It seems there is a reason for the visual reboot and the producers aren't being honest about it.

[lawman]

Eaves said they couldn't use the original series TOS design - they either had to redesign completely or change by 25%. Scott Schneider was asked by Gabe in the thread to clarify if the changes were for legal or creative reasons. Scott replied with one word: "legal".

Yes, they posted that. I don't doubt that they were told to make changes. I'm saying that their statements about the reasons for those changes were speculative, and, more importantly, wrong.

Schneider himself said as much in the later post, when he acknowledged that he knows nothing about copyright law nor any other legal issues, and attributed the mandated changes more broadly (and still just as speculatively) to "studio politics, contracts... greed and control," possibly even the dictates of just "one person."

https://graphicartistsguild.org/tools_resources/trademark-copyright-and-related-legalities
So, not an actual legal principle, but one that people often cite in error. It nonetheless seems to be the mandate to which they worked. Scott even provides an example from another production, where he was asked to alter a design.

Good link; that site explains the relevant law fairly succinctly and clearly. Yes, the "25% rule" as described by Schneider is erroneous. (I don't know about it being "typical" as he puts it, or "one that people often cite"; I can only say that I have genuinely never heard it before. And we live in the age of the Internet, so anyone working in a creative profession who hears such a thing, which sounds obviously ridiculous on its face, can check it just as quickly and easily as you did and find more reliable information.)

Just as importantly, though, even if such a standard existed it wouldn't matter here, because there is no other party who could have any legal claim for infringement, as no one else owns any of the relevant IP. Eaves's musings about it being divided up after Enterprise are also speculative, and also wrong. CBS is sole owner of all of the Star Trek IP. If it weren't it definitely wouldn't be plastering claims that it is on every Trek-related product in sight.

If the designers have misunderstood and the reason for the changes are purely creative ones mandated from the studio, why were they forced to change the design of the Enterprise when they wanted to keep it the same?

That's a damn good question. I would love to know the answer.

As it stands, all we know is that someone told them to make some changes. We don't know who or why. We don't know when the "25%" misunderstanding got into the mix. We don't know who approved the final design, at what stage, nor why additional last-minute changes (e.g., the nacelle struts) were apparently made even after the approved design had been passed along to the FX people. None of it really makes any sense. (And that's not even getting into the issues of earlier designs... like the D7 snafu, where the writers and the designers clearly had different ideas, agendas, and/or instructions.)

We don't really have enough behind-the-scenes information even to speculate sensibly about these things. Hell, it seems clear at this point (just as it did from the earlier crossed wires about whether or not elements from the films could be used) that even the actual people working on the show don't have a clear understanding of what they are and aren't allowed to use and why, never mind the viewers. All we can say with any confidence is what the reasons aren't, which is to say, mandated by legal requirements.

 

[jaime]

Sounds like confusion to me. Legal probably thought JJ had the rights, or they thought of the movie enterprise, and didn’t realise it was the sixties version. Yes...people should know better, and I assuming a lot, but it makes more sense than a show which is full of TV series design elements (the Starfleet badge alone, characters like Sarek and Mudd, the Romulan Empire insignia, the copyright contentious Tribble....) not being able to use the TOS enterprise. That or it’s buck passing, like we see with the Klingon make up (was catching up with s11 of face off last night, and a contestant used the exact same physiological rationale behind the Klingon design. I laughed.) to try to calm the fan discussions.
If nothing else, DSC could afford to license the ship from the smithsonian, Disney, my uncle Boz, whoever owns it, with their budget.
It’s a fudge.

 

[jaime]

In fact, having thought...it’s more likely the tenth-five percent is so they can sell merchandising rights to the new ship as a new ship. If they just used the old ship, every company who already has the license can just bang out a product to cash in on the DSC attraction. Like the DSC ships over in the starship collection being a separate set and therefore probably a separate license (ditto for STOs DSC lockbox ships) this is all about having companies and fans pay again for something by changing it up. That’s my theory on it now. Moolah.

 

[Rahul]

Okay, lots of folks here seem to be making all kinds of wild speculations on the basis of essentially no meaningful information. (Except for @Maurice... thanks for being a voice of reason, dude.) I can believe that some executive producer at some point for some reason told Eaves and his team "make it look different, but recognizable." Beyond that, though, this is all smoke and no fire.

I've already posted at length about this on the "Enterprise on Discovery" thread, and I'm not going to try to repeat all of that here (especially inasmuch as many of you have probably already read it). Long story short is this: what Eaves is quoted here as saying (in the now-vanished FB thread) about the reasons for these changes (and for that matter the design changes in ST09) simply doesn't make a lick of sense. It doesn't dovetail with any understanding of how intellectual property law actually works (in general), nor how major entertainment corporations (in particular) actually manage their IP.

In particular, the "25% rule" as described is not an actual legal principle, nor ever was... nor ever could be, because it doesn't make any sense on its face, as there's no consensus way to quantify the elements of a visual design.

