New Book about TOS: These Are The Voyages

[Harvey]

If one wants to quibble with Cushman's television history...

Los Angeles contributed the filmed series, with The Lone Ranger being the first western, Dragnet the first cop show, and I Love Lucy the first sitcom, all shot on film.

The (television version) of the infamous Amos 'n Andy actually beat Lucy and Desi to the air by four months (June 21, 1951 vs. October 15, 1951). Andy filmed at Hal Roach Studios (in Culver City) using the three-camera method.

The claim about The Lone Ranger is mostly right. Hopalong Cassidy actually beat that series to the air, but Hopalong Cassidy was made of repurposed theatrical shorts until 1952, when it began filming new material.

 

[plynch]

It's like he's writing "common knowledge" off the cuff so often. I will say this, thanks to the kindle sample, I have a handle on GR's busy-ness as a writer pre-Trek. (Assuming the author is telling me the truth! Many small errors cast doubt on the big stuff.)

 

[Harvey]

Those credits -- along with much of Cushman's chapter about Roddenberry -- are sourced straight from David Alexander's biography (as well as, to a lesser extent, Joel Engel's less sympathetic biography). Alexander's book is deeply flawed in many ways (it excuses and even takes delight in Roddenberry's flaws, but goes after his critics), but he did a good job accounting for all of Roddenberry's credits.

I haven't compared the two books, but I assume Cushman could get that much right. He generally knows a lot about Star Trek. The problem is that he (a) doesn't know a lot about tv/film history and (b) doesn't differentiate between speculation and established fact.

 

[SpHeRe31459]

Did they correct the mistake on the back cover that stated the episode "Sarek" was the first TNG episode to include a character from TOS, which they claimed linked the two series together?

That's certainly an error due to Cushman's own ego. He wrote the pitch for "Sarek" and he's mighty proud of it in the special features of the TNG Blu-ray content.

 

[Maurice]

He also wastes time on things like the history of NBC, which has little to do with the subject. He apparently got someone to copy edit, but he still needs and EDITOR with a mean blue pencil, and a fact checker.

 

[Frontier]

Here's the revised and expanded version of season 1. I'm still waiting for the Kindle version.

Neil

Is there going to be such? I want to read it but my days of physical book reading are done.

I got to read a sneak peak of this early on, as the editor/publisher wanted some feedback about it and so asked TrekCore. Should have given me a free copy too! But Adam our webmaster got one. He gets all the free stuff now!

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I think I really want this book...

But 40 bucks for the book plus another 25 bucks(!) for international shipping (to Canada) is on the steep side.

This is an independently made (most likely self-published) book not being sold through a big store (or big stores) and is therefore going to cost a lot of money. Did you think that the writer(s) were publishing this to be sold very cheaply?

At least the people behind it worked their tails off to get it out to the wider world-errors and all- unlike the lazy people at the official publishing company who seemed not to give a shit to be able to get the interviews with the people responsible for the original series published and archived in book form before most of them passed on.

 

[Corran Horn]

He also wastes time on things like the history of NBC, which has little to do with the subject. He apparently got someone to copy edit, but he still needs and EDITOR with a mean blue pencil, and a fact checker.

That's one thing that's disappointing. Some of these issues are on things that really didn't need to be included in the book at all.

 

[trevanian]

I think I really want this book...

But 40 bucks for the book plus another 25 bucks(!) for international shipping (to Canada) is on the steep side.

This is an independently made (most likely self-published) book not being sold through a big store (or big stores) and is therefore going to cost a lot of money. Did you think that the writer(s) were publishing this to be sold very cheaply?

At least the people behind it worked their tails off to get it out to the wider world-errors and all- unlike the lazy people at the official publishing company who seemed not to give a shit to be able to get the interviews with the people responsible for the original series published and archived in book form before most of them passed on.

I'll grant you that last part, because Pocket certainly had the opportunity as well as folks champing at the bit to do the interviews for some years and completely shined it on.

But if this was a genuine labor of love, I don't think the image rights issue would still be a factor. For his massive THE INVISIBLE ART matte painting book, Craig Barron had to get rights for ALL of the images, which I recall him telling me involved a combination of trading services to studios with the rights and shelling out nearly six figures himself ... that's not the publisher doing that, that's the author!

That's certainly an exceptional case, but with TREK, with all the interest down through decades, wouldn't it merit the same special consideration and effort, to be definitive and uncontestable?

 

[Warped9]

Here's the revised and expanded version of season 1. I'm still waiting for the Kindle version.

Neil

Is there going to be such? I want to read it but my days of physical book reading are done.

I got to read a sneak peak of this early on, as the editor/publisher wanted some feedback about it and so asked TrekCore. Should have given me a free copy too! But Adam our webmaster got one. He gets all the free stuff now!

Yes, there is a Kindle version at significantly reduced price.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I'm just annoyed that the author seems to have seen fit to lift at least some of them from startrekhistory.com with neither permission nor attribution.

Almost all the photographs bear the caption "Courtesy of Gurian". Was Gurian the one who scanned those photos?

