I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...

[David cgc]

It's perfectly right. If they wanted to do work and get compensated for it, they should have done *original* work. If they did something for love of a property or to hone their skills, they still have no ownership of that property.

That is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You still have a copyright on something even if it is a derivative work based on something else that's still under copyright. A 3D model of a Star Destroyer is no different in that respect than a critical essay or dissertation about "The Empire Strikes Back."

It sometimes happens that fan-made 3D models are used for things like video game boxes and book covers. Generally, the modeler is contacted, asked for permission, perhaps even compensated for the use of their work. This is neither beyond the requirements of the law, nor unheard of.

Being a fan doesn't bestow any ownership of a property no matter how beloved.

Ansel Hsiao (the guy we're talking about) doesn't claim to own Star Wars. He doesn't claim to own the Imperial Star Destroyer as a design or concept. He owns a model of the Star Destroyer. There are many like it. That one is his, just as much as it would be if he built it out of toothpicks and superglue, and LucasArts and 20th Century Fox using it without permission is just as wrong as if they'd walked into his house and carted away the model's physical equivalent. The only reason Fox and LucasArts got away with it is because they are big, and Ansel is small, and revisiting this case and associated ones has reminded me to take measures to prevent me from screwed by this or, worse, if someone other than the copyright holder was to use one of my models for a criminal infringement.

I don't understand how you've come to the view that a copyright holder automatically owns any derivative works. You've made a derivative work based on copyrighted material that was later used by the copyright holder. Were you not consulted when your list of discrepancies between Babylon 5 scripts and aired episodes (IIRC, a labor of love, not commissioned in any way) was printed in a subsequent volume? You didn't give them permission? You weren't offered any compensation?

If you were, I am truly at a loss to see how you can draw a distinction between the two cases.

And that's one big difference between a pro and an amatuer - pros don't do work until they've got a contract.

Gag me.

And both the chair and the rights to the intellectual property can be willed to another. The major difference is that the chair can be passed down for as long as anybody wants it but the intellectual property rights will at some point expire.

At this rate, copyright will never expire again, and that's perverse. The first US copyright protection expired fourteen years from publication (with an option for an additional fourteen year renewal, if the work was still profitable for that long, or the writer was an ornery son of a bitch, or he just wanted to throw away some money on the fee, or whatever). And that's a lot more reasonable than the current life+70. The purpose of copyright is to foster creative expression, not to cast moral aspersions on "unoriginality" or provide a dole for one-hit wonder artists. The fact that they can be passed on as part of an estate is obscene. There is no way at all that an author's creative expression is being fostered by his descendants being able to monopolize his contribution to the wider culture three quarters of a century after he's dead and gone.

That's the key point. Creative works aren't like a chair, or a car. They contribute to the cultural milieu. They are ideas that will spread well beyond their creator, and at a certain point, they take on a life of their own and become a part of our shared heritage. I recently read a short article regarding the reediting of Star Wars that touches on this, as well as a considerably longer article directly concerning it.

Copyright is not a natural right. It's social engineering, like a tax credit, to promote creative work by providing creators with a limited, government-enforced monopoly on their ideas to allow them to exploit them monetarily. It restrains the free speech rights of everyone else in favor of the original creator to do that (and free expression is regarded as a natural right, so it's kind of a big deal). Absolutely, if copyright didn't exist, it'd have a negative effect on the production of creative arts, but, likewise, excessively lengthy copyright restrains creativity and cultural expression. Tolkien gets to use elves and put his own spin on an existing concept, but a current writer can't use hobbits or wookies in exactly the same way, and will likely never be able to, and that's fair, or right? Did no one else watch "Everything is a Remix"?

I'd love to hear how Harlan Ellison stopping release of a film because of an alleged similarity to a 46 year old story promotes creative expression. It certainly looks like it's the other way around. Would Ellison have not become a writer and pursued a different line of work if not for the guarantee that he'd profit from a peripherally similar work he had nothing to do with a half-century after he wrote a given story?

