USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Crazy Eddie]

There HAS to be a in-universe explanation.

I don't think there does. I really DO think we could just chalk that one up to a visual metaphor and avoid taking it literally, because otherwise the implication is that the main handheld device used in the 24th century is a highly inefficient and cumbersome technology that they -- the technical geniuses we know are capable of redesigning entire operating systems in the middle of a gun battle -- can't figure out how to improve.

Same here. CBS owns the TOS Enterprise.

I don't think that's a given. CBS and Paramount were both owned by Viacom for a while, and what we are currently calling CBS is the entity that USED TO BE Paramount Television. This entity is no longer the child company of Paramount Pictures, which actually purchased the rights to Star Trek decades ago.

I think both CBS and Paramount Pictures have a sort of neutral zone treaty in place where they agree not to infringe on each other's IP rights, since neither of them can really afford a legal battle and neither want to put the other into a position of having to sue. The battle would be costly and frustrating and may not actually be worth winning, so they're giving each other space.

That 25% is probably CBS legalistic neutral zone to avoid tempting Paramount to consider litigation. My point is, IF it came down to a fight and CBS had to prove in a court of law that they -- and not Paramount -- owned the rights to Star Trek, CBS is (evidently) not entirely sure it would win that argument.

 

[Tuskin38]

I don't think there does.

While I find it very unlikely that we will get one in the actual show, based on some of the comments made by Scott and Eaves, they did put some thought into how it could possibly be turned into the TOS connie, or at least something closer to it.

 

[lawman]

OK, here are some quotes from the Facebook thread:
"Scott Schneider Alex Rosenzweig and the 25% is typically the number used when making one product similar to another. It must be at least 25% different in order to avoid copyright infringement. This is common with many products. Ive also come up against this in the past when using inspiration from other ideas that were copyrighted. In fact back on coneheads we used Libbius woods designs for Remulak and production was threatened with a lawsuit because it was too close and we had to change the models "20-25% " to avoid a lawsuit. This is nothing new or exclusive to trek."

Okay, that garbles intellectual property law in a lot of interesting (but perhaps understandable) ways.

First of all, to my knowledge there has never been a "25% rule" regarding copyright. For a long time there was a 25% rule regarding patents — specifically, from Marconi v US (1943) until it was overturned in Uniloc v Microsoft (2011) — but that wasn't about the content of a patent, it was a rule of thumb for determining the value of a patent (much more quantifiable), assigning 25% of profits on a thing to the patent holder as royalties.

When it comes to copyright, there is no such thing as "ideas that are copyrighted"; copyright only applies to the expression of ideas. The standard for infringement doesn't rely on anything quantitative; it relies on "substantial similarity," which is to say that an average observer would recognize that a second work is derived from the first. When it comes to things like prose and music and such, that can be subdivided into parts, there are special exceptions for "fair use," but those rely on factors such as the purpose and character of the work, the effect on the market, and so forth, and there is still no quantitative rule of thumb about the portion of the work. When it comes to pictorial or design elements, even a very small amount of borrowing (e.g., a pose, a composition) can be held to be infringement if someone could easily recognize the source, regardless of how much else is "new." (This most often comes into play in cases involving logos.)

Visual elements and designs are also eligible for trademark, of course, which is different from copyright (most notably in that it does not expire). The standard there is different (it involves the likelihood of "consumer confusion"), but again there's no quantitative rule of thumb.

Most importantly, though, copyright or trademark issues would only arise in the first place if we were talking about someone other than the owner using the content in question. As CBS is the owner of all the rights under discussion, it just isn't relevant here.

"John Eaves ...I only know there is a division of property and when the task at hand asks for 25% changes or a whole new design I know that what ever it is is not allowed to be used"

IOW, Eaves is making no claims to know anything about the actual legal issues. (Nor does he attempt to explain what "25% changes" to a visual design actually means!) He's just repeating what he was told by unidentified higher-ups. (There is no "division of property" involved. It is inconceivable that CBS would have retained the rights to Star Trek overall, including to make TV shows about it, yet signed away the rights to use the Enterprise. And if it had done something so insane, the fact is that the version shown on DSC is inarguably "substantially similar" to the original an extent that would constitute infringement, as described above.)

"...after Enterprise properties of Star Trek, ownership changed hands and was devided so what was able to cross show VS tV up to that point changed and a lot of the cross over was no longer allowed. That is why when JJ's movie came along everything had to be different. the alternate universe concept was what really made that movie happen in a way as to not cross the new boundries..."

