial report for Viacom, not CBS Corp.
So in all those words.. lots and lots of words.... there is no answer to the question: what evidence would you accept?
No, that's NOT the case. Remember, I keep suggesting that we stop looking at the IP of Star Trek as the content, but more in the distribution, which is where the true value of a property is for a media company. CBS has non-cinema distribution rights for Star Trek. So even with the creation of a new Paramount Television, it's not the same as the predecessor to CBS Television, despite its name also being Paramount Television. The Paramount Television you saw at the end of a Star Trek episode is now called CBS Television. And even if there is something called Paramount Television now, it's not the same entity as the one that is now called CBS Television. And CBS Television, almost definitively, owns television and secondary media distribution rights to Star Trek —*basically anything that's not on a movie screen first. So even with Paramount Television, if Paramount decided it wanted to make a television series on Star Trek, it would not be able to do it. Those distribution rights belong to CBS Corp. If all Paramount had to do was start a new television division to start doing Star Trek again, it would've done that and kept Abrams from going to a competing franchise, by offering him the Marvel-like multiple platform franchise he was hoping for. I know it's a bit convoluted, but that's mega media companies for you.
*scratches head So if I read the above post correctly, the ENTIRE argument is whether Paramount OWNS film distribution rights writes or LICENSES film distribution rights from CBS? Because at this point the goalposts have moved so much I am not sure that they are even in the stadium anymore.
Ha, Jedi, I really don't know what the discussion is about anymore. I think it's very tangential from the original topic ... I think this was a discussion about intellectual property, which I guess everyone thought was a simple conversation, but it's really not. It's a rather complex topic, that really gets into what intellectual property is, and what aspect of it has value, and what doesn't. There are many different avenues of how intellectual property is protected. For instance, someone wanting to protect the IP of Star Trek would want to trademark names and logos (as well as character names and other proper names), copyright specific stories, and be sure to have specific controls over distribution. And distribution is what this all boils down to. You can own Star Trek all you want —but if you don't own the rights to distribute it, then that asset holds no value. It's like I own a car, but I don't have a driver's license, and no one I know can drive it. What's the point of owning the car? What's the value in having that car, if I can't use it for its primary purpose — getting from Point A to Point B. Obviously, the value increases significantly when I have a way of using that asset, the car. So to me, the entire discussion outside of trademarks and copyrights is purely abstract. The value is in distribution, and that is what the Viacom split worked out — who would have distribution rights to what. We don't know what is in the paperwork that details how Star Trek is handled. That's never been released. Hell, there are some who claim that there is a ticking clock on Paramount's ownership of those distribution rights, and that they could sunset, and revert to CBS at some point. If that is true, no one has ever produced any evidence of it. And once again this would likely not be disclosed in public company filings with the SEC, because it's not a material disclosure (Star Trek films are not big enough to make a significant impact to the bottom line of Viacom, thus anything that might sunset regarding Star Trek would not be considered a material disclosure).
If corporate documents are unavailable, then they cannot be used as a standard of proof in this discussion. Therefore the standard of proof must be based on information readily available to the general public.
And I thought this is where the whole thing started; does Mr. Star Trek Beyond Uncharted have any business talking to Paramount about a Star Trek TV show? Sounds like no.
Exactly, which is where the majority of the "common knowledge" comes from. One of the primary citations for this information is the 2013 The Wrap story. This addresses ownership issues specifically, and I have yet to see anyone else present something as specific, from the appropriate source. Because that's another key ... it's one thing to have someone say something specific, but then you have to determine if the source is credible. And much to the chagrin of a certain other poster, I'm sure, a book written by a college professor in the United Kingdom, who mentions this unattributed in passing in the footnotes of a book about something totally different, is not a source I put a lot of faith in. I'm not saying the faith in The Wrap story should be absolute ... but I personally lean more on that, written by someone who covers the industry —*both Hollywood, and business in Hollywood —*in an industry publication, that was never challenged. I would like to see something otherwise, or even something more in support of what I see here. But I think that's what I've been waiting for.
*de-cloaks* I apologize to the thread, but clearly leaving it has not given Michael enough reason to drop his baseless impugning of the facts presented, or my research. No, one of the primary sources is The New York fucking Times, a newspaper whose credibility is far superior to a blog in Florida. If you knew half as much as you think you do about Star Trek, and actual research, you'd know that Roberta Pearson is a pretty fantastic Star Trek scholar. But that's ok. Keep posting walls of text.
The Pitch Of A Lifetime: One Enterprising 'Star Trek' Fan's Big Chance I cannot express how sad it makes me that even NPR and All Things Considered are succumbing to this sloppy journalism and not even bothering to vet this guy's story beyond his own absurd claims.