For God's sake, Star Wars was released ten years before I was born, and I'll have died of old age before it enters the public domain. Who can defend a system where something won't become a part of our shared cultural heritage even when every single person who helped make it is dead and buried?

Bloody hell. Decades of battles for creator's rights and now the digital generation wants artistic communism. Steve Gerber is whirling dervishly in his grave.

42 years (including renewal!) was good enough for Mark Twain. Why does Harlan Ellison deserve to be able to restrain my freedom of expression for one day longer?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, and the guys who wrote the Bible didn't even get to sign their work - why should Twain get to? It's not a matter of what either deserves, but what the law permits and requires at a given time. I've no problem with the current copyright law; it will have ramifications that some folks don't like and that others take advantage of just like any other law. I tend to doubt that Clemens would have demurred if offered a copyright extension.

I think it's clear that enforcement of copyright is becoming problematic before our eyes. I don't claim to have any idea how this is going to end up, but I don't see any particular reason that Ellison ought to give up trying to protect his property as long as he's satisfied that he's been effective up to this point.

And the assertion that "professionals only work under contract" is nonsense. That's true in some professions and circumstances and not in others. It's certainly true - or supposed to be true - in the mainstream film and television industry (and certainly not for all professionals even there - employment is "at will" for many artists). Many other creative professionals - musicians and artists of many kinds - make livings through their skills and talents without working under contract for long periods of time, if ever. Professional writers in arenas not covered by the Hollywood guilds do work on spec or for hire quite often. They're not one whit less "professional" for doing what their markets require them to do. As one wag put it, "your profession is what you say it is on your income tax filing."

 

[David cgc]

Well, and the guys who wrote the Bible didn't even get to sign their work - why should Twain get to? It's not a matter of what either deserves, but what the law permits and requires at a given time.

I don't object to that. The law is the law. My motivation in bringing up why I thought current copyright law was bad law was the fact that several posters framed this as an absolute moral issue. Just because something's legal doesn't make it right.

I don't claim to have any idea how this is going to end up, but I don't see any particular reason that Ellison ought to give up trying to protect his property as long as he's satisfied that he's been effective up to this point.

Personally, I think he's well exceeded the bounds of protecting his property and gone into exploitation of the law for monetary gain. However, it's a bit like asking the scorpion not to sting, or the corporation not to have off-shore subsidiaries as tax shelters. Again, the problem of what's legal versus what's right. Though all of this is giving me some ideas about how to work with that.

 

[Professor Zoom]

42 years (including renewal!) was good enough for Mark Twain. Why does Harlan Ellison deserve to be able to restrain my freedom of expression for one day longer?

The law thinks he deserves that...?

Would you be this vitriolic in your post if Ellison was within the "42 years" of Mark Twain?

 

[Sindatur]

Well, and the guys who wrote the Bible didn't even get to sign their work - why should Twain get to? It's not a matter of what either deserves, but what the law permits and requires at a given time. I've no problem with the current copyright law; it will have ramifications that some folks don't like and that others take advantage of just like any other law. I tend to doubt that Clemens would have demurred if offered a copyright extension.

I think it's clear that enforcement of copyright is becoming problematic before our eyes. I don't claim to have any idea how this is going to end up, but I don't see any particular reason that Ellison ought to give up trying to protect his property as long as he's satisfied that he's been effective up to this point.

And the assertion that "professionals only work under contract" is nonsense. That's true in some professions and circumstances and not in others. It's certainly true - or supposed to be true - in the mainstream film and television industry (and certainly not for all professionals even there - employment is "at will" for many artists). Many other creative professionals - musicians and artists of many kinds - make livings through their skills and talents without working under contract for long periods of time, if ever. Professional writers in arenas not covered by the Hollywood guilds do work on spec or for hire quite often. They're not one whit less "professional" for doing what their markets require them to do. As one wag put it, "your profession is what you say it is on your income tax filing."