This is even more bizarre. Here Eaves seems to be suggesting that neither CBS (with most Star Trek rights, including TV) nor Paramount/Bad Robot (with the film rights) has ownership of the Enterprise design, implying that someone else does. Who the heck would that someone be? Whoever it is, that party would be collecting massive royalties right now, because as noted, the original Enterprise continues to generate revenue every day, in all sorts of ways from streaming of the original show to licensed merchandise to more.

If he's just describing a garbled version of the CBS/Paramount split, that still makes no sense on its face. (Paramount retains rights to all the films, no matter which ships they use. It would never have agreed to a deal that let it make new films but without using the original ships. And if it had, never mind the Enterprise, the Klingon ships in the Abrams films would've been an obvious infringement. The reboot was a creative decision, not a legally mandated one.) Moreover, even if this were true, DSC isn't a film and it's not made by Paramount, so it wouldn't explain why the show couldn't use the originals.

IP law is complicated, no question. But when people who've never studied it it post seemingly authoritative statements, perceptions of it get even more complicated than they need to be.

Honest question: WHAT CBS properties have used the live action connie since the finale of ENT (which was before the rights split)?

Here's one simple answer: TOS itself, streaming online every single day (among other formats in which it's available). It doesn't matter when a work was first made, what matters legally is when you're using it to make money.

You can just barely make out two antennae here, they didn't fully remove one of them when they altered the picture.

Okay, thanks. That doesn't quite explain the earlier quote, though, which implied that the new ship was different by not having two antennae. And of course, as it stands, neither version has two.

The design was altered independently by the shows VFX team after John and Scott handed over their final designs. ... Eaves didn't see the final show version until a week before it aired...

Seriously? That's the sort of thing that posters in other threads, who apparently have industry experience, say just doesn't happen — designs are made and approved at the design stage, and the FX people are responsible for realizing the designs they're given, not changing them "independently." Two different jobs. (This was particularly emphasized when I too-casually held the FX team responsible for the looks of the so-called D7.) If what you describe is actually what happened with the Enterprise — despite the previous statements that the design team worked on it for months! — then the decision-making processes behind-the-scenes at DSC are even more screwed up than we've imagined.

(But if so, then how to account for Eaves' other statement that "we split the struts" for thus-and-such reasons, implying that he was involved in that decision?...)

 

[Tuskin38]

And of course, as it stands, neither version has two.

That quote I gave was about the differences between Eaves's and Scott's final design and the aired version, not what is on the calendar. After they saw the final VFX version, Eaves went back and edited the calendar image to try and match it.

The one in the facebook post is the edited version seen in the calendar previews, not the original design.

You can see dual antennae on the USS Defiant wireframe, so it may have been built off that earlier design.

 

[Tuskin38]

(But if so, then how to account for Eaves' other statement that "we split the struts" for thus-and-such reasons, implying that he was involved in that decision?...)

The split struts were not a VFX change. The change to the struts was the angle/shape.

 

[David cgc]

Okay, that garbles intellectual property law in a lot of interesting (but perhaps understandable) ways.

First of all, to my knowledge there has never been a "25% rule" regarding copyright. For a long time there was a 25% rule regarding patents — specifically, from Marconi v US (1943) until it was overturned in Uniloc v Microsoft (2011) — but that wasn't about the content of a patent, it was a rule of thumb for determining the value of a patent (much more quantifiable), assigning 25% of profits on a thing to the patent holder as royalties.

The 25% (or 33%, or some other made-up number) is a common meme in art circles for how different something has to be to be not-infringing. It sounds legal and authoritative, even though it'd be no less subjective than the actual standard, which sounds to us non-law-talkin'-types like loosey-goosey mush, and when you're pulling from reference material all over and are wildly insecure about what "originality" could possibly mean. I know "less than 25% different" sounds a lot more solid than "substantially similar" if I'm a student freaking out over whether the Marylin Monroe estate is going to sue me because I drew a comic panel referenced on a photo of her because I needed to see how hands work in that specific pose.

If he's just describing a garbled version of the CBS/Paramount split, that still makes no sense on its face (Paramount retains rights to all the films, no matter which ships they use.

John Eaves is a very fine artist and, I'm sure, a lovely man personally, but he's not a clear writer. He's gotten better over the years, but he's still very stream-of-conciousness. I remember back when he posted some stuff relating to the making of Star Trek '09, he told a story about how Geoffrey Mandel was let go from the production, and nobody could figure out what the hell he was talking about so they just spun out what he was saying to fit their own biases and how much benefit of the doubt they were willing to give the BALOK brain-trust.

