Stealing Trek Literature

[JD]

Yeah, I'll probably go back to using an avatar later. But, I'll probably just go back to show logos for stuff I'm watching, like I used to. I understand it's technically illegal, but a) I've felt unconfortable using a specific person's I don't knows image, and b) I figure the chances of someone actually making an issue out of it are pretty slim. If someone does make an issue out of it, I'll immediately take it down.
Now, here's another question, I see alot of the authors using the cover of their latest book, are they technically supposed to be doing that? I'm not gonna turn anyone in or anything, I'm purely curious.

 

[Technobuilder]

I think they have a right to use the image for promotional purposes, which is why a cover image is created in the first place, right? Not really sure though.

Also, I find it interesting that we keep discussing a "Buy Direct" Model where the "artist/author" goes around a "distributor/publisher" to target the "consumer/reader" when by and large we started this discussion concerning the work of an author who has written licensed Star Trek material.

That model would never work in this particular case, because in the world of Tie-In Fiction, the Publisher holds the license, right?

It's a horse of a different color in essence to author-owned material, as the author works for the company and couldn't produce and sell Star Trek material without facing a lawsuit.


Another question... Would authors rather make more on the front-end and not have residuals, or are residuals better for sustaining an income? (speaking specifically with regards to tie-in fiction)

 

[Daddy Todd]

They're attempting to change the meaning of the word and they may well succeed, that's how language develops. Personally I think it's gay.

Your arguments are good. Throwing in a homophobic slur really undercuts them.

 

[BillJ]

They're attempting to change the meaning of the word and they may well succeed, that's how language develops. Personally I think it's gay.

Your arguments are good. Throwing in a homophobic slur really undercuts them.

I think he was pointing to the fact that the meaning of the word 'gay' has changed through the decades.

 

[Greg Cox]

Another question... Would authors rather make more on the front-end and not have residuals, or are residuals better for sustaining an income? (speaking specifically with regards to tie-in fiction)

That's an easy one. Every tie-in author I know lives off their advances (the front end), not their royalties. Most of the time you never see any royalties at all. They're certainly nothing you can depend on. It's the advance that matters.

I think of my 2% percent royalty as the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket. Maybe one of these days I'll hit the jackpot and write the novelization of AVATAR, and that will actually amount to something, but usually you're lucky if you win thirty bucks or so.

Just to put things in perspective, my last STAR TREK royalty check was for $14.67.

You want to negotiate a good advance, so you get paid regardless of how the book sells!

(FYI: "residuals" is a tv term. It doesn't apply to books.)

 

[BillJ]

^To me it's more about the fact that I'm stealing from the people who worked hard to make whatever it is that I'm downloading. I do support following the law and have never purposefully broken a law, but I'm not someone who's totally anal about everyone always following the letter of every single tiny little law. When it comes to watching movies/tv shows/reading books, I follow what goes into making all of those, and I care very much about the people who made them getting paid what they deserve for the hard work they put into those productions. When you download something illegally you are preventing those people from getting that money they earned, and that is what I don't like. I was a huge supporter of the WGA strike a few years back, despite what it did to the TV industry.

Like I said, before though, I don't really see where it would be a big deal if people watch clips, I've watched plenty of clips online (although probably about 90% of them are posted legally on sites like IGN, Yahoo, or Apple movies). My main issues is when people download whole episodes, movies or books. But I am willing to knowledge that it can get to be an issue when you try to decide where to draw a line.

Definitely not. And if the actress in your avatar objects to things you say on this BBS, she could sue.

What about the show logos? What kind of stuff would be considered fair use for avatars? Anything? I only ask because if there is stuff I can use under fair use, I'll change it.

I think you could probably risk it. Really.

I think an avatar using a publicly released promotional image would fall under 'fair use'...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

[Starbreaker]

I think if CBS ever tries to sue everyone for using a Star Trek avatar, monkeys will fly.

 

[Utopianvista]

Jake Sisko didn't charge for his stories.

I did write up a long post about my own views and realized it'd be like talking to brick walls.

 

[BillJ]

Jake Sisko didn't charge for his stories.

Jake Sisko also lived in a society where he never had to fend for himself. Provide for his own survival.

 

[Deano2099]

They're attempting to change the meaning of the word and they may well succeed, that's how language develops. Personally I think it's gay.

Your arguments are good. Throwing in a homophobic slur really undercuts them.

I think he was pointing to the fact that the meaning of the word 'gay' has changed through the decades.

Yes it was intended in jest. Very sorry if didn't make that obvious enough and it offended you Daddy.

The meaning of 'theft' might well change to incorporate copyright infringement, just like the word 'gay' may change to mean 'rubbish' instead of 'homosexual'. I'd rather neither happened, and was sort of trying to illustrate the point of why we shouldn't just take words that mean something else and try and change them when there are perfectly good words already.