Yea, with Screenplays and Books, at the very least, you have to present an Outline, or if the outline is provided to you to stay within, you gotta write a treatment before you even get the Contract to sign, no? (Unless you're in the Top 5 or something)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That depends on a lot of things.

If you're writing something for a studio that's signatory to the WGA basic agreement, they're supposed to pay you before you write a single word. That's where "pitching" comes in - you don't get paid for that.

Writing novels and short fiction for publication is quite a different business. There are a lot of people on this board with more recent and more extensive experience than I (like, probably almost every pro writer here) and therefore more accurate information to offer. The short answer is: sometimes and sometimes not - it depends a lot on who you are and what the publisher knows about you and your previous work.

 

[David cgc]

42 years (including renewal!) was good enough for Mark Twain. Why does Harlan Ellison deserve to be able to restrain my freedom of expression for one day longer?

The law thinks he deserves that...?

Before this morning, U.S. law thought gay people didn't deserve to serve in the military. Now, the law thinks they do. I'm asking what you think. Moses doesn't carry down a fresh set of tablets inscribed with copyright statutes from the mountain every time the Disney company starts getting antsy. We do. People. With opinions. Who discuss them. On discussion boards.

I want to know why you think American culture would be negatively impacted if Ellison's copyright expired during his lifetime. Punting the question to say Hollywood lobbyists decide right and wrong in this instance is not an acceptable answer.

Would you be this vitriolic in your post if Ellison was within the "42 years" of Mark Twain?

That's an interesting question, and it deserves an interesting answer. I'm going to guess that I'd approve of Ellison making his claim on "In Time" if "Harlequin" came out within the last twenty years or so. Even that seems to be pushing it for similarities as superficial as these. Maybe five or ten years, actually. It depends on how long it would take the ideas to percolate into the larger gestalt, which depends on how popular and well-known the work was, how often it was referenced in outside works, et cetera.

If it was stuff like verbatim dialogue being used, then I'd actually support him even if he did make the claim after his copyright expired (I assume through some sort of psychic medium channeling his spirit, given the current law), at least in an attempt to be credited or acknowledged. A new staging of Macbeth is still going to say it's by William Shakespeare, even though it isn't the case that anyone who says the word "assassination" has to pay his descendants a nickel per use.

 

[JarodRussell]

That depends on a lot of things.

If you're writing something for a studio that's signatory to the WGA basic agreement, they're supposed to pay you before you write a single word. That's where "pitching" comes in - you don't get paid for that.

Writing novels and short fiction for publication is quite a different business. There are a lot of people on this board with more recent and more extensive experience than I (like, probably almost every pro writer here) and therefore more accurate information to offer. The short answer is: sometimes and sometimes not - it depends a lot on who you are and what the publisher knows about you and your previous work.

What if someone submits a script to a sequel to Star Trek? Can they simply take it away from him like LucasArts took the Star Destroyer model from Ansel Hsiao? Some here seem to think so, and also find it okay.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Bloody hell. Decades of battles for creator's rights and now the digital generation wants artistic communism. Steve Gerber is whirling dervishly in his grave.

I don't think anybody wants that. But you have to admit that as technology progresses these sort of things will be harder and harder to protect and enforce. I certainly don't envy the people responsible for making sure things are not leaked onto the Internet. That must be a lot like trying to stop the Titanic from sinking with your finger.

 

[David cgc]

What if someone submits a script to a sequel to Star Trek? Can they simply take it away from him like LucasArts took the Star Destroyer model from Ansel Hsiao? Some here seem to think so, and also find it okay.

Nope. Well, sort of, if you're paranoid.

I believe studios and publishing houses have strenuous rules on unsolicited material that basically says "We won't read it, and if we do read it, we won't use it, and if we do something similar to it, we were going to do it anyway, but we probably won't now, because you made us read it." (That last part doesn't apply to places that accept unsolicited pitches, because a condition of pitching is that they can use the idea if they like, specifically to protect them in cases where they were already working on something similar). I can think of three or four cases off the top of my head where a TV show or book series had to trash a concept because an outsider suggested it to a writer and could've possibly made a claim on it.