 

[Rahul]

Okay, that garbles intellectual property law in a lot of interesting (but perhaps understandable) ways.

First of all, to my knowledge there has never been a "25% rule" regarding copyright. For a long time there was a 25% rule regarding patents — specifically, from Marconi v US (1943) until it was overturned in Uniloc v Microsoft (2011) — but that wasn't about the content of a patent, it was a rule of thumb for determining the value of a patent (much more quantifiable), assigning 25% of profits on a thing to the patent holder as royalties.

When it comes to copyright, there is no such thing as "ideas that are copyrighted"; copyright only applies to the expression of ideas. The standard for infringement doesn't rely on anything quantitative; it relies on "substantial similarity," which is to say that an average observer would recognize that a second work is derived from the first. When it comes to things like prose and music and such, that can be subdivided into parts, there are special exceptions for "fair use," but those rely on factors such as the purpose and character of the work, the effect on the market, and so forth, and there is no quantitative rule of thumb about the portion of the work. When it comes to pictorial or design elements, even a very small amount of borrowing (e.g., a pose, a composition) can be held to be infringement if someone could easily recognize the source, regardless of how much else is "new." (This most often comes into play in cases involving logos.)

Visual elements and designs are also eligible for trademark, of course, which is different from copyright (most notably in that it does not expire). The standard there is different (it involves the likelihood of "consumer confusion"), but again there's no quantitative rule of thumb.

Most importantly, though, copyright or trademark issues would only arise in the first place if we were talking about someone other than the owner using the content in question. As CBS is the owner of all the rights under discussion, it just isn't relevant here.


IOW, Eaves is making no claims to know anything about the actual legal issues. (Nor does he attempt to explain what "25% changes" to a visual design actually means!) He's just repeating what he was told by unidentified higher-ups. (There is no "division of property" involved. It is inconceivable that CBS would have retained the rights to Star Trek overall, including to make TV shows about it, yet signed away the rights to use the Enterprise. And if it had done something so insane, the fact is that the version shown on DSC is inarguably "substantially similar" to the original an extent that would constitute infringement, as described above.)


This is even more bizarre. Here Eaves seems to be suggesting that neither CBS (with most Star Trek rights, including TV) nor Paramount/Bad Robot (with the film rights) has ownership of the Enterprise design, implying that someone else does. Who the heck would that someone be? Whoever it is, that party would be collecting massive royalties right now, because as noted, the original Enterprise continues to generate revenue every day, in all sorts of ways from streaming of the original show to licensed merchandise to more.

If he's just describing a garbled version of the CBS/Paramount split, that still makes no sense on its face (Paramount retains rights to all the films, no matter which ships they use. It would never have agreed to a deal that let it make new films but without using the original ships. And if it had, never mind the Enterprise, the Klingon ships in the Abrams films would've been an obvious infringement. The reboot was a creative decision, not a legally mandated one.) Moreover, even if this were true, DSC isn't a film and it's not made by Paramount, so it wouldn't explain why the show couldn't use the originals.

IP law is complicated, no question. But when people who know bubkus about it post seemingly authoritative statements, perceptions of it get even more complicated than they need to be.


Here's one simple answer: TOS itself, streaming online every single day (among other formats in which it's available). It doesn't matter when a work was first made, what matters legally is when you're using it to make money.


Okay, thanks. That doesn't quite explain the earlier quote, though, which implied that the new ship was different by not having two antennae. And of course, as it stands, neither version has two.


Seriously? That's the sort of thing that posters in other threads, who apparently have industry experience, say just doesn't happen — designs are made and approved at the design stage, and the FX people are responsible for realizing the designs they're given, not changing them "independently." Two different jobs. (This was particularly emphasized when I too-casually held the FX team responsible for the looks of the so-called D7.) If what you describe is actually what happened with the Enterprise — despite the previous statements that the design team worked on it for months! — then the decision-making process behind-the-scenes at DSC are even more screwed up than we've imagined.

(But if so, then how to account for Eaves' other statement that "we split the struts" for thus-and-such reasons, implying that he was involved in that decision?...)

Best case: This is about selling toys based on the "Discovery"-line, and the guys creating Discoprise models have a different contract than those creating TOS-Enterprise models, thus those need to be a bit different.

