Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x09 - "All Those Who Wander"

[Voodoowoman2]

She isn't a real person, and she can't "want" anything. What she was depicted as doing was a reflection of the writers, and what they wanted.

As much as I love Spock and his issues with his dual heritage, the portrayal of his human mother's heritage being less important than his father's heritage is very much a reflection of the 1960s view towards women. The movies did slightly better, and DISCO tried to say that she was sharing her heritage, too. But even in DISCO, she is so subservient to her husband that she allows him to completetely screw up a human child by trying to force it to be Vulcan.

At the end of the day, I'd take a full reboot of the relationship between Spock, his mother, and his father to better explain his issues beyond "all of Amanda's culture and heritage were suppressed by her husband and she was cool with that."

Yes. Yes. and YES. She tells Kirk that logic is a "better way" Well, that's for her to decide for herself but Sarek gives her a command and she snaps to and obeys stating. "Of course. He's a Vulcan. I'm his wife." I do love watching Perrin put her hands of Sarek's face and yell" "Sarek, YOU WILL LISTEN!"
Some character needs to be invited to dinner in a Vulcan home after presenting her paper on Gorn physiology and genetics and get the scoop on Vulcan. Spock seems to be in a segment of society there that is ummmm Fundamentalist Surakian. Other Vulcans seem easier in their skin, one even commenting on all the ladies on the Enterprise. T'Pol's mother recognizes Trip's love yet Spock keeps claiming "Vulcans do not love!"
Sarek seems to have overreacted perhaps to Sybok and was determined to raise a perfect son.

 

[Mudd]

That doesn't change the fact that the product was understood to be the property of the company. You seem to think that the result of your labour should be yours in perpetuity.


That's ridiculous. It's not theft when both parties agree.

How about my piano example? I see you've skipped that one. Should I be compensated every time someone uses a piano I made? Or writes with one of my pens? Or opens one of my doors? Or is it ok that they just pay once?


And you've just ensured the death of franchises and crossovers. Congratulations: you have reduced creativity.

Well, you've probably reduced writer employment, anyway.

People who are just driven to write stories using other people's property will go back to fan fiction.

 

[Belz...]

Issue is that you'd have to carry out extensive work valuing the use of a character.

Is it a flat fee for any mention of them at all? Or how about fee per usage of them in said production? Scale with fees for a one off mention, background character, main character?

Who then determines these things?

Gee, how about a contract between two people, just like what we're discussing?

The main point is simply that you can sell your work to someone. Once the work is sold they can do whatever they want with it. You can also sell your work on conditions, or essentially rent it, etc.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't know exactly where the Gorn empire is but it seems to be gone by TNG.

Maybe they've just Gorn Orff.

 

[Mudd]

Gee, how about a contract between two people, just like what we're discussing?

The main point is simply that you can sell your work to someone. Once the work is sold they can do whatever they want with it. You can also sell your work on conditions, or essentially rent it, etc.

Remembering that all of this ideologically rigid nonsense is over the reuse of names and characters from tie-in fiction, the question of "rights" is trivial nonsense. If you have to pay a tie-in writer in order to call a character "Una Chin-Riley," she will be called "Jane Smith" instead. No writer will ever see a penny from such a rule.

That's why "Tom Paris" instead of "Nick Locarno."

 

[Belz...]

Remembering that all of this ideologically rigid nonsense is over the reuse of names and characters from tie-in fiction, the question of "rights" is trivial nonsense. If you have to pay a tie-in writer in order to call a character "Una Chin-Riley," she will be called "Jane Smith" instead. No writer will ever see a penny from such a rule.

That's why "Tom Paris" instead of "Nick Locarno."

Right. In the end it doesn't help anyone to be too rigid.

Allow me to use a different example, this time closer to home: I'm a computer programmer. My job is to create and maintain programs for my employer. As it stands I'm paid by the hour and that's it. Sci seems to imply that I should somehow own these programs, preventing my employer from modifying or deleting them at will, and perhaps even asking for a cut of the profits based on the program's importance or somesuch. Although you can sure have contracts or agreements to these effects, I don't think it should automatically and dogmatically be that way -- not least of which because it'd be needlessly restrictive and complicated.

I don't see a difference between this situation and, say, comic book characters.

 

[fireproof78]

Best part about the pub was no one knew it existed till season 2

What about the still?

 

[TrekTrucker]

What about the still?

What do this is Colonel, the NCC 4077?