It comes up fairly often in the TrekLit board. I posted a link to a couple cases earlier in the thread.

There's one more thing that applies specifically to the misused fan model case. I can't find the details at the moment (it was a while ago), but a guy called Eric Peterson did a model of the Enterprise that he formally registered with the copyright office and he later received punitive damages when it was used in a for-profit production without his consent. More than once, I think. I hate to monday-morning quarterback when I know so little about either case, but from what I can tell, Hsiao was much less formal with the legalities when he released his model, which might have contributed to his not getting anywhere with his complaints.

There was a similar case, but I don't know how it turned out, with a picture of one of Fabio Passaro's models ripped off of his website and used on a generic sci-fi book cover. It was his own design, though it was described as a Babylon 5 ship. Maybe I'll ask him if he every got anywhere with that.

 

[Sindatur]

That depends on a lot of things.

If you're writing something for a studio that's signatory to the WGA basic agreement, they're supposed to pay you before you write a single word. That's where "pitching" comes in - you don't get paid for that.

Writing novels and short fiction for publication is quite a different business. There are a lot of people on this board with more recent and more extensive experience than I (like, probably almost every pro writer here) and therefore more accurate information to offer. The short answer is: sometimes and sometimes not - it depends a lot on who you are and what the publisher knows about you and your previous work.

But, the Professional Writers here, that write for Blake's 7, Doctor Who, Star Trek... Do the Publishers/Producers come flooding to them with projects, or is it feirce enough competition, unless you're in the top tier, that you have to present ideas to get most of your work? That's the impression I've always had. If you're Stephen King or Joss Whedon, then, yea, people come to you, but everyone else has to pursue opportunities most of the time?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You'd do better to ask folks with more recent experience what theirs has been. Yes, if you're an unknown the competition for opportunities is always intense, but if you have a track record and people want to work with you as a result the situation is obviously much better. It's still competitive, though.

 

[Jan]

But, the Professional Writers here, that write for Blake's 7, Doctor Who, Star Trek... Do the Publishers/Producers come flooding to them with projects, or is it feirce enough competition, unless you're in the top tier, that you have to present ideas to get most of your work? That's the impression I've always had. If you're Stephen King or Joss Whedon, then, yea, people come to you, but everyone else has to pursue opportunities most of the time?

(not a professional but this is my understanding) A freelance writer looking for an assignment in TV comes in and does a pitch (or several) of a story they want to write. The producers aren't allowed (assuming a union production) to ask for anything in writing but the writer can leave something written if he or she chooses. From then it goes to (iirc) outline and only after that's accepted will the script be contracted. Naturally, in the case of on-staff writers, that would be different. And of course it's different if a writer is already known to the producers.

Jan

 

[Sindatur]

But, the Professional Writers here, that write for Blake's 7, Doctor Who, Star Trek... Do the Publishers/Producers come flooding to them with projects, or is it feirce enough competition, unless you're in the top tier, that you have to present ideas to get most of your work? That's the impression I've always had. If you're Stephen King or Joss Whedon, then, yea, people come to you, but everyone else has to pursue opportunities most of the time?

(not a professional but this is my understanding) A freelance writer looking for an assignment in TV comes in and does a pitch (or several) of a story they want to write. The producers aren't allowed (assuming a union production) to ask for anything in writing but the writer can leave something written if he or she chooses. From then it goes to (iirc) outline and only after that's accepted will the script be contracted. Naturally, in the case of on-staff writers, that would be different. And of course it's different if a writer is already known to the producers.

Jan

Freelance = Not Specifically on Staff, correct?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Freelance" means, in this context, not an employee of the production. You come in as an independent contractor, selling your services to do a specific job. You write the script, get paid, you're gone.