Worst case: Everything regarding the Star Trek IP is split up between multiple company, and was sold piece by piece during the company split to make some fast cash. Re-runs, toys, and money of stuff already created would obviously be excempt (they'd NEVER cease the right to sell copies!), but for creating "new" content, the rights might lie somewhere completely else.

I would really appreciate it if someone from the producers would came forward and shine a light on the situation.... It's not exactly beneficial to the relationship with fandom if they allow speculations run THAT wild.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well they have twitter accounts.

 

[PixelMagic]

I don't like the new Enterprise at all, but I wouldn't mind doing a Discovery ship model.

 

[lawman]

It's obvious the rights shenannigans started before. It's confirmed in the facebook thread as "after ENT ended". But IMO that at the moment when it was announced 'Star Trek: Beyond' would be delayed, they immediately delayed the (then...) official release of 'Star Trek: Discovery' to have the exact timewindow between the two again even then spoke volumes about there being rights issues involved...

I have read some accounts suggesting that terms of the CBS/Paramount split left CBS with the Trek TV rights, but with a rider agreeing not to make any new TV productions until 2017, after three new movies had been released. I'm not sure of the authenticity of that, though; I'm skeptical, as it would seem careless of CBS to give up the opportunity to capitalize on the 50th anniversary of the property. Even if it were so, though, I doubt that it would explain the delays in airing DSC, which seem amply explicable by other causes.

The split struts were not a VFX change. The change to the struts was the angle/shape.

So you're saying Eaves and company kept the struts straight but added a split to them, then the VFX people kept the split but made them swept back at an angle? As creative processes go, that just doesn't make sense...

 

[Tuskin38]

So you're saying Eaves and company kept the struts straight but added a split to them, then the VFX people kept the split but made them swept back at an angle? As creative processes go, that just doesn't make sense...

Their words not mine.

Scott disagrees with the swept pylons.

In fact he doesn’t like them precisely because they’re a post-TOS thing

 

[Rahul]

The 25% (or 33%, or some other made-up number) is a common meme in art circles for how different something has to be to be not-infringing. It sounds legal and authoritative, even though it'd be no less subjective than the actual standard, which sounds to us non-law-talkin'-types like loosey-goosey mush, and when you're pulling from reference material all over and are wildly insecure about what "originality" could possibly mean. I know "less than 25% different" sounds a lot more solid than "substantially similar" if I'm a student freaking out over whether the Marylin Monroe estate is going to sue me because I drew a comic panel referenced on a photo of her because I needed to see how hands work in that specific pose.

John Eaves is a very fine artist and, I'm sure, a lovely man personally, but he's not a clear writer. He's gotten better over the years, but he's still very stream-of-conciousness. I remember back when he posted some stuff relating to the making of Star Trek '09, he told a story about how Geoffrey Mandel was let go from the production, and nobody could figure out what the hell he was talking about so they just spun out what he was saying to fit their own biases and how much benefit of the doubt they were willing to give the BALOK brain-trust.

This "common meme" (of 25%) might not exactly be an official (or juristical) one, but if the entire industry operates under that rule - then that's how they engage with each other.

Copyright is very weird in the Entertainment industry - The big studios use the same sounds from sound libraries, without really knowing who created them in the first place. And resist suing each other about such sounds, even if someone else is definitely re-using their sounds, because they know what a clusterfuck that would be (because how many sounds they themself use which origins they don't exactly know).

The "25% rule" might not be a strict rule, but just a mutual agreement. It can make the difference of someone "owning" the Tim Burton Batman suite vs- someone owning the "Batman Begins" Batman suit. A lot of stuff and props are similar (especially when they come from the same IP) - the Enterprise-A, the TOS Enterprise and the JJprise are all very similar - yet for each someone else gets paid royalties for creating them.

If the creators of DIS say "they aren't allowed to use ANYTHING from the old Star Trek", and indeed everything we have seen so far was changed up to a degree to avoid copyright infringements - I have NO REASON not to believe that! It would be insane to limit oneself like that without the reason behind that being actually, lawyer-recommended true!

 

[Galaxy]

Honestly, this is IMO a good point in time for someone at CBS coming clear to what the actual situation regarding Star Trek's legal status actually is...

If the IP Situation is murky then that would be a very bad move. If CBS were to claim that they own everything then that would force Paramounts hand to respond, if they do indeed believe they have certain claims.