More importantly, the rights to the original Enterprise (and any other ships, designs, characters, or concepts) from TOS have not been divided up for inscrutable reasons amongst unknown parties. Lest there be any doubt about this, consider the legal boilerplate that CBS requires fan filmmakers to acknowledge, which reads in relevant part: "Star Trek and all related marks, logos and characters are solely owned by CBS Studios Inc." That is as crystal clear as it's possible to be.

Paramount Pictures holds the film rights to Trek, including the existing film library and the right to make new ones, as a matter of contract under the terms of the 2005 Viacom split. Make no mistake, however, film rights do not confer ownership of the underlying IP; those are two very different things. CBS owns everything (i.e., all the IP), and retains the TV rights, meaning it can use that IP on TV as it sees fit (whether streaming old shows on Amazon Prime, or using it in new productions like DSC, or anything else).

The only really sensible and credible statement I've seen from the thread was this one, from Scott Schneider:

Honestly I really know nothing of copyright law. I only know what we are told. ... If Ive learned nothing else in 30 years is that studio politics, contracts and legal issues are not black and white. Something that should seem simple often is over complicated simply because one person wants it that way. Never underestimate the power of greed and control. ​

Note that two of the three things he mentions have bupkus to do with anything mandated by law, and as for the one that does he acknowledges complete ignorance.

As the old saying goes (often misattributed to Mark Twain), "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Eaves said they couldn't use the original series TOS design - they either had to redesign completely or change by 25%. Scott Schneider was asked by Gabe in the thread to clarify if the changes were for legal or creative reasons. Scott replied with one word: "legal".

https://graphicartistsguild.org/tools_resources/trademark-copyright-and-related-legalities
So, not an actual legal principle, but one that people often cite in error. It nonetheless seems to be the mandate to which they worked. Scott even provides an example from another production, where he was asked to alter a design.

"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 copyrigted. 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."

If the designers have misunderstood and the reason for the changes are purely creative ones mandated from the studio, why were they forced to change the design of the Enterprise when they wanted to keep it the same? Regardless of the legal enforcement issues of 25%, it does seem that the lawyers may have told the designers to change the designs or completely redesign them. Unless said designers have totally misunderstood and could have used the TOS Enterprise all along

Yes, they posted that. I don't doubt that they were told to make changes. I'm saying that their statements about the reasons for those changes were speculative, and, more importantly, wrong.

Schneider himself said as much in the later post, when he acknowledged that he knows nothing about copyright law nor any other legal issues, and attributed the mandated changes more broadly (and still just as speculatively) to "studio politics, contracts... greed and control," possibly even the dictates of just "one person."


Good link; that site explains the relevant law fairly succinctly and clearly. Yes, the "25% rule" as described by Schneider is erroneous. (I don't know about it being "typical" as he puts it, or "one that people often cite"; I can only say that I have genuinely never heard it before. And we live in the age of the Internet, so anyone working in a creative profession who hears such a thing, which sounds obviously ridiculous on its face, can check it just as quickly and easily as you did and find more reliable information.)

Just as importantly, though, even if such a standard existed it wouldn't matter here, because there is no other party who could have any legal claim for infringement, as no one else owns any of the relevant IP. Eaves's musings about it being divided up after Enterprise are also speculative, and also wrong. CBS is sole owner of all of the Star Trek IP. If it weren't it definitely wouldn't be plastering claims that it is on every Trek-related product in sight.


That's a damn good question. I would love to know the answer.

As it stands, all we know is that someone told them to make some changes. We don't know who or why. We don't know when the "25%" misunderstanding got into the mix. We don't know who approved the final design, at what stage, nor why additional last-minute changes (e.g., the nacelle struts) were apparently made even after the approved design had been passed along to the FX people. None of it really makes any sense. (And that's not even getting into the issues of earlier designs... like the D7 snafu, where the writers and the designers clearly had different ideas, agendas, and/or instructions.)

We don't really have enough behind-the-scenes information even to speculate sensibly about these things. Hell, it seems clear at this point (just as it did from the earlier crossed wires about whether or not elements from the films could be used) that even the actual people working on the show don't have a clear understanding of what they are and aren't allowed to use and why, never mind the viewers. All we can say with any confidence is what the reasons aren't, which is to say, mandated by legal requirements.

The thing is: We HAVE a situation here. We just don't know what the situation actually is. But whatever it is, it's not a small detail - it's impacting the design and aesthetics of the new show in to massive degree.

The most likely explanation is still that they want to sell their "Enterprise" version under the "Discovery" licenses, and had to make a few bigger changes on it for that. This might not actually be such a legal clusterfuck as it appears to be, and just some bean counters chiming in.

Whatever it is, though: There is smoke. No fire visible yet. But a lot of smoke.
And whatever the ultimate reason for these internal directives is, it doesn't bode well with a good production environment. Either it's because they make fucking merchandise a higher priority than producing coherent Star Trek. Or because there IS a serious copyright problem plaguing the Star Trek IP.

Whatever it is: It looks like a horrible shitshow behind the scenes. And at the same time explains so much that is wrong with the production at this point. Where their priorities lie. And that makes for a toxic relationship with fandom. The last thing any franchise needs....