In TV, script assignments are (were, and as far as I know it hasn't changed) generally contracted in two parts - you get paid the lesser amount of a certain sum to write up a story outline or "treatment" of the proposed script, and then the producers have the option of either giving you the script assignment (which is most of the money) or cutting you off at that point and assigning the script to someone else.

 

[nightwind1]

I want Ellison and Ray Bradbury to fight it out to the death in the Thunder-dome for the title "Bitterest Old Man in the Universe". I suggest the use of the soundtrack from "Amok time" as the theme.

Bradbury bitter? He's one of the nicest authors I've ever met.

 

[nightwind1]

Lucasfilm was co-plaintiff in the lawsuit against MCA at al. for the original Battlestar Galactica, as I said just upthread.

Yeah, but that was quite a long time ago. Plus there have been other films that were more blatant rip offs of Star Wars. Disney's The Black Hole comes to mind.

Black Hole didn't rip off Star Wars.

Black Hole ripped off 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Black Hole ripped of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.

Yeah, I would admit it borrowed very heavily from it, but then again that's another Disney film, and the Verne story is in the public domain, is it not?

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Because what you have in mind for the property might not be in line with what he has in mind. Or he might feel that he finished the story properly the first time and doesn't need anyone elses help finishing it.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that stories and characters are often very personal to their creators. They represent their imagination, their values, their philosophies, their voice.

Who want to just have so strange come and dilute your characters, perverting them from your own personal expression and turning them into something that's a faint imitation or worse philosophically opposed to your own intentions?

There are a million reasons why a creator might not want to just trade in his creations for a bag of money.

It's true, some might pervert the original stories/themes/characters. But the original creations continue to exist. Has TOS been eliminated by nuTrek? Did The Terminator make those two Harlan Ellison stories go away? There are many franchises that have long been seperated from the people who originally created the universes. Are Moonraker, Licence to Kill or Quantum of Solace truly representing the imagination, values, philosophies of Ian Fleming? Did Enterprise represent what Roddenberry had in mind? There already is this kind of perversion in many properties.

Not even remotely the same thing as what you've been proposing.

Roddenberry, Cameron and Fleming all understood that they were signing away their creative control of Trek/Terminator and Bond in order to get the projects produced and that their brainchildren were now property of the studios. That meant of course that being corporate product the works were likely to be franchised in ways they may not have intended. It's one of those creative compromises one must unfortunately make in order to get your work produced.

However please let me reiterate that these men SOLD their IP. Their creations were not STOLEN from them.

Now let's take a creator whose work isn't part of a major franchise. Should he be forced to have his creations raped because some fanboy shmuck with an IOU thinks he should be allowed to? Even if the author feels his story is complete?

If so, why?

Also why is playing in other peoples yards so friggin' desirable? I keep seeing people bitching about being creatively stifled but...

If they're so damn creative in the first place why can't they create their own goddamned universe to play in?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Bloody hell. Decades of battles for creator's rights and now the digital generation wants artistic communism. Steve Gerber is whirling dervishly in his grave.

42 years (including renewal!) was good enough for Mark Twain. Why does Harlan Ellison deserve to be able to restrain my freedom of expression for one day longer?

And no Copyright at all was good enough for Shakespeare-- or at least that's what he had to settle for. Luckily, legal protections have improved over time. There's no reason why intellectual property should have inferior protection to physical property. Nobody is restraining your freedom of expression-- they're restraining you from stealing somebody else's work.

Bloody hell. Decades of battles for creator's rights and now the digital generation wants artistic communism. Steve Gerber is whirling dervishly in his grave.

I don't think anybody wants that. But you have to admit that as technology progresses these sort of things will be harder and harder to protect and enforce. I certainly don't envy the people responsible for making sure things are not leaked onto the Internet. That must be a lot like trying to stop the Titanic from sinking with your finger.

That's exactly it. Technology has made it very easy to steal-- and people think that makes it okay.