And also trying to undermine my entire argument for a cheap laugh

JD - please don't change or remove your avatar on my account, I didn't want to suggest you were doing something wrong, no company in their right mind would sue over something like that. Just that copyright infringement is a huge field and as you say, it's an arbitrary line we all draw. And if we did ever give the government 1984 powers to just fine everyone then I somehow doubt they'd stop at your line, which is why an absolutist position is wrong.

I think most people in here draw the line somewhere, which is why it's interesting to debate the issue here (other places you just get in to ridiculous 'information wants to be free' arguments). I honestly think everyone posting on this thread is on the same page, or at least different pages of the same chapter! No-one here thinks it's okay to just take anything we want for free. Everyone that does it has their 'reasons' or 'excuses' depending on what side of the fence you're on.

I can't help but think it might be fun for one of the authors to write an alternate ending to a book. Something ridiculous where everyone gets eaten by a giant panda. And then Janeway gets killed off-page again. Then we can replace the real ending with that, upload it to a popular torrent site and see how many people turn up on here going "what the hell?!"

 

[Therin of Andor]

no company in their right mind would sue over something like that. Just that copyright infringement is a huge field

There was a fairly recent case where a graphic novel's artist used a beautiful artistic portrayal of a favourite singer he wanted to pay homage to, and it turned out she was a devout Christian and strongly objected to her image being used in a work that had some sinister overtones. She sued - and won.

There was also the famous Leonard Nimoy case where a beer company used a Spock caricature on a billboard ad in the 70s, and Nimoy had to press Paramount to sue for damages because they own his pointed-eared image, not him. It was what led to his greatly increased salary and much tighter contractual agreements for ST:TMP.

So it can certainly happen.

 

[LightningStorm]

^Well that (the singer) was a person not a company. But to the point Disney is notorious for suing people for small copyright infringement.

When I was an RA in college the Residential Life department made it clear that we should NEVER use any Disney characters as floor decorations because they can and will sue for such things. I thought it was ridiculous.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^Well that (the singer) was a person not a company.

Sure, but I don't know the details. Either she sued individually or got her music company to do it for her.

But to the point Disney is notorious for suing people for small copyright infringement.

Yep, a local children's hospital was ordered to paint over an infringing, handpainted Disney wall mural.

And a popular Aussie take-away pizza chain, Eagle Boys, used to be known as Beagle Boys, complete with a logo that featured those three canine prison escapees that used to feature in Donald Duck comic books. Until Disney noticed.

 

[JWolf]

Later, Marco organised for the first "Titan" to be free as an eBook promotion.

Well after the pBook was out and most likely read and in eReader which is not a good format. So really, it may as well not have been free.

But is not stripping out DRM illegal as well?

Actually, that is unclear. Fair use says it's legal and DMCA says it's not. So until a court of law makes a decision whether fair use or DMCA is the winner, it will remain a gray area.

And there are DMCA exceptions and I think in the case of Star trek eBooks, they meet the requirement so legally, stripping the DRM would be legal.

 

[JWolf]

Is nobody else here interested in the fact that the agency model is causing a rise in eBook piracy?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Well after the pBook was out and most likely read and in eReader which is not a good format. So really, it may as well not have been free.

Well, pardon me for daring to mention it.

 

[Greg Cox]

And a popular Aussie take-away pizza chain, Eagle Boys, used to be known as Beagle Boys, complete with a logo that featured those three canine prison escapees that used to feature in Donald Duck comic books. Until Disney noticed.

There was a restaurant on 23rd Street called GODZILLA SUSHI. It went by that name for years until, by coincidence, Sony filmed scenes for the remake less than a block away. Somebody must have noticed because they were immediately forced to change their name to MONSTER SUSHI . . . .

 

[Therin of Andor]

There was a restaurant on 23rd Street called GODZILLA SUSHI. It went by that name for years until, by coincidence, Sony filmed scenes for the remake less than a block away. Somebody must have noticed because they were immediately forced to change their name to MONSTER SUSHI . . . .

They could have just removed the first letter in their sign. ODZILLA SUSHI sounds great.

Similarly, a shop called CINNABUN, here in Sydney, had to remove a letter to become INNABUN, when it was revealed that the first name was already owned.

 

[Greg Cox]

There was a restaurant on 23rd Street called GODZILLA SUSHI. It went by that name for years until, by coincidence, Sony filmed scenes for the remake less than a block away. Somebody must have noticed because they were immediately forced to change their name to MONSTER SUSHI . . . .

They could have just removed the first letter in their sign. ODZILLA SUSHI sounds great.

Similarly, a shop called CINNABUN, here in Sydney, had to remove a letter to become INNABUN, when it was revealed that the first name was already owned.

I'm not sure if it's still there, but "Monster Sushi" used to proudly display a framed copy of their cease-and-desist letter in the window!

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm not sure if it's still there, but "Monster Sushi" used to proudly display a framed copy of their cease-and-desist letter in the window!

So did "Innabun"!