Gurian runs the Star Trek Prop Authority website. In many cases, the photos attributed to him were pilfered from other sources, including Star Trek History, without getting permission (or, it seems, acknowledging their work restoring the photos in the first place).

^^^A shame. A crying fucking shame! I'm torn rather to buy a copy, and feel that I'm supporting theft, or to forego it.

Sir Rhosis

EDIT: Fuck 'em. No bucks from me. I'll go to a couple more Reds games.

I think Gurian’s contention (in going through his Facebook page) is that the original film trims were cut up and sold by Lincoln Enterprises to lots of people. StarTrekHistory just got one frame of the film trim, and he has, like, the very next frame. So of course they’ll look the same! (I don’t think there are actually any clips in this book that weren't simply harvested from StarTrekHistory or from the "birdofthegalaxy" Flickr page without permission or even attribution.)

It’s too bad, too: the clips that StarTrekHistory possesses actually exist in far higher definition than are made available on-line. If anyone had thought to go right to the horse’s mouth instead of through Gurian, the pictures could have been obtained and reproduced in greater resolution.

The pictures at StarTrekHistory employ a floating and moving watermark. By capturing multiple screen grabs at different points during the floating cycle, it was possible to stitch the images together in Frankensteinian fashion to create a single image without the offending watermark.

What a shame. There ought to be a law.

Someone should scan the entire book and post it online.

My enthusiasm for this book has been severely dampened by the fact the author poached photos online. What does the publisher say about this? ultimately that would be their responsibility for clearances and liability, right?

Copyright is thorny and gray. I learned a lot doing a book with many quotes to make money (as opposed to research in academia). I used only public domain photos and licensed my cover photo from a rights management firm so hopefully the widow of the photog gets a couple bucks. "The worker deserves her wages."

As for this Trek book:

Someone wondered about the publisher. Almost always the author retains copyright and is also liable for any infringement issues. Publishers are bare bones nowadays. You must show your publisher that you have gotten permission or secured the rights to items you're using. Quotes if not lengthy are ok in nonfiction to enlighten the public, but photos (except in journalism/criticism) must be licensed, or borrowed with permission. Song lyrics are never quoted without permission.

I by no means condone what the author did if he ripped the images off of TrekHistory. I wonder: Who owns the copyrights on those images? The corporation that now owns televised Trek? They were discarded (there are court cases about forfeiting ownership rights when discarding something); and never published. Copyright protection begins from the date first made accessible to the public. My hunch is that TrekHistory is in no position to do anything legally (IF indeed the author took those images as people think).

This is why there are copyright attorneys.

I was wondering about the transformative issue, but I didn't think simply restoring a clip would transform it. This mattered with my book: since I was taking quotes from previous works but stitching them into something new, it is ok.

This transformative angle came up in a case involving t-shirts of the Three Stooges and their own publicity rights: the right to make money from one's own visage. The shirts simply had pictures of them that hadn't really been altered; unlike, say, Warhol's art of Marilyn. (Or my AWESOME Warhol-esque Spock shirt, referenced in my book!) I'm sure the lawyers would enjoy arguing whether color-restoring pictures you didn't have the right to, constitutes artistic transformation. And of course, it depends what judge you draw.

Let me restate that if the authors did what some people think/claim, I still think that's dirty pool, and an ODD shortcut considering how many ridiculous hours of research they must have put in on the text. From the sound of it, there are only these trims and publicity stills illustrating the book? So they didn't want to license images from the episodes from whatever corporation owns them? Anyone contact the authors yet? (I'm not a buyer, nor will I be.)

I was wondering about the transformative issue, but I didn't think simply restoring a clip would transform it. This mattered with my book: since I was taking quotes from previous works but stitching them into something new, it is ok.

that's something I wondered about with those James Van Hise 'books' on Trek, where he grabs a chunk from CFQ here, followed by a chunk from CINEFEX there, and some AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER, sometimes using quotes, often summarizing author's text. I remember on the title page there was some declaration about the nature of the book that presumably protected it against charges of copyright infringement, but I couldn't figure out how that worked.

Van Hise grabbed stuff that was very author-specific ... for example, from the TUC Cinefex, he pretty much reprinted my own line about Chang's eyepiece being only parted bolted in where I (in maybe the only instance I ever managed to do this and have it survive into print) managed to get a 'funny' into the magazine) say the effect is a klingon with a screw loose. That's not what any of the interviewees told me, so it isn't a part of TREK history, just an author's observation, which seems like it should be more sacrosanct.

Ditto for this godawful STAR WARS history book called EMPIRE BUILDING from some entity called carol press (I think that is what it was called, I tore it in thirds and threw it away long ago.)
They'd take stuff out of context, introduce errors, and still basically just be retyping other folks' work for chapters on end.

I used to flag these for the magazine when I worked there and came across them, but I think all they ever did was send 'cease & desist' letters with no weight behind them.

Maybe everybody thinks this is just like music sampling (another thing that has puzzled me for ... well, for decades now), but again I don't think that makes it right by any means.

Thanks very much for the support -- it's appreciated and we're humbled by it.