 

[fireproof78]

What do this is Colonel, the NCC 4077?

I go with the familiar.

 

[Weyoun 251]

Gee, how about a contract between two people, just like what we're discussing?

The main point is simply that you can sell your work to someone. Once the work is sold they can do whatever they want with it. You can also sell your work on conditions, or essentially rent it, etc.

My concern would be that a specific person by person contract would be used by the studio/owner of the overall IP to bully smaller parties into worse situations or if it was a book by book deal then you are already adding costs for the lawyer drawing it all up.

 

[Sci]

That doesn't change the fact that the product was understood to be the property of the company. You seem to think that the result of your labour should be yours in perpetuity.

I have said no such thing. I have been talking about royalties, which is already a thing that some creative workers get. For example, the principle cast members of TV shows get royalties every time an episode in which they appeared airs, no matter how small their role was in that episode.

That's ridiculous. It's not theft when both parties agree.

Ah, yes, the vaunted "consent of contract." Nevermind that people routinely "agree" to unfavorable terms because they have insufficient economic leverage due to pre-existing economic inequality and must therefore either agree to such contract or lose out on employment (and therefore risk their survival).

Sorry, but until there's a level playing field, this "agreement" is morally nonsensical. Show me how may media tie-in writers would agree to never receive royalties for the usage of characters they created in film or TV productions if they all had just as much money as the corporations they were contracting with and never had to fear loss of employment, and then we'll talk about how it's not theft if both parties agree.

How about my piano example? I see you've skipped that one.

Because your analogy is nonsense. In real life, if you write a song and someone else plays it publicly for money, that someone else must pay you royalties by law. So it should be if you create a character and then someone else uses that character in a film or TV production.

And you've just ensured the death of franchises and crossovers. Congratulations: you have reduced creativity.

If that were true, no movie studio would ever pay good money for a license to make a movie based on Superman or Spider-Man; they would create their own pastiches and thereby save money. But that almost never worked out in real life; the unique characters are what made the movies valuable to audiences, not generic pastiches.

If studios had to pay a royalty to a media tie-in writer for using a character they create in a film or TV production, this merely ensures that they would only use those characters if doing so adds real value to the story.

Issue is that you'd have to carry out extensive work valuing the use of a character.

Is it a flat fee for any mention of them at all? Or how about fee per usage of them in said production? Scale with fees for a one off mention, background character, main character?

Who then determines these things?

Sounds like the sort of thing that ought to be the subject of contract negotiations with a union.

The impracticality of doing it

They already do this stuff in the world of TV. It's not impractical.

I don't know exactly where the Gorn empire is but it seems to be gone by TNG. Much honor in hunting Gorn for sure.

No, we hear references to the Gorn Hegemony in the TNG era. They're just not a major astropolitical power in the parts of the galaxy the Enterprise-D and DS9 covered.

 

[cooleddie74]

Originally there was going to be a Gorn at Riker's and Troi's wedding in NEM but the plan was jettisoned, likely for budgetary reasons.

 

[Mudd]

 

[cooleddie74]

I mean, let's face it. NEM was produced in 2002. How good was a background Gorn going to look?

 

[Yistaan]

I mean, let's face it. NEM was produced in 2002. How good was a background Gorn going to look?

Lizard aliens did well enough for background appearances in 1980 at that other star franchise. Maybe they should turn Trandoshans into egg laying monstrosities too. With the bloodbath that was the sequel trilogy, might as well kill Chewie again (Legends fans will remember the previous time) by sticking Trandoshan eggs in him.

 

[Belz...]

I have been talking about royalties, which is already a thing that some creative workers get.

Should I get royalties on my computer programs or not? If not, why not? Why is a computer program, which my employer can use to make money, different from a comic book character?

Ah, yes, the vaunted "consent of contract.

Yeah, damned freedom of association, right?

Your dismissal of these doesn't change reality: people agree to create things for other people and to relinquish control of these things. You have not, as yet, explained why it should be otherwise, other than a thinly veiled disdain for employers in general.

Sorry, but until there's a level playing field, this "agreement" is morally nonsensical.

Leaving aside that "morally nonsensical" is gibberish, you can't use the fact that some contracts are made under duress to argue that they should all be made in a way that makes the very work being done as undesirable by both parties.

Show me how may media tie-in writers would agree to never receive royalties for the usage of characters they created in film or TV productions if they all had just as much money as the corporations they were contracting with and never had to fear loss of employment, and then we'll talk about how it's not theft if both parties agree.

