Sounds like a reasonable lawsuit. Again, we'll see how it works out.
Harlan Ellison is Suing Paramount and Pocket Books
- Thread starter nx1701g
- Start date
The man's just trying to protect his creative rights, so? And if he's just trying to cash in, again so? I may not agree with the man a 100% of the time, and think he's a bit of a dick, but not over stuff like this.
Harlan Ellison isn't a douchebag because of this necessarily, just a mean old man in general. I have no problem with intellectual property rights!
To the person or persons moderating this forum, whoever and wherever you may be:
Do we really need another thread derailed by a lot of "Ellison sucks" driveby posts?
Are you aware that there's a whole forum on this BBS for discussion of books, and this thread should be there?
Do we really need another thread derailed by a lot of "Ellison sucks" driveby posts?
Are you aware that there's a whole forum on this BBS for discussion of books, and this thread should be there?
Actually, Ellison had some participation in Babylon 5 (and even appeared in it) -- one of the best episodes from Season 5, that took place from the POV of the two ordinary workers.
He also led a project where several authors got together to create a "shared novel" based on scientific and dramatic extrapolations that were brainstormed at a writing symposium... Medea: Harlan's World is quite a read, but its mere existence proves that Ellison is a hypocrite. I saw an interview he did on "Prisoners of Gravity" where he denigrated shared-universe stories as "anti-talent."
Yeah, he sure does speak his mind... even when he's incredibly wrong or offensive.
I've read the original version of "City." It was published in Six Science Fiction Plays, and for the most part is much like what made it to the televised version. But if Ellison wants to retain ownership of his characters unique to the original, he's welcome to them. Beckwith and the drug-addicted crewman are so forgettable, they're not worth reviving by any other authors. And the way the Guardian is depicted is more like a morality fable or fairy tale than science fiction.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
They're aware.
If I had to guess, either they don't think the thread is doing any harm here, they're enjoying Labor Day, or are doing other things right now.
I placed the thread in this forum because not only Pocket is being sued but the parent company as well.
Good god. DesiLu was such an innovative company that I can't believe no one registered a copyright for a script -- even a first season Trek script when they had no idea if the series would ever catch on. Back then it was the FIRST thing you did after finishing a script.
The author of the article wrankled me a bit. The past tense of "broadcast" is "broadcast" not "broadcasted". Having directed theater for 30, it really gets to me when someone asks "Have you casted your show yet?".
Anywho ...
Looks like so far, the lawyers once again are making the most money off a TV lawsuit.
Thanks for steering me to the article!
--Ted
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Harlan Ellison is a loon. He hasn't published anything memorable in decades so he decides to start a frivolous lawsuit.What a waste of space he is.
To misquote from THE PRISONER: "we want ... misinformation."
And on the net, you'll get it.
Yeah, MEPHISTO IN ONYX is unreadably bad, it is why Sam Jackson was killling to get it as a property. Do you even know a sliver of what Ellison has done in every decade!? Geez, his new intros to old books are more interesting than most new stories by other writers. His essays on films are compelling not only in terms of being written by a smart guy who knows the lay of the land, but are so representative an analysis of films for a particular genre that you can practically reprint them with new titles when it comes to routine stuff from the 70s that got recycled a couple decades later under another title.
It is really funny though, cuz lots of folks have your mindset. I remember reading an anti-Ellison letter in the 80s that mentioned he was an old fogey who hadn't done anything worthwhile in decades ... probably the same year he was writing those kickass 1985 NEW TWILIGHT ZONE eps.
Guts and talent ... they don't go hand in hand very often, but Ellison is one guy who has both, and squandered neither.
Harlan Ellison is a loon. He hasn't published anything memorable in decades so he decides to start a frivolous lawsuit.What a waste of space he is.
To misquote from THE PRISONER: "we want ... misinformation."
And on the net, you'll get it.
Yeah, MEPHISTO IN ONYX is unreadably bad, it is why Sam Jackson was killling to get it as a property. Do you even know a sliver of what Ellison has done in every decade!? Geez, his new intros to old books are more interesting than most new stories by other writers. His essays on films are compelling not only in terms of being written by a smart guy who knows the lay of the land, but are so representative an analysis of films for a particular genre that you can practically reprint them with new titles when it comes to routine stuff from the 70s that got recycled a couple decades later under another title.
It is really funny though, cuz lots of folks have your mindset. I remember reading an anti-Ellison letter in the 80s that mentioned he was an old fogey who hadn't done anything worthwhile in decades ... probably the same year he was writing those kickass 1985 NEW TWILIGHT ZONE eps.