 

[Tuskin38]

Here are the quotes regarding the Pylons @lawman

 

[Rahul]

If the IP Situation is murky then that would be a very bad move. If CBS were to claim that they own everything then that would force Paramounts hand to respond, if they do indeed believe they have certain claims.

Yeah, whatever they say should definitely be checked by their lawyers first!
But at this point they have to make some sort of statement. And if it's only someone saying on how they operate on DIS. If they straight up tell us: "We intend for it to be one coherent universe,but we're changing everything familiar that will ever show up a little bit because of copyright reasons" - I guess there's be still some disappointment. But at least we thee fans would know what it actually IS they are producing.

And then come up with how to deal with it accordingly - I for example would be much more forgiving with continuity issuse if they said something like that: Because I would take them at their word again at what they intended.

So far, what they said just didn't line up with reality. And if there's one thing fans don't like, is being lied to - or even having the justified suspicion of being lied to. Even - or ESPECIALLY - when it's because they want to "protect" us from the truth.("It can't be. But we tell them it will be. And then it won't be" vs. "We would want to have that as well, but can't have it, thus we're doing it such and such to deal with it, and hope you can accept it the way we intended" - one of them is clearly preferable.)

 

[Longinus]

This process seems pretty damn crazy. If I were Eaves or Schneider I would be livid that someone meddled with the design without consulting first. Especially as it is these two who will blamed of any shortcomings of the design, regardless of whether they were responsible or not. It seems to me that they indeed tried to do the best possible work and respect the original under the directives they were given. Whoever is in charge of the overall art direction of the show... well, let's just say I don't like their approach.

 

[shapeshifter]

To paraphrase McCoy: I know CBS execs, they love to Troll Trekkie's.

 

[lawman]

The 25% (or 33%, or some other made-up number) is a common meme in art circles for how different something has to be to be not-infringing. It sounds legal and authoritative, even though it'd be no less subjective than the actual standard, which sounds to us non-law-talkin'-types like loosey-goosey mush...

I suppose I can understand the motivation there, but I'm damned if I can see how it originated. if anyone thinks they're covering their ass legally by following some made-up standard rather than the actual law, that's dangerous and misleading. Nobody should be giving that kind of advice. You can still get that ass handed to you in court for infringing the actual standard, no matter how "loosey-goosey" you may think it is and how much you argue about what "percentage" of a visual design some change constitutes.

Speaking generally, the law is fond of standards that allow some real-world flexibility. It's not carved in stone; it doesn't like absurd or unjust outcomes. That's why, for instance — never mind "substantial similarity" in IP — one of its favorite concepts is the "reasonable person" standard, which applies in a wide variety of different legal contexts, and basically just asks what a hypothetical reasonable person would do or think under a given set of circumstances. I personally think that is a brilliant and incredibly useful standard!... and if some non-lawyers don't think it's specific enough, well, maybe they're just not reasonable people.

John Eaves is a very fine artist and, I'm sure, a lovely man personally, but he's not a clear writer...

This, I have no problem believing.

Worst case: Everything regarding the Star Trek IP is split up between multiple company, and was sold piece by piece during the company split to make some fast cash. Re-runs, toys, and money of stuff already created would obviously be excempt (they'd NEVER cease the right to sell copies!), but for creating "new" content, the rights might lie somewhere completely else.

I really, seriously doubt that this is the case, no matter what Eaves and his colleagues say (or have been told, or think they have). The Viacom split happened in 2005. The economy was doing fine at the time, and it wasn't about "quick cash," it was about reorganization. It was an internal division, and AFAIK nothing was sold off to other parties. (If it had been, someone could and would have traced where the money was going over the last 13 years.) At the time, Viacom owned both the CBS Corporation and Paramount Pictures (which owned Star Trek). As of the split, the "old" Viacom renamed itself as CBS, and also kept Paramount television, which was ultimately renamed as CBS Television. It holds (among other things) the TV rights to Trek, for productions both old and new. A newly-created "new" Viacom still owns Paramount, sans its TV arm, which still holds the film rights to Trek, for productions both old and new. (And AFAIK, nothing except the film rights; all other ancillary rights remain with CBS, to be licensed as it may choose.)

Moreover, FWIW, both CBS and "new" Viacom are owned in substantial part by the company National Amusements, under the control of Shari Redstone (daughter of Sumner Redstone, who is now 94). From what I understand she's the major force behind the current push for a corporate reunification. In a certain legally relevant sense, the rights are still "all in the family," corporately speaking. It's just that not all the siblings necessarily see eye to eye on everything.