That's why I think someone needs to come forward and clear the situation up a little - even if it's only miniscule.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

the actual people working on the show don't have a clear understanding of what they are and aren't allowed to use and why

Jeez, what a mess.

Why does Trek always get mishandled?

 

[Rahul]

Jeez, what a mess.

Why does Trek always get mishandled?

Everything gets mishandled. Constantly. Trek had a remarkably long period where it wasn't mishandled. But in the entertainment industry, that was the outlier, not the other way 'round.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

I had the experience once that our lawyers could not get too specific about questions I had about a property we owned but had a royalty situation with, and the contract was really secret so they basically couldn't tell me the terms. What I finally ended up doing was saying, "Ok, just tell me what I can safely do with the property," and left it at that, and I stayed on that side of the line they drew for me. This may be the case here, assuming any of this is factual and not just some producer making an excuse to stop his fannish artists from sticking too close to what said producer considers dated material.

Thats some interesting insight

Here is what someone on io9's comment section speculated:

Although CBS has the rights to TOS and the other shows, I wonder if Paramount currently has the right to require changes for any new material set in the TOS era, since that’s when the Kelvin movies are set? That would also explain why TOS-style uniforms Fuller wanted were rejected, since the Kelvin movies already use something similar.

It sounds like a lot of the design and story decisions in Discovery involved workarounds with the Paramount rights. One of the Disco writers also said that they can’t use anything from any of the movies beyond minor references—including the original TOS and TNG movies due to Paramount’s rights—which might explain why it’s set pre-TOS. The movie era would be off-limits, and it would probably be difficult to do a post-Voyager show if they have to ignore the destruction of Romulus.

When they split in 06, CBS was probably content to let Paramount take the reins, since Enterprise petered out and CBS kept the merchandising rights and the back catalog. They could sit back and make money while letting Paramount take all the risks for a while.​

 

[Maurice]

My guess is it's more like "don't make it look too much like the movies because we don't want people to assume they are all connected."

 

[lab rat]

While at first this may appear to be a mess it can easily be explained with one word.
Mushrooms!
The whole production team was blitzed out and trippin balz on A++ Shrooms.

 

[cooleddie74]

F'ing Temporal Cold War.™

 

[Refuge]

Serves them right for doing a prequel that wanted to suck on the teet of the original but just wasn't allowed to pull it off. NOW if they had gone post Voyager...

 

[Rahul]

While at first this may appear to be a mess it can easily be explained with one word.
Mushrooms!
The whole production team was blitzed out and trippin balz on A++ Shrooms.

Jesus, NO! The mushrooms are there for instantanious travel through the galaxy and time travel! Don't you get it?

 

[Takeru]

Jeez, what a mess.

That describes the vast majority of tv shows and movies behind the scenes.

 

[Krandor]

Serves them right for doing a prequel that wanted to suck on the teet of the original but just wasn't allowed to pull it off. NOW if they had gone post Voyager...

Fans would still have complained about tons of canon violations.

 

[Tuskin38]

It's a third Star Trek

Nope

 

[Tuskin38]

Serves them right for doing a prequel that wanted to suck on the teet of the original but just wasn't allowed to pull it off. NOW if they had gone post Voyager...

People still would have hated it

 

[Lord Garth]

The movie era would be off-limits, and it would probably be difficult to do a post-Voyager show if they have to ignore the destruction of Romulus.

That's something I hadn't thought of.

And if they retroactively said none of the three Kelvin films had any connection to the Prime Timeline, then someone in Legal would throw a fit because they'd insist Spock Prime is the same Spock we saw from "The Cage" to "Unification". And possibly sue over it.

It's like Star Trek is the victim of a bad breakup. Another reason why they should've outright gone with a Third Timeline. You'd have Old Trek, Paramount Trek, and CBS Trek. The End.

 

[BillJ]

...and it would probably be difficult to do a post-Voyager show if they have to ignore the destruction of Romulus.

I can't imagine it would be any more difficult than having to avoid the Romulans entirely since they weren't seen for a century prior to "Balance of Terror".

 

[Vger23]

Fans would still have complained about tons of canon violations.

Worse, because now you have to hold up to 750 hours of what came before, as opposed to 150ish (ENT and TOS).

And now the "fan expectations" would be that everything is LCARS aesthetics, and that we need to hear about what happened with every single Berman-era character (for all those complaining that it's fanwanky that we see Sarek and hear about Spock, etc).

So, there would be just as much hatred and venom....just from different people and for different reasons.

That's why I'm at the point now where I just want them to do their thing. You're going to piss people off no matter what, because the fanbase is what it is. So just do it and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Krandor]

Worse, because now you have to hold up to 750 hours of what came before, as opposed to 150ish (ENT and TOS).

Exactly. The complaints we would hear would almost wound like something out of the Shatner SNL skit. "In voyager season 4 episode 39, voyager was able to do xyz without any trouble. this new show is 100 years after that so they should have been able to do the same thing and should have had it in their data banks that it was possible so this whole episode never should have even been a conflict or problem for the crew". type stuff.

It is almost a lose-lose for the writers.