Guts and talent ... they don't go hand in hand very often, but Ellison is one guy who has both, and squandered neither.
I think it's because Ellison really doesn't give a shit what people think and says whats on his head without sugar coating it to not rub people the wrong way.
Hey where would one get all those essays on films?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
HARLAN ELLISON'S WATCHING has a bunch of them (all of his mag of F&SF stuff and more), but others are scattered through his books. There is a terrific essay on Val Lewton in one of the EDGEWORKS compilations, too.
There are a few in the compilations of his EDGE IN MY VOICE columns, too, but I think those have overlap with the WATCHING book.
There's an Ellison website with folks who know lots more than I do (ellison weberland or something to that effect), where you can post once per day and usually get an informed reply.
If you ever read his GLASS TEAT books of TV criticism from 1968-1970, it's amazing how relevant a lot of the commentary still is (and a relief to see that SOME standards of incompetence have changed, mainly due to HBO, SHO and F/X.)
Ellison Webderland
There is a forum, but the serious (with rules and good behavior and stuff) discussion is to be found in the Art Deco Dining Pavilion.
There's also a big difference between OWNING certain characters -- in which case, the author would have to give permission for the characters to be used -- and simply being entitled to royalties from the use of said characters without having ownership or control over them.
The former would be rather odd, but could have potentially have been negotiated into a contract. The latter would be standard operating practice in Hollywood.
The former would be rather odd, but could have potentially have been negotiated into a contract. The latter would be standard operating practice in Hollywood.
Yep. Although the thing to remember is that the freelance writers who are entitled to royalties when a character they created is reused is not entitled to such royalties if the character is used in a licensed product such as a novel or comic.
You know, Harlan Ellison should write new novels instead of wasting time on lawsuits. But perhaps he's burned so many bridges by being a dick that no one wants to publish anything of his, for fear of being dragged into court! What a piece of work! The argumentative, litigious hack hasn't written anything of consequence in years! Geez! -- RR
If Ellison has a contractual right to be paid when his intellectual property is used (particularly to enrich others), then more power to him. He shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone.
Are any of you critics working for free?
And don't forget, Ellison had to stand by and watch Roddenberry rewrite his script. If Roddenberry didn't want the script Ellison had written, he should have written one of his own -- fresh, and not derived from Ellison's work.
Ellison might have been able to rework the script into a short story for publication.
Are any of you critics working for free?
And don't forget, Ellison had to stand by and watch Roddenberry rewrite his script. If Roddenberry didn't want the script Ellison had written, he should have written one of his own -- fresh, and not derived from Ellison's work.
Ellison might have been able to rework the script into a short story for publication.
Jinx:
Rewrites are a fact of life. Even Ernest Hemingway had an editor! Ellison is arrogant enought to think his judgement should prevail in all things. Thing is, when he wrote the script and submitted it to Rodenberry, he should have known there would be changes. If he doesn't want his work "tampered" with, he shouldn't have written for television.
I recently read about how he pulled off one of the greatest scams in modern movie history -- getting James Cameron and others involved in the Terminator movie to paste an acknowledgement of how his short stories inspired the film, just because Cameron said something about how two of Ellison's stories helped him come up with the story.
I am a freelance writer and I have had to deal with bad rewrites of my work, as well. Again, facts of life. Ellison needs to grow up.
Red Ranger
Ellison got paid for his initial efforts. And rewrites are STANDARD in the business. On this particular point, that would be ELLISON's fault for not knowing that.
--Ted
Clearly, you don't understand the first thing about copyright laws, and why they exist, which is to insure that a writer always maintains some control over his/her work.
Ellison wasn't an employee of Desilu, so his story wasn't work-for-hire. As such he has always retained the bulk of the intellectual property rights to his story.
What few rights the studio had were limited, negotiated rights, and such rights are never perpetual. Other than the fact that the studio still retain broadcast rights to "City" virtually all other rights to the story would have reverted to Ellison long, long ago. Paramount owns only the finished episode, while Ellison fully owns the story that this episode was based upon. He could resell the same story to another science fiction show, and Paramount wouldn't be able to do diddly. Because the story is not the studio's property, nor has it ever been.
Case closed.
I work as a supervisor part time at a chat room moderation company where we occassionally have to "ban and alert" the relevant authorities when the charming customers discuss meeting up to share their children for more than "play dates"(yeah, gross, I know but it's a very important job and somebody has to do it!). We then get phone calls, usually from people with very heavy southern accents wanting to know why they've been "banded".
I'd like to band some of them to avoid passing along their damaged genes.