The "25% rule" might not be a strict rule, but just a mutual agreement. It can make the difference of someone "owning" the Tim Burton Batman suite vs- someone owning the "Batman Begins" Batman suit. ...

Even as a "mutual agreement" that would still make no sense, because there is no metric that can be used to determine by what "percentage" one design resembles another. It may sound more precise, but it isn't. Lawsuits do happen, no matter what industry understandings may prevail, and when they do you need a standard that can actually be used to resolve them.

(As an interesting aside, while Batman—in terms of copyright and trademark—is owned by DC, which is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, the Batman film rights are held by Michael Uslan. He picked them up for a song back in 1979, back when everyone was still embarrassed about the '60s TV show and the property was considered toxic, and has held them ever since. That's why he has a producer credit (and a very nice paycheck) for every film that includes the character, even if he has nothing at all to do with the actual production. The example isn't completely irrelevant to Trek, either... it shows that even if someone outside the corporate "family" does hold certain specific rights, if the primary rights holder wants to use them all it ultimately has to do is negotiate how much to pay the subsidiary rights holder.)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Honestly, this is IMO a good point in time for someone at CBS coming clear to what the actual situation regarding Star Trek's legal status actually is...

Star Trek's legal status, I suspect, is dangerously unclear, so their attempts to MAKE it clear would be an exercise in frustration. They're being deliberately ambiguous because the SITUATION is ambiguous and making a definite declaration either way would put them on very unstable ground.

So far, what they said just didn't line up with reality.

It doesn't line up with the assumption that CBS owns all of the rights to Star Trek television. I suspect this is because someone at CBS has figured out (or maybe always knew) that this was not a very safe assumption and that their chances of having a court support their claim were 50/50 at best.

In fact, I now recall that the Axanar guys (Alec Peters, maybe?) tried to use exactly this legal ambiguity when CBS/Paramount came after them to shutter production. The defense ultimately fell apart because CBS and Paramount refused to clarify exactly which one of them owned those rights and sued him JOINTLY rather than one or the other being the main plaintiff.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

At the time, Viacom owned both the CBS Corporation and Paramount Pictures (which owned Star Trek). As of the split, the "old" Viacom renamed itself as CBS, and also kept Paramount television, which was ultimately renamed as CBS Television.

Yes, but before Viacom purchased paramount, Paramount Television was the property of Paramount Pictures. Strictly speaking, when Viacom bought Paramount's umbrella company they also bought paramount television. During the split, ownership of Paramount Television SHOULD have reverted back to its parent company, but for some reason this didn't happen. Which means that either Paramount sold off its television studio as part of the split (maybe it wasn't profitable anymore, or maybe under viacom it had already been effectively taken out from under their umbrella and they'd stopped managing it) or they liquidated the company and transferred most if not all of its assets to a new, highly similar entity that occupied the same physical space (like if a company declares bankruptcy and immediately sells its building, its offices, all of its computers and files to a new company which then just happens to hire all of its employees and use its old building as its headquarters).

In which case:

It holds (among other things) the TV rights to Trek, for productions both old and new.

That may not actually be the case. Again, Paramount television was a subsidiary of Paramount Pictures, who actually DID own the rights to TV trek. Strictly speaking, Paramount television was authorized to create Star Trek TV shows by paramount pictures, which owned the rights and owned the studio. Paramount television ITSELF never owned anything at all, so it would be very odd for it to now be in possession of rights that had only ever belonged to the company that owned it.

The real question is, did Viacom, in purchasing Paramount Pictures, also purchase the rights to Star Trek? If so, does Viacom RETAIN those rights after having sold off the company that originally purchased them?

FWIW, both CBS and "new" Viacom are owned in substantial part by the company National Amusements, under the control of Shari Redstone (daughter of Sumner Redstone, who is now 94). From what I understand she's the major force behind the current push for a corporate reunification. In a certain legally relevant sense, the rights are still "all in the family," corporately speaking. It's just that not all the siblings necessarily see eye to eye on everything.

And that's really the shape of it all. The legal status is ambiguous enough that they aren't going to make it clear who owns what, they're just going into full "cover your ass" mode in case things get weird. If the two families merge again, it will become a moot point.

But if they DON'T merge again, the question of rights and property retention becomes an issue. Because if during the split the subject of retention of IP rights was not specifically addressed -- which definitely seems to be the case -- then they're stuck in this legal limbo where each side has an equally shaky claim and they're both sitting there trying to avoid a fight that neither of them thinks they can win.