The above posts nail the situation on the head, and I don't have much more to add. I do want to say though that after we saw our images on their Facebook page -- but before the first book was sent to the printer -- we exchanged emails with the publisher and alerted him. Stepwise, he went through a series of arguments with us (our comments to his arguments are in parentheses in the below):

1. There were a lot of film trims so no doubt other individuals have the same or similar ones. (We told him that our digital fingerprints from the restoration process are on the pictures on their Facebook page and we could recognize them.)

2. We got the majority of the pictures from Gurian so your beef is with him, if there is one. (This is "insulation.")

3. These types of pictures are in the public domain and they may be used freely. (Really? Freely? Every picture on our site that I've contributed has come from a film trim or photo that I've purchased, some for $$ each. Additionally, our site clearly states that we own the digital restorations of the trim images, in exchange for the many hours scanning and retouching them to remove scratches, blemishes, etc.)

At this point in the dialogue, he told us he would contact Gurian and see if any of the pictures came from others. If so, he would remove them. I volunteered to assist him with the identification effort, and, at that point, he stopped communicating. And our pictures (and the pictures from birdofthegalaxy) continue to be posted on their Facebook page.

Needless to say, we're pretty unhappy with all of this. I guess no good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes.

Thanks again.

Needless to say, we're pretty unhappy with all of this. I guess no good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes.

As much as I'd like to pick these up, I'll steer clear if that's the way they are handling the situation.

I'm sure I'll be able to find used copies or copies at the library somewhere down the road.

Yeah, basically, the guys are dirt if they're doing this crap, and I'm going to tell every friend of mine who might buy these books to NOT to.

Based on what I've just read, I too won't be buying or supporting this, and I've also just rescinded my previous comment supporting this book.

 

[trevanian]

Nice to read that, especially in the context of the other remarks.

Proves Ellison is right yet again ... "everybody is entitled to their INFORMED opinion."

 

[Maurice]

I can tell you right now that I have already cost the author at least a dozen sales over this issue, and I will continue to spread the word.

If they were to remove the contested images from future printings and don't use such images in subsequent volumes, I will then encourage people to buy the book, despite its flaws. But until then I will not assist them on capitalizing on the hard work of others without permission or recompense.

 

[trekker670]

It's statements like these that are encouraging my purchase of the book.

It's one thing to make a personal stand and decide not to purchase the book because of something that you believe is wrong. That's your right and I fully support it.

What I don't agree with is making it your personal mission to undermine the sale of this book because of your beliefs, even though they have no legal standing or at least the parties involved aren't interested in stopping the sale of the book because of it.

 

[BillJ]

It's statements like these that are encouraging my purchase of the book.

It's one thing to make a personal stand and decide not to purchase the book because of something that you believe is wrong. That's your right and I fully support it.

What I don't agree with is making it your personal mission to undermine the sale of this book because of your beliefs, even though they have no legal standing or at least the parties involved aren't interested in stopping the sale of the book because of it.

Wrong is wrong.

If someone asked me about the book I would discourage them purchasing it based on the actions of the publisher/author.

 

[trevanian]

It's statements like these that are encouraging my purchase of the book.

It's one thing to make a personal stand and decide not to purchase the book because of something that you believe is wrong. That's your right and I fully support it.

What I don't agree with is making it your personal mission to undermine the sale of this book because of your beliefs, even though they have no legal standing or at least the parties involved aren't interested in stopping the sale of the book because of it.

As was said, everyone is entitled to their INFORMED opinion.

What you do with that information is your call, but by having the benefit of someone presenting more information, a service is being provided - don't mistake it for a crusade being launched (though I'd've been okay with that too on this issue.)

 

[plynch]

The Kindle sample had me fact checking on Lucy/Desi and the history of three-camera setups, led to wikipedia, led to the intricacies of the Lucy Show and Here's Lucy. About an hour of my life I'll never get back. I remember seeing reruns of those and knowing even as a kid they sucked compared to the I Love Lucys. Ah, memories.

 

[Harvey]

I recently watched almost all of I Love Lucy (still have a few of the comedy hours left), but haven't been in a rush to see any of Lucy's subsequent television shows. Everything I've read about them has been less than kind, even when it comes to The Lucy Show (the immediate follow-up to I Love Lucy, which had Desi Arnaz onboard in a creative role early on).

If that turns out to be true, it's a total shame. Lucille Ball may have been a terrible studio head, but she was a very, very funny performer.

 

[Maurice]

It's statements like these that are encouraging my purchase of the book.

It's one thing to make a personal stand and decide not to purchase the book because of something that you believe is wrong. That's your right and I fully support it.

What I don't agree with is making it your personal mission to undermine the sale of this book because of your beliefs, even though they have no legal standing or at least the parties involved aren't interested in stopping the sale of the book because of it.

"Mission" makes it all so grand. I tell people about the photo issue and most of them choose not to support such conduct. I don't told a phaser to their heads.

If you want to buy the book, do it because you want the book, not to spite me. You're not hurting me at all. Just remember the kind of people and behavior you're rewarding by doing so.

 

[CrazyMatt]

Everyone must do what they feel comfortable doing, and we should all be satisfied with that.

I bought the book for the words, not the pictures. If the words disappoint (inaccuracies, fallacies) enough, I'll put my money back in my pocket.