Just who owns Trek now, and what about continuity?

[gastrof]

Someone on the TOS board informed me today that when CBS and Viacom separated into different companies, Viacom got Paramount, but CBS got Star Trek's TV side.

HOW IN THE WORLD can two different entities own Star Trek, and what might this mean for its future? What if decisions are made that put the two at odds with each other? What if the TV side makes a decision that conflicts with choices being made by Paramount where movies are concerned?

What a mess!

Anyone know more details on how it all is working?

 

[Frodo Lives]

Since there are no actual Star Trek Television series in production right now and there aren't likely to be any in the foreseeable future, I'd say the deal is working rather well and it's nothing to worry about right now.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Should there be future TV shows, I do think that they'll be run by different producers than those who will do the movies, but I don't think there will be much of an issue about continuity. Both divisions will have "Trek lore consultants" (or perhaps share a single consultant) to keep track of things, IMO...

 

[EnsignRicky]

There is a similar situation going on with the old Adam West Batman series. It seems that Warner Bros owns the rights to the character, but 20th Century Fox owns the TV series. For some reason, they can't reach a compromise that would allow a DVD set to be released. The 1966 Batman Movie seems to be a different story however. I think Warner owns all movie rights, and that's why you can easily find that on DVD. It's a real shame since personally this is one of my favorite shows and has been on my wish list since they began releasing complete series of everything under the sun. The last I heard, an agreement is not forthcoming, leaving this classic show in a permanent limbo.

 

[22 Stars]

It is an interesting situation, one that I am keenly familiar with. I worked for Paramount before the split and CBS after the split. In terms of bringing any continuity going forward between any films that may come out, and TV shows, I would say we are Sh*t outta luck for now.

If, for example, the new film introduced a great new character from Pike's era that we all loved, and then CBS produced a series from that era, or an anthology series or cartoon, it would just add another level of legal permissions for that character to be used in it, since CBS and Paramount no longer have Viacom as a unifying corporation. Reminds me of the whole Ensign Bearclaw stuff from the comics to novels, except now add another wrinkle that two Trek productions are actually owned by diff. corporate entities.

 

[Sci]

Someone on the TOS board informed me today that when CBS and Viacom separated into different companies, Viacom got Paramount, but CBS got Star Trek's TV side.

HOW IN THE WORLD can two different entities own Star Trek, and what might this mean for its future?

Alright. Here's the deal.

Star Trek is a trademark of CBS. CBS also owns all the Trek TV shows.

Paramount Pictures owns the copyright on the Trek films. However, the trademark remains CBS's. That means that the upcoming Star Trek film is being made under license from CBS, akin to how Universal made Serenity under license from 20th Century Fox.

What if decisions are made that put the two at odds with each other?

Then they'll either find a way to reconcile the apparent contradictions or they won't.

 

[slappy]

The two will never be at odds but so much, being under the same parent company. Believe me, and disagreement they may have will all get worked out for the sake of the greenbacks.

 

[22 Stars]

The two will never be at odds but so much, being under the same parent company.

But no, they aren't under the same parent company any more, CBS and Paramount are not under the Viacom umbrella any longer, nor are they a joint entity in any way.

Ok, put it this way. If the film depicts one series of events for Number One, a CBS show down the road could depict an entirely different story or back story for Number One and there will be no unifying force.

 

[SFRabid]

My understanding - If Paramount makes a movie they have to license the name from CBS. A company like CBS has been around long enough to look at the script first and make sure there is nothing damaging or that would hinder future income from lisencing, which means, continuity.

 

[gastrof]

The two will never be at odds but so much, being under the same parent company. Believe me, and disagreement they may have will all get worked out for the sake of the greenbacks.

Did you read the thread-starter?

What you're doing is the same as a 911 operator telling someone "No, your house isn't on fire" when the flames are 10 feet away from the one who's calling.

CBS and Viacom split, leaving movie Trek in the hands of Paramount (Viacom) and TV Trek in the hands of CBS.

That's what this is all about.

They're NOT under the same company any more.

 

[22 Stars]

My understanding - If Paramount makes a movie they have to license the name from CBS. A company like CBS has been around long enough to look at the script first and make sure there is nothing damaging or that would hinder future income from lisencing, which means, continuity.

I don't 'think' CBS owns the name 'Star Trek' now, but I would love to see any info that states otherwise. I don't think CBS is listed anywhere on the Trek XI teaser trailer or the website is it?

 

[Navaros]

What if the TV side makes a decision that conflicts with choices being made by Paramount where movies are concerned?

What a mess!

Doesn't matter much if that happens. That same effect already happened with the TNG movies almost completely ignoring DS9, and going against things that the DS9 TV show had decided, and vice versa. So just pick what you like better (the conflicting movie(s), or the conflicting TV show), and that's that. Not really a big deal.

 

[gastrof]

What if the TV side makes a decision that conflicts with choices being made by Paramount where movies are concerned?

What a mess!

Doesn't matter much if that happens. That same effect already happened with the TNG movies almost completely ignoring DS9, and going against things that the DS9 TV show had decided, and vice versa...

Never happened.

Mention was made in the TNG movies of the Dominion situation, and they even showed Worf in command of DS9's Defiant.

The two were in sync.

Sorry you missed that.

 

[Sci]

The two will never be at odds but so much, being under the same parent company.

No. Viacom split into two separate companies -- Viacom and CBS. CBS owns the Star Trek trademark, and Viacom (through its subsidiary, Paramount Pictures) owns the Trek films.

I don't 'think' CBS owns the name 'Star Trek' now, but I would love to see any info that states otherwise.

You are mistaken. Just check out this link. Since the split, every Star Trek book published has contained this bit of copyright info:

STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.

It's also interesting to note that, lately, the Trek novels that are based on things that come from both the TV shows and the films, such as the Star Trek: Titan series, have been copyrighted to both CBS and Paramount, while still carrying the "STAR TREK is a trademark of CBS" notice. That's because Paramount, whilst not owning the Star Trek trademark, does hold the copyrights to the films.

I don't think CBS is listed anywhere on the Trek XI teaser trailer or the website is it?

I don't know that it would.

 

[JD]

I'm assuming there must be some kind of deal worked out for this situation, because I find it hard to believe that they haven't been thinking about this already.
Plus, we've already seen stuff from both the movies and the shows popping up in the books, and the comics, so obvious there is someway for them to cross the stuff over.