That request doesn't even make sense. If they had as much money, they wouldn't work for corporations to begin with. The "level playing field" you harp about is worse than a fantasy; it's undesirable. The only way to make it work would be for money to cease to exist, machines to do all the work for us and everyone to just do whatever they want. None of that relates to the discussion.

Because your analogy is nonsense.

It's not an analogy, it's a specific scenario which you have yet to address. You are ignoring the consequences of the thing you are championing.

 

[Sci]

Should I get royalties on my computer programs or not?

I see no reason why not. You and your fellow programmers should organize and go for it.

Yeah, damned freedom of association, right?

Literally the same argument they used to rationalize child labor.

Your dismissal of these doesn't change reality: people agree to create things for other people and to relinquish control of these things.

Tell me what percentage of them will do so if they do not fear loss of employment, then I'll accept that it's real consent and not just something they're forced to agree to in order to get by.

Leaving aside that "morally nonsensical" is gibberish, you can't use the fact that some contracts are made under duress to argue that they should all be made in a way that makes the very work being done as undesirable by both parties.

Good thing I'm not doing that. I'm using the fact that contracts are made under duress to argue that they should all be made in a way that fairly compensates workers for the total value their labor creates.

That request doesn't even make sense. If they had as much money, they wouldn't work for corporations to begin with.

Hmmmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The "level playing field" you harp about is worse than a fantasy; it's undesirable.

Only undesirable if you think economic hierarchy and exploitation are good things.

It's not an analogy, it's a specific scenario which you have yet to address. You are ignoring the consequences of the thing you are championing.

No, I am asserting that real-world experiences with actors and composers receiving royalties -- to say nothing of the situation in Britain, where the writers of episodes of TV shows own major elements, e.g. the Terry Nation Estate retaining ownership of the Daleks and Steven Moffat retaining ownership of the Weeping Angels, both from episodes they wrote of Doctor Who -- demonstrates that the hypothetical consequences of media tie-in writers receiving onscreen credit and royalty payments -- not ownership; royalty payments -- when an original character or element of theirs is used in an onscreen production, are in fact not at all as harsh as the ridiculous hyperbole thrown about in this thread. "The end of all crossovers!" Nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

I see no reason why not. You and your fellow programmers should organize and go for it.

The problem is that it's so complicated that no one would ever bother. Can you imagine trying to calculate how much I should get every time the program is run? How much of a say I should have about altering the program once I've completed it? Should that right over that program be extended over to my descendants? At some point they might stop using a program just because they can't afford it, which is insane. I made a program FOR THEM. The music industry is not a good parallel.

Literally the same argument they used to rationalize child labor.

Of course. And that's the rub, isn't it? If you're trying to find an argument or ideology that can't be used to abuse others, you'll never succeed. But again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's a distraction, once again.

Tell me what percentage of them will do so if they do not fear loss of employment, then I'll accept that it's real consent and not just something they're forced to agree to in order to get by.

You know full well that such a percentage is unknowable, ensuring that you never need to meet your end of the bargain. You seem to be arguing that people should only work when they feel like it.

I'm using the fact that contracts are made under duress to argue that they should all be made in a way that fairly compensates workers for the total value their labor creates.

And that's ridiculous.

Hmmmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What? If you were a billionaire, would you work a wage job?

Only undesirable if you think economic hierarchy and exploitation are good things.

Now you are disingenuously characterising me on the basis that I disagree with you about the feasibility of your proposal. Stop it. It doesn't matter if it's "a good thing". It is inevitable.

No, I am asserting that real-world experiences with actors and composers receiving royalties -- to say nothing of the situation in Britain, where the writers of episodes of TV shows own major elements, e.g. the Terry Nation Estate retaining ownership of the Daleks and Steven Moffat retaining ownership of the Weeping Angels, both from episodes they wrote of Doctor Who -- demonstrates that the hypothetical consequences of media tie-in writers receiving onscreen credit and royalty payments -- not ownership; royalty payments -- when an original character or element of theirs is used in an onscreen production, are in fact not at all as harsh as the ridiculous hyperbole thrown about in this thread. "The end of all crossovers!" Nonsense.

You are still dodging my question. No one is arguing that royalties are impossible or that they don't exist. What we're trying to explain to you is that they can't, and shouldn't, be mandatory.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Why shouldn't they be mandatory?

 

[Belz...]

Why shouldn't they be mandatory?

I've literally just explained why over the last few posts, including the